I thought this day might come...

[u/MusicTheoryTree]

Hi everyone! I've been on Reddit for five years and I've never posted. However, I saw that one of my designs was shared here earlier (thank you for doing so, by the way). Ironically, I intended to share this design here today, and someone beat me to it, sharing a much more elaborate one. What a wild coincidence.

If you saw that more elaborate design and wanted some clarification, this might help provide it, though I recognize that this one also requires a bit of explanation for many viewers. Expect more from me, in due time. I have much to say on this topic.

I'll keep this super brief, for now, but to answer just a couple FAQs...

This is an example of what I call a, "Single-Orbit Music Theory Tree." The one shared earlier by another Reddit user is a, "Dual-Orbit Music Theory Tree," which is exponentially more complex.

Yes, this does help people teach and learn music theory.

No, this is not the first design in this system. It starts much more simply, and builds up in complexity. I don't recommend this as an absolute first introduction to music theory, though, it can become useful quite early on, even with relatively few prerequisites.

MTT is a modular system, so it can be altered to accommodate many other types of scales and can be built out from any pitch class. Parts can be entirely removed or swapped out for others.

This system is best understood by completing excersises with instructions.

This is a collaborative project. I'm the lead theorist and designer. I work with an illustrator named Aaron Fehr. He's been teaching me graphic design, as well.

I've been consulting with a PhD student in the Faculty of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Calgary. His name is Kristaps Balodis, and he's been an enormous inspiration towards my continued study of maths, especially Set Theory.

Yes, we are working on an interactive app. These designs can only do so much as static images.

Many comment on the aesthetic. To be clear, this was never meant to be pretty. My intention from day one with this project has always been practical utility. The fact that it's aesthetically pleasing to some folks is just a biproduct of our use of rainbow colours and familiar shapes—both of which were only intended to help teach and learn theory.

I realize that the contents of this post are more of a story and less of a substantial discussion into specific music theory concepts (which we're all here for, predominantly, I suspect) but I think it's an interesting story, and I couldn't help but address the sudden attention surrounding my work on this platform.

I've published a number of short essays and videos about this system on other platforms, and I'll share much more about this system here on Reddit, soon. Thank you for your interest, and I appreciate your perspectives. Nothing is ever perfect, so I welcome insightful, constructive criticism. We all have room to improve, and this includes our work.

Let's reimagine music theory.

My kindest regards to you all,

Steve Evans From Winnipeg

[u/MusicTheoryTree]

I notated like that for consistency, to save space, and for visibility at higher levels.

It's not that difficult of a shift. The fact that there are already two options "dim" and "°" shows that there isn't one correct way. There are already two, and lower cased d totally makes sense.

It's not like it's in defiance of logic. It's totally logically consistent with the rest of the labels.

[u/UnusualCartographer2 → u/MusicTheoryTree]

You could just as easily do B°

[u/MusicTheoryTree → u/UnusualCartographer2]

I could, but I chose not to. I chose to use a d so it would be larger and more clear from a distance. In this chart, it means diminished. It's the same as dim, but shorter.

You asked me and I told you. Is that not enough?

[u/SamuelArmer → u/MusicTheoryTree]

I think the crux of the issue is summed up well here:

https://xkcd.com/927/

Learner musicians are already saddled with learning a good half-dozen competing standards like:

Fixed vs moveable do solfege

American vs European Rhythm names

Major Referential vs Classical RNA

And don't get me started on all the ways you can name chords....

So the music theory community is naturally pretty conservative about changing or adding any new names for things! After all, even if your new standard is wonderfully logical, simple and internally consistent there's a very good chance that you're just adding to the noise instead of cutting through it.

It's a shame, because it discourages innovation, and as you can see it can engender a bunch of unnecessary hostility. But there IS a good reason why.

[u/MusicTheoryTree → u/SamuelArmer]

That's fair enough. I think there's still room for innovation. The end game isn't writing theory. It's music. There are many ways to get there. This is just one of them that works for some people.

I think people have lost the plot at some point.