The ignorance is bliss fallacy

[Topiness]

so, all the great stuff going on in the theory forum presents:

polyrythyms!

There seems to be plenty of friction there too...

tons. perhaps thats ANOtHER waste disposal thread?

KVR is a waste disposal site. We're all being rounded up...

[DWb]

That was my point entirely - that this IMAGINARY guy would be doing his thing in a time when it was unprecedented, and there was no relevant theory to help him.

get it?

So, it might be somewhat analoguous to a glitch musician, in, say, the mid 90's.

get it?

The physics metaphor wasn't my idea, but was following on from earlier in the thread.

I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it holds up either in the case of physics or (entirely) in the case of music. In physics, the first clue is that all of the major paradigm shifts originated with people who were, to a greater or a lesser extent, educated and well versed in the old paradigm. This is partly because of the structure of scientific academia, but at least partly because coming up with a dramatic new way of understanding physics requires i)knowing what the problems with the existing theory are ii) understanding some of the mathematical methods that exist to deal with these problems and iii) having a brain that works in the right sort of way, and studying the existing theory helps with all of these. Reading the existing theory may not help directly towards coming up with a theory that covers new problems, but having studied the old theory is an important part of getting to a place where you can start looking for a new approach.

You're right that this isn't an ideal analogy, particularly because afaict in music theory we're looking at incorporating other elements (ie coming up with a theory that explains in detail how manipulations of texture and rhythm work) alongside existing theory rather than trying to find a theory that deals with bits of harmony and melody that traditional theory is perplexed by. Again, though, I'd expect someone trying to understand rhythm from a theoretical standpoint to do better if they'd already seen how theory can work on harmony or melody. Knowing the names of hundreds of chords may not help you to analyze and understand texture, but having seen how people went about analyzing and understanding harmony probably would.

Obviously all this has more to do with analysis than composition.

[nuffink]

Why wont i be around?

Because you're much too stupid to keep your trolling in here where you might get away with it.

[metrosechual]

Why wont i be around?

Because you're much too stupid to keep your trolling in here where you might get away with it.

ahh ok, then it wasnt a threat. I thought so.

thanks anyway!

(then again i have a ton of posts outside of this thread, but ok)

[Toxikator]

Just to save me and some other people a lot of flame-warring (not that it won't kick up again once Nuffink returns )

[nuffink]

Just to save me and some other people a lot of flame-warring (not that it won't kick up again once Nuffink returns )

What can I say? I've got the nuffco advertising dept on my back. Apparently every time I go out troll slapping on kvr sales go through the roof.

You want to avoid quoting yourself by the way. Tacky.

[Toxikator]

It's more of a bump.

I just have to laugh a little bit.

TBH I think that great progress has been made in this thread in exposing certain misconceptions about the notions of theory (more for the onlookers than those participating, all of whom seem to know their stuff well enough), this banter just keeps it from getting dry.

[Deric]

Can someone please explain how music theory applies to Hip-Hop?

[Topiness]

In physics, the first clue is that all of the major paradigm shifts originated with people who were, to a greater or a lesser extent, educated and well versed in the old paradigm. This is partly because of the structure of scientific academia, but at least partly because coming up with a dramatic new way of understanding physics requires i)knowing what the problems with the existing theory are ii) understanding some of the mathematical methods that exist to deal with these problems and iii) having a brain that works in the right sort of way, and studying the existing theory helps with all of these.

Yes... in physics, you don't get let loose with a particle accelerator without having paid your dues with a few springs and weights first.

Hence, you propably don't get too many 'is theory important?' threads on physics message boards.

However, with the kind of technology KVR (supposedly) exists to discuss, you can get yourself the musical equivalent of a particle accelerator ( ?) on a whim.

Reading the existing theory may not help directly towards coming up with a theory that covers new problems, but having studied the old theory is an important part of getting to a place where you can start looking for a new approach.

...

And there lots of examples of people who have become proficient in one field of music before seemingly jumping to a new one to forge their identity - Steve Reich is an obvious example, also Morton Feldman, maybe Eno.

Obviously all this has more to do with analysis than composition.

that's the thing... if you can't use a theory to create as well as analyse, then it's not much of a theory, or at least not a correct/complete one. More a set of observations.

This doesn't apply to all of music theory of course. Hence why some bits of it are so incredibly useful and lovely and pretty and shiny and happy.

[yemski]

But imagine it is the 1850's, and there is a guy interested in quantum physics. What should he do?

should he go and read up on all the existing physics literature, while at the same time experimenting with subatomic particles? or should he just say to himrself, 'hmm, this doesn't look much like normal physics, i'll just see what i can find out about this subatomic stuff.'.

If he goes studying the existing theory, who knows what would happen? Maybe he would manage to combine the two and come up with a general theory of relativity (good). Or maybe he'd get depressed about the fact that no-one else seems to understand what he was doing, and waste his time reading books that are not directly relevant (bad).

So, FOR THAT GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, at THAT GIVEN TIME, there is NO CERTAINTY that learning the existing theory would be a good thing.

This is not to say that LEARNING is not good. the guy is learning. But it may not be his job to integrate what he learns with the body of existing knowledge.

and this is my point: The statement 'Ignorance is bliss' -

- IN GENERAL, for the music community AS A WHOLE, is false.
- FOR A GIVEN INDIVIDUAL, at a GIVEN TIME, may be TRUE.

Firstly, quantumn physics in the 1850's? What the f**k are on about their mate?
There was no quantumn physics in the 1850's.Sure it was going on all around us, but humanity at that time was blissfully unaware.

The basis of quantumn physics is Max Plank's experiments in the 1890's. The concept of atomic particles was still contentious in the middle nineteenth century, let alone sub atomic particles.
There existence was'nt established until the 1897 through the work of JJ Thompson, and the Orbital theory of Atoms was'nt consolidated until the early 1900's, by Ernest Rutherford and Niels Bohr. I had to put you straight there before you continued.

Oh dear, you've been overdoing it. Did you see the word 'imagine'?

That was my point entirely - that this IMAGINARY guy would be doing his thing in a time when it was unprecedented, and there was no relevant theory to help him.

get it?

So, it might be somewhat analoguous to a glitch musician, in, say, the mid 90's.

get it?

The physics metaphor wasn't my idea, but was following on from earlier in the thread.

Well I must say your point was very vague and poorly thought out, so it is no surprise I was a bit confused by it is it?
It mainly falls down because it's essential assumption is based on the fallacy that great shifts in conceptual thinking are made by individuals seperate from any historical context.

The key concepts to remember here are contigency and incremental process. Quantumn physics came about because of the need to understand material sciences and chemistry more thoroughly.As industrial processes and technology became more advanced the need to develop a better understanding of the material world became more and more important. It is no surprise that the nations most involved in the development of Quantumn physics (Germany, France, Britain and America), were the most technologically advanced at the time.

The science of the late nineteenth century was inconsistent with new observations being made scientists at the time, so new theoretical models were developed because they were needed. This is contigency.

Needless to say the scientists who developed these new theories were well versed in the science of the time, so they did'nt just pull these theories out of the air. Instead they had all studied the theories and experiments proceeding their's, this gave them the ability to expand and improve on these ideas. This is incremental process.

It is highly improbable given the state of scientific knowledge in the 1850's that an imaginary person, ( also with no scientific training apparently, according to you) would suddenly come up with quantumn theory without reference to anything other than himself. He might have done, but this outcome would have been accidental, and he probably would'nt have understood it himself. Divine revelation is the only other option, if you belief in that sort of thing.

This goes back to my point about music theory. There are many musicians who produce work of artistic excellence with absolutely no knowledge of theory. But who's to say that they would'nt be better if they studied it a bit. One of the things that studying theory has taught me is that the memes of formal musical composition are already part of my process(and most other people's as well). This is no surprise really, since we all listen to music after all. So it has'nt taught to me compose in that sense. What it is teaching me is that they are many different options available to improve my work. The book on Modal jazz in particular is opening up all kinds of melodic and harmonic possibilities to me, and has expanded my pallete hugely. One should'nt underestimate the importance of developing one's aural skills also, theory is only one avenue in becoming a better musician.

[yemski]

As addendum, I would consider aural skills to be more important than all the other stuff.

[Topiness]

Well I must say your point was very vague and poorly thought out, so it is no surprise I was a bit confused by it is it?
It mainly falls down because it's essential assumption is based on the fallacy that great shifts in conceptual thinking are made by individuals seperate from any historical context.

The key concepts to remember here are contigency and incremental processes. Quantumn physics came about because of the need to understand material sciences and chemistry more thoroughly.As industrial processes and technology became more advanced the need to develop a better understanding of the material world became more and more important. It is no surprise that the nations most involved in the development of Quantumn physics (Germany, France, Britain and America), were the most technologically advanced at the time.

The science of the late nineteenth century was inconsistent with new observations being made scientists at the time, so new theoretical models were developed because they were needed. This is contigency.

Needless to say the scientists who developed these new theories were well versed in the science of the time, so they did'nt just pull these theories out of the air. Instead they had all studied the theories and experiments proceeding their's, this gave them the ability to expand and improve on these ideas. This is incremental process.

It is highly improbable given the state of scientific knowledge in the 1850's that an imaginary person, ( also with no scientific training apparently, according to you) would suddenly come up with quantumn theory without reference to anything other than himself. He might have done, but this outcome would have been accidental, and he probably would'nt have understood it himself.

This is the logical extension of Tox's post about the caveman studying newtonian physics which is why it, too, is not a historically correct image, or necessarily a very good metaphor. If you want to talk physics, talk to Tox. If I want to learn about it, I'll look on wikipedia.

This goes back to my point about music theory. There are many musicians who produce work of artistic excellence with absolutely no knowledge of theory. But who's to say that they would'nt be better if they studied it a bit. One of the things that studying theory has taught me is that the memes of formal musical composition are already part of my process(and most other people's as well). This is no surprise really, since we all listen to music after all. So it has'nt taught to me compose in that sense. What it is teaching me is that they are many different options available to improve my work. The book on Modal jazz in particular is opening up all kinds of melodic and harmonic possibilities to me, and has expanded my pallete hugely. One should'nt underestimate the importance of developing one's aural skills also, theory is only one avenue in becoming a better musician.

All highly uncontroversial. Glad you feel you're progressing.

[yemski]

This is the logical extension of Tox's post about the caveman studying newtonian physics which is why it, too, is not a historically correct image, or necessarily a very good metaphor. If you want to talk physics, talk to Tox. If I want to learn about it, I'll look on wikipedia.

Firstly Tox's post used analogy, not metaphor. Although I would agree with you that this particular analogy has become somewhat stretched. Interestingly you did nothing to stop this line of argument, instead you continued it for several pages and ended it by making an even weaker analogy.

I grew up in household where pedantry is recreational sport, so forgive me on this one. Sometimes my sister and I can argue for hours over something we essentially agree on, because of very minor differences in interpretation.
Welcome to my world. I could take you to task on what exactly a "historically correct image" is, but I'll hold my tongue on that one. Although I think your imaginary scenario of a Steampunk world of mid nineteenth century quantumn physics, with particle accelerators made of highly polished brass and wood, is quaint, if highly implausible, ( and that's even if you hold to a many worlds interpretation of the Cosmos).

The point I was trying to make in general was that theories exist as tools, with which to analyse and understand systems of knowledge. As such they have a utility which allows you to understand, and appreciate whatever pursuit you are involved in on at a deeper level. This applies to all theories (at least in their intention),be it theories of physics, music or the political system we live in. Music is'nt a theory, it is organized sound ,that, (if all goes right), should elicit positive emotional responses in the listener. Theory merely makes the tricks of the trade more transparent, and easier to subvert.

All highly uncontroversial. Glad you feel you're progressing.

Patronise much?

I was'nt aware that my purpose here was to be controversial. Next time I'll fill my posts with the usual insults and snide comments, that seem to substitute for meaningful debate around these parts. Perhaps that will make you happy. At least in theory.

[Freeform]

You are all wrong in the eyes of eachother because every man is right to himself. It's the male curse.

[yemski]

You are all wrong in the eyes of eachother because every man is right to himself. It's the male curse.

Quite embarrasing actually since I criticized two other forum
members for exactly this same thing a few days ago, except I called it the "Right Man Syndrome". A phrase I stole from the writer Colin Wilson who also suffered from it in spades, ironically.

I also criticized them for drifting wildly off topic.
So while I could argue the various merits and demerits of female discourse, ( women generally favour cooperation over competition, although alpha females often exploit this to create a consensus that favours them over others, watch "America's Next Top Model" to see how Tyra Banks uses this ploy to be a completely toxic bully), I won't. That much. It also does'nt explain my sister who is as argumentative as they come.

I can see your point though. Although in this case I was completely and objectively right, beyond a shadow of a doubt.