what is this 'music theory' anyway?
-
- KVRian
- 661 posts since 15 Jun, 2004 from blue america
what is this music theory? it's not like math theory! where're the axioms, corollaries, lemmas, theorems, and proofs?
what can you prove with music theory? can you prove anything about music with music theory?
i've seen sentential calculi applied to music, but the proofs in these calculi seemed to be more about having machines reason about music, than proving any propositions about music.
now, it takes math and neuroscience to understand the perception of music (cause it sure ain't out there where this laptop is)!
is the theory of music, the theory of the written language of music, i.e., a theory of notations, the history of notations, the evolution of notational forms? if so, what can it prove about this?
is music theory some theory of ideals? pythagorean harmonic theory or platonic? (but, this seems to lead back to mathematical neuroscience...)
can music theory be used to formallyinterpret a musical style, say like 60s freeform jazz?
i dunno, i read an article in one of the supplements to the encyc. britanica or 'the great books' series,
summarizing some of the arguments for throwing 'music' out of the university because it has no theory. (i guess they never did. imagine trade schools for music! actually, that's not a bad idea--if i must say so myself. it would probably blow off a lot of the bs you get doing your ms!)
anybody else see a problem here?
what can you prove with music theory? can you prove anything about music with music theory?
i've seen sentential calculi applied to music, but the proofs in these calculi seemed to be more about having machines reason about music, than proving any propositions about music.
now, it takes math and neuroscience to understand the perception of music (cause it sure ain't out there where this laptop is)!
is the theory of music, the theory of the written language of music, i.e., a theory of notations, the history of notations, the evolution of notational forms? if so, what can it prove about this?
is music theory some theory of ideals? pythagorean harmonic theory or platonic? (but, this seems to lead back to mathematical neuroscience...)
can music theory be used to formallyinterpret a musical style, say like 60s freeform jazz?
i dunno, i read an article in one of the supplements to the encyc. britanica or 'the great books' series,
summarizing some of the arguments for throwing 'music' out of the university because it has no theory. (i guess they never did. imagine trade schools for music! actually, that's not a bad idea--if i must say so myself. it would probably blow off a lot of the bs you get doing your ms!)
anybody else see a problem here?
overthrow KRAPITALISM ! you have nothing to lose but your claims.
- "The" Jazz
- 4614 posts since 18 Aug, 2004 from California, United States
Music theory is basically understanding how and why. We can compose without knowing theory, by following our ears, but something inside of us wants to know why certain things are effective and also how certain effects are obtained. There definitely is an area of music past the general understanding of music we are taught, there are those mathematicians who study music purely for the theory and the "physics" of music.
In my opinion, music theory is a tool, a vehicle in which one can better create music using their ears as guides. So when you listen to 60's freeform Jazz, you're listening to something that has a history of quite a lot of theory, but reached the point where all that has become intuition and part of ear training, the music itself is not meant to be analysed and thought of theory-wise, but simply played by ear and heart.
In my opinion, music theory is a tool, a vehicle in which one can better create music using their ears as guides. So when you listen to 60's freeform Jazz, you're listening to something that has a history of quite a lot of theory, but reached the point where all that has become intuition and part of ear training, the music itself is not meant to be analysed and thought of theory-wise, but simply played by ear and heart.
Greg Schlaepfer
Orange Tree Samples
Ultra-realistic sample libraries for Kontakt
Orange Tree Samples
Ultra-realistic sample libraries for Kontakt
-
- KVRAF
- 2356 posts since 30 Sep, 2003 from Sunny Staffordshire
I think that music theory is an attempt to explain and rationalize music. In some respects it does a great job. In others it fails pitifully.
As music combines both art and science, this isnt surprising. It is easy to give a theory to something that involves waveforms and frequencies, but it is somewhat harder to make tangible that which inspires and represses creative inclination.
Perhaps it would be better to say that music theory was an attempt to describe the technical aspects of music. And yes, that absolutely includes the notation with which it is recorded.
TB
As music combines both art and science, this isnt surprising. It is easy to give a theory to something that involves waveforms and frequencies, but it is somewhat harder to make tangible that which inspires and represses creative inclination.
Perhaps it would be better to say that music theory was an attempt to describe the technical aspects of music. And yes, that absolutely includes the notation with which it is recorded.
TB
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 661 posts since 15 Jun, 2004 from blue america
well...math has its intuitive side too...but its nothing without proof, which allows breakthroughs to new ground...now music seems to do this every once in a while, but those who do it can usually barely describe how (or, why?)...now artists are stereotypically inarticulate, but i think it may be a lack of firm theoretical underpinnings...there don't seem to be long standing problems in music to be worked out either...
overthrow KRAPITALISM ! you have nothing to lose but your claims.
-
- KVRAF
- 2356 posts since 30 Sep, 2003 from Sunny Staffordshire
I think your analogy of music and mathematics is flawed in as much as these two disciplines work towards VERY different ends.
I dont think that music tries to explain anything. Infact, it seems that over the last 500 years, music has steadily proceeded towards complete chaos!
The technical aspects can be explained in terms of mathematics, but the heart of music (ie, the essential) cannot.
TB
I dont think that music tries to explain anything. Infact, it seems that over the last 500 years, music has steadily proceeded towards complete chaos!
The technical aspects can be explained in terms of mathematics, but the heart of music (ie, the essential) cannot.
TB
-
- KVRist
- 379 posts since 21 Nov, 2005
I did propose in my ramblings in another thread that the term 'music theory' was a bit misleading to non-initiates - to me, what is commonly termed music theory doesn't seem to be similar to theory in other fields, in that it's not generally considered speculative, nor does it get proved/disproved over time.aaastronomer wrote:what is this music theory? it's not like math theory! where're the axioms, corollaries, lemmas, theorems, and proofs?
that the harmony scales used by many pop songs correspond with the Medieval church modes, Or that a certain song has Latin American influences, for example.aaastronomer wrote: can you prove anything about music with music theory?
Having said that, the existing published theory seems to be more about offering systems of classification than really formal explanation.
But can you understand the perception of music, using current maths and neuroscience? Why is a minor chord sad then?aaastronomer wrote: now, it takes math and neuroscience to understand the perception of music (cause it sure ain't out there where this laptop is)!
If you threw out every subject that didn't involve large quantities of from-the-ground-up proofs, you can throw away most of the arts and humanities.aaastronomer wrote: i dunno, i read an article in one of the supplements to the encyc. britanica or 'the great books' series,
summarizing some of the arguments for throwing 'music' out of the university because it has no theory. (i guess they never did. imagine trade schools for music! actually, that's not a bad idea--if i must say so myself. it would probably blow off a lot of the bs you get doing your ms!)
anybody else see a problem here?
-
- KVRian
- 537 posts since 18 Jul, 2006
I don't know what you're talking about mathematics theory. Maths are no theory but fundamental science. The word theory implies that it is not proven and other theories could exist. Music theory is based on empirical assessments and just deserves to be qualified as "theory". Of course you can come up with another theory or just say music doesn't need theory, it's your plain right.
-
- KVRAF
- 2327 posts since 13 Apr, 2004 from Vancouver, Canada
The only problem I see, is that your post adds nothing new to the debate...aaastronomer wrote:anybody else see a problem here?
Maybe you're just looking to start another useless 40 page thread?
If you feel that music need not (or does not) involve any theory, then so be it. If you are perchance bored, read any of the other myriad of threads started on this topic, rather than start a new one.
-
- KVRist
- 379 posts since 21 Nov, 2005
the word 'theory' can mean a number of things in different contexts. I think The wikipedia page on theory relates this quite well.GHOST19 wrote:I don't know what you're talking about mathematics theory. Maths are no theory but fundamental science. The word theory implies that it is not proven and other theories could exist. Music theory is based on empirical assessments and just deserves to be qualified as "theory". Of course you can come up with another theory or just say music doesn't need theory, it's your plain right.
theories become fundamental science if they are ever proven. But there's a bleeding edge to every science, including mathematics...
-
- KVRist
- 379 posts since 21 Nov, 2005
True, because it's an arrangement of notes, and not a sentient being. I mean that it evokes a melancholy emotion.Liero wrote:A minor chord isn't sad.
If you don't like the example, fair enough, It's simplistic. Care to provide a better example of a musical device with a commonly agreed-upon emotional effect that cannot be easily ascribed to providing evolutionary advantage?
Last edited by Topiness on Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
-
- KVRian
- 694 posts since 28 Apr, 2004 from location: location
i was under the impression that maths and music theory, or harmony, were closely linked. I think Pythagoras is credited as the first chin-stroker to work out the math behind scales and the harmonic relationships of notes.
Equal temperament (the way the modern keyboard is layed out) is a bit of fudge, it doesn't follow the maths (that's because the maths sounds bad when followed to the letter). But there is method to musics maddness.
Equal temperament (the way the modern keyboard is layed out) is a bit of fudge, it doesn't follow the maths (that's because the maths sounds bad when followed to the letter). But there is method to musics maddness.
eh?
-
- KVRAF
- 1975 posts since 4 Feb, 2005
Read this
In other words, music theory tells you about the connections between the means (the musical devices) and the ends (the effects percieved by the listener)Music theory is a field of study that investigates the nature or mechanics of music. It often involves identifying patterns that govern composers' techniques. In a more general sense, music theory also often distills and analyzes the elements of music - rhythm, harmony, melody, structure, and texture.

