what is this 'music theory' anyway?

[herodotus]

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.

The link that Pythagoras supposedly discovered between math and music is that the most basic consonant intervals (octave, fifth, fourth) correspond to the most simple of superparticular ratios (1:2, 2:3, and 3:4 respectively). This basic understanding is the beginning of all music theory.

The problem is that if you use these mathematically pure intervals, and ascend through the circle of fifths (c,g,d,a,e,b,f#,etc) the 'c' that you arrive at will be slightly different than the c you arrive at if you start at the same low c and cycle upwards by octaves.

This difference is called the pythagorean comma. And it is the reason for all of the different temperaments western music has gone through.

All of these are an attempt to compromise between the need for music to have perceived consonances, and the need for a tuning system that allows all of the different instruments, with their increasingly large ranges, to interact with singers and with each other without a major trainwreck. It is not because equal temperament sounds better. On the contrary, acoustically pure 'Pythagorean' intervals sound absolutely gorgeous compared to their tempered counterparts, which sound sort of 'off' after listening to the others.

For more information on acoustically pure intervals, look here: http://www.justintonation.net

[Dunbar]

Thanks for that herodotus

[Toxikator]

Which is the reason for the development of Hermode Tuning (which actively retunes the harmonies of chords to consonant intervals while maintaining the equal tempered spacing of the intervals between their roots)

[herodotus]

Thanks for that herodotus

[herodotus]

Hermode Tuning

z3ta uses that.

I didn't know about it. It sounds intriguing.

[Barf]

It's the work of the devil!!!

[ztutz]

Regarding maths and music, check this thread, they are definitely related:

http://1.warezmania.info/viewtopic.php?t=69

Whether you *care* is entirely a reasonable question...

[Topiness]

Maths is a way of modelling the world. Actually, a lot of ways. Music isn't immune from being modelled, so why would it be surprising that maths is related to music? Isn't it like saying 'maths is related to banking'?

[deaneager]

I once read a definition of 'Theory' that went something like this:
A statement based on some evidence or model that can neither be fully proven or disproven. Once proven, the theory becomes fact; once disproven it is no longer a valid theory.
As an example: It is a theory that Man evolved from Apes. We have evidence (genetic similarity, the fact that Man and Apes are both proven evolving species) that supports this theory, but no actual proof that it is true. If it were found that Man and Apes were not evolving species, then this theory would be disproven. If the 'missing link/s' were found, then the theory would become fact.
This now begs the interesting question; how does the word 'Theory' fit into the phrase 'Music Theory'?

[TrekStar]

if you're exceptional talented you can obtain good results without studying music theory (believe me, you're not one of these people)

if youre mediocre talented you might get a deeper understanding of musical contexts through the studying of theory.

if you're happy playing always playing thr same 3 chords and kinky half-melodies, everything is fine. you don't have to learn. but you also won't develop.

the term "music theory" is as already said a bit misleading. it's no theory to be proved. it's a concrete science about phenomenons in nature (physics)

[Toxikator]

A statement based on some evidence or model that can neither be fully proven or disproven. Once proven, the theory becomes fact; once disproven it is no longer a valid theory.
As an example: It is a theory that Man evolved from Apes. We have evidence (genetic similarity, the fact that Man and Apes are both proven evolving species) that supports this theory, but no actual proof that it is true.

There is no such thing as proof in science. There IS no such thing as "scientific fact". Hypotheses become theories, theories become laws, but there is no exalted "FACT" status.

Theories CAN be disproven, but they can never be proven. All they can be is supported.

[Topiness]

if you're exceptional talented you can obtain good results without studying music theory (believe me, you're not one of these people)

I think you underestimate people Some VERY good (and versatile) gutarists and producer types i've met are entirely much self taught. No difficulty for them in making or understanding music. i've seen a couple of times when a bit more theory would help them communicate with other musicians better.

the term "music theory" is as already said a bit misleading. it's no theory to be proved. it's a concrete science about phenomenons in nature (physics)

A concrete science, eh? how so?

[Toxikator]

Some VERY good (and versatile) gutarists and producer types i've met are entirely much self taught.

If they're "self-taught" that means they still taught themselves music theory. It is an inherent part of studying any aspect of the creative process of composition.

[TrekStar]

nevertheless I find it absloute positive that kvr has now a music theory section - sure not one of the most famous sections , but it enriches this place for another discussion platform. sure not everyone has the energy to dive deeper into music theory....but it's ok. there are so many levels to have fun with music...it beginns with hitting your hands on an empty bucket doing simple percussion and goes up to complex orchestral compositions. all levels are cool. and don't see music theory as an enemy. its a key in fact.

[Topiness]

Some VERY good (and versatile) gutarists and producer types i've met are entirely much self taught.

If they're "self-taught" that means they still taught themselves music theory. It is an inherent part of studying any aspect of the creative process of composition.

I know you define 'music theory' broadly, but To 'study music theory' as TrekStar put it surely means to look at the preexisting body of music theory. That isn't what these guys did, unless they were deliberately hiding the fact.

I wrote in a previous thread about the time I gave up reading music theory books and started to study more from songs directly. I even came up with my own kind of mini-theory... note numbers instead of names, chords classified into certain groups... but that's not the same as 'studying music theory'.

I think the distinction I am making is between the definition of music theory as

1) The publicly avalilable, well-known body of systems for classifying music and guiding its composition, performance and analysis, and

2) ANY musical idea or thought that anybody has ever had, including those which only exist in the form of music itself.

Sometimes when I read your posts it seems your use of the words 'Music Theory' are closer to 2) in meaning, whereas I'm more of a 1) person...