One of my long-term goals since forever has been to get good at music. I can sightread music, and I can play music by ear – arguably I can play music well. But this isn’t to say that I am good at music; I’m lacking any theory which might take me from “following the path” of music to “navigating” music.

Recently I took another stab at learning this stuff. Every two years or so I make an honest-to-goodness attempt at learning music theory, but inevitably run into the same problems over and over again. The problem is that I have yet to find any music education resources that communicate on my wavelength.

Music education usually comes in the form of “here are a bunch of facts about music; memorize them and you will now know music.” As someone who got good at math because it was the only subject he could find that didn’t require a lot of memorization, this is a frustrating situation to be in for me. Music education, in other words, presents too many theorems and too few axioms.

My learning style prefers to know the governing fundamentals, and derive results when they’re needed. It goes without saying that this is not the way most music theory is taught.

Inspired by my recent forays into learning more mathematics, I’ve had an (obvious) insight into how to learn things, and that’s to model them in systems I already understand. I’m pretty good at functional programming, so it seemed like a pretty reasonable approach.

I’ve still got a long way to go, but this post describes my first attempt at modeling music, and, vindicating my intuitions, shows how we can derive value out of this model.

Music from First Principles

I wanted to model music, but it wasn’t immediately obviously how to actually go about doing that. I decided to write down the few facts about music theory I did know: there are notes.

data Note = C | C' | D | D' | E | F | F' | G | G' | A | A' | B deriving ( Eq , Ord , Show , Enum , Bounded , Read )

Because Haskell doesn’t let you use # willy-nilly, I decided to mark sharps with apostrophes.

I knew another fact, which is that the sharp keys can also be described as flat keys – they are enharmonic. I decided to describe these as pattern synonyms, which may or may not have been a good idea. Sometimes the name of the note matters, but sometimes it doesn’t, and I don’t have a great sense of when that is. I resolved to reconsider this decision if it caused issues down the road.

{-# LANGUAGE PatternSynonyms #-} pattern Ab = G' pattern Bb = A' pattern Db = C' pattern Eb = D' pattern Gb = F'

The next thing I knew was that notes have some notion of distance between them. This distance is measured in semitones, which correspond to the pitch difference you can play on a piano. This distance is called an interval, and the literature has standard names for intervals of different sizes:

data Interval = Uni -- 0 semitones | Min2 -- 1 semitone | Maj2 -- 2 semitones | Min3 -- etc. | Maj3 | Perf4 | Tri | Perf5 | Min6 | Maj6 | Min7 | Maj7 deriving ( Eq , Ord , Show , Enum , Bounded , Read )

It’s pretty obvious that intervals add in the usual way, since they’re really just names for different numbers of semitones. We can define addition over them, with the caveat that if we run out of interval names, we’ll loop back to the beginning. For example, this will mean we’ll call an octave a Uni son, and a 13th a Perf4 . Since this is “correct” if you shift down an octave every time you wrap around, we decide not to worry about it:

iAdd :: Interval -> Interval -> Interval = toEnum $ ( fromEnum a + fromEnum b) `mod` 12 iAdd a bb)

We can similarly define subtraction.

This “wrapping around” structure while adding should remind us of our group theory classes; in fact intervals are exactly the group \(\mathbb{Z}/12\mathbb{Z}\) – a property shared by the hours on a clock where \(11 + 3 = 2\). That’s certainly interesting, no?

If intervals represent distances between notes, we should be able to subtract two notes to get an interval, and add an interval to a note to get another note.

iBetween :: Note -> Note -> Interval = toEnum $ ( fromEnum a - fromEnum b) `mod` 12 iBetween a bb) iAbove :: Note -> Interval -> Note = toEnum $ ( fromEnum a + fromEnum b) `mod` 12 iAbove a bb)

Let’s give this all a try, shall we?

> iAdd Maj3 Min3 iAdd Perf5 > iBetween E C iBetween Maj3 > iAbove D Maj3 iAbove F'

Looks good so far! Encouraged by our success, we can move on to trying to model a scale.

Scales

This was my first stumbling block – what exactly is a scale? I can think of a few: C major, E major, Bb harmonic minor, A melodic minor, and plenty others! My first attempt was to model a scale as a list of notes.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t play nicely with our mantra of “axioms over theorems”. Represented as a list of notes, it’s hard to find the common structure between C major and D major.

Instead, we can model a scale as a list of intervals. Under this lens, all major scales will be represented identically, which is a promising sign. I didn’t know what those intervals happened to be, but I did know what C major looked like:

cMajor :: [ Note ] = [ C , D , E , F , G , A , B ] cMajor

We can now write a simple helper function to extract the intervals from this:

intsFromNotes :: [ Note ] -> [ Interval ] = fmap (\x -> x `iBetween` head notes) notes intsFromNotes notes(\xnotes) notes major :: [ Interval ] = intsFromNotes cMajor majorintsFromNotes cMajor

To convince ourselves it works:

> major major [ Uni , Maj2 , Maj3 , Perf4 , Perf5 , Maj6 , Maj7 ]

Seems reasonable; the presence of all those major intervals is probably why they call it a major scale. But while memorizing the intervals in a scale is likely a fruitful exercise, it’s no good to me if I want to actually play a scale. We can write a function to add the intervals in a scale to a tonic in order to get the actual notes of a scale:

transpose :: Note -> [ Interval ] -> [ Note ] = fmap (iAbove n) transpose n(iAbove n)

> transpose A major transposemajor [ A , B , C' , D , E , F' , G' ]

Looking good!

Modes

The music theory I’m actually trying to learn with all of this is jazz theory, and my jazz theory book talks a lot about modes. A mode of a scale, apparently, is playing the same notes, but starting on a different one. For example, G mixolydian is actually just the notes in C major, but starting on G (meaning it has an F♮, rather than F#).

By rote, we can scribe down the names of the modes:

data Mode = Ionian | Dorian | Phrygian | Lydian | Mixolydian | Aeolian | Locrian deriving ( Eq , Ord , Show , Enum , Bounded , Read )

If you think about it, playing the same notes as a different scale but starting on a different note sounds a lot like rotating the order of the notes you’re playing. I got an algorithm for rotating a list off stack overflow:

rotate :: Int -> [a] -> [a] [a][a] = [] rotate _ [][] = zipWith const ( drop n ( cycle xs)) xs rotate n xsn (xs)) xs

which we can then use in our dastardly efforts:

modeOf :: Mode -> [a] -> [a] [a][a] = rotate ( fromEnum mode) modeOf moderotate (mode)

> modeOf Mixolydian $ transpose C major modeOftransposemajor [ G , A , B , C , D , E , F ]

That has a F♮, all right. Everything seems to be proceeding according to our plan!

Something that annoys me about modes is that “G mixolydian” has the notes of C, not of G. This means the algorithm I need to carry out in my head to jam with my buddies goes something as follows:

G mixolydian?

Ok, mixolydian is the fifth mode.

So what’s a major fifth below G?

It’s C!

What’s the C major scale?

OK, got it.

So I want to play the C major scale but starting on a different note.

What was I doing again?

That’s a huge amount of thinking to do on a key change. Instead, what I’d prefer is to think of “mixolydian” as a transformation on G, rather than having to backtrack to C. I bet there’s an easier mapping from modes to the notes they play. Let’s see if we can’t tease it out!

So to figure out what are the “mode rules”, I want to compare the intervals of C major (ionian) to C whatever, and report back any which are different. As a sanity check, we know from thinking about G mixolydian that the mixolydian rules should be Maj7 => Min7 in order to lower the F# to an F♮.

modeRules :: Mode -> [( Interval , Interval )] [()] = filter ( uncurry ( /= )) modeRules m)) . zip (intsFromNotes $ transpose C major) (intsFromNotestransposemajor) . intsFromNotes intsFromNotes . transpose C transpose $ modeOf m major modeOf m major

What this does is construct the notes in C ionian, and then in C whatever, turns both sets into intervals, and then removes any groups which are the same. What we’re left with is pairs of intervals that have changed while moving modes.

> modeRules Mixolydian modeRules Maj7 , Min7 )] [()] > modeRules Dorian modeRules Maj3 , Min3 ), ( Maj7 , Min7 )] [(), ()]

Very cool. Now I’ve got something actionable to memorize, and it’s saved me a bunch of mental effort to compute on my own. My new strategy for determining D dorian is “it’s D major but with a minor 3rd and 7th”.

Practicing

My jazz book suggests that practicing every exercise along the circle of fifths would be formative. The circle of fifths is a sequence of notes you get by successively going up or down a perfect 5th starting from C. In jazz allegedly it is more valuable to go down, so we will build that:

circleOfFifths :: [ Note ] = iterate ( `iMinus` Perf5 ) C circleOfFifths

This is an infinite list, so we’d better be careful when we look at it:

> take 5 circleOfFifths circleOfFifths [ C , F , A' , D' , G' ]

Side note, we get to every note via the circle of fifths because there are 12 distinct notes (one for each semitone on C). A major fifth, being 7 semitones, is semi-prime with 12, meaning, meaning it will never get into a smaller cycle. Math!

Ok, great! So now I know which notes to start my scales on. An unfortunate property of the jazz circle of fifths is that going down by fifths means you quickly get into the freaky scales they don’t teach 7 year olds. You get into the weeds where the scales start on black notes and don’t adhere to your puny human intuitions about fingerings.

A quick google search suggested that there is no comprehensive reference for “what’s the fingering for scale X”. However, that same search did provide me with a heuristic – “don’t use your thumb on a black note.”

That’s enough for me to go on! Let’s see if we can’t write a program to solve this problem for us. It wasn’t immediately obvious to me how to generate potential fingerings, but it seems like we’ll need to know which notes are black:

isBlack :: Note -> Bool A' = True isBlack C' = True isBlack D' = True isBlack F' = True isBlack G' = True isBlack = False isBlack _

For the next step, I thought I’d play it safe and hard code the list of fingering patterns for the right hand that I already know.

fingerings :: [[ Int ]] [[]] = [ [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ] -- C major fingerings[ [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] -- F major , [ ]

That’s it. That’s all the fingerings I know. Don’t judge me. It’s obvious that none of my patterns as written will avoid putting a thumb on a black key in the case of, for example, Bb major, so we’ll make a concession and say that you can start anywhere in the finger pattern you want.

allFingerings :: [[ Int ]] [[]] = do allFingerings <- [ 0 .. 7 ] amountToRotate <- fingerings fingeringfingerings pure $ rotate amountToRotate fingering rotate amountToRotate fingering

With this list of mighty potential fingerings, we’re ready to find one that fits a given scale!

fingeringOf :: [ Note ] -> [ Int ] = head $ do fingeringOf notes <- allFingerings fingersallFingerings . not guard . or . fmap (\(n, f) -> isBlack n && f == 1 ) (\(n, f)isBlack n . zip notes notes $ fingers fingers pure fingers fingers

We can test it:

> fingeringOf $ transpose C major fingeringOftransposemajor [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ] > fingeringOf $ transpose F major fingeringOftransposemajor [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] > fingeringOf $ transpose A' major fingeringOftransposemajor [ 2 , 3 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 1 ]

So it doesn’t work amazingly, but it does in fact find fingerings that avoid putting a thumb on a black key. We could tweak how successful this function is by putting more desirable fingerings earlier in allFingerings , but as a proof of concept this is good enough.

That’s about as far as I’ve taken this work so far, but it’s already taught me more about music theory than I’d learned in 10 years of lessons (in which, admittedly, I skipped the theory sections). More to come on this topic, probably.

As usual, you can find the associated code on Github.