Endless possibilities - but everyone thinking along the same route?

[woggle]

But atonal music is not new now. It's been around for almost a century or more? It's like a failed experiment. How many more experiments are needed to conclude that mainstream humans reject it and probably will for a while. What if 10,000 years is needed for atonal music to "sink" in? Meanwhile we only have about 80 years lifespan.

This is a narrow view of how innovation happens. Just because people don't speed down the highway with Schoenberg pouring out the windows doesn't mean the ideas of atonal music haven't been incorporated into other things. If you've ever seen a movie with a score by John Williams you've heard moments of post-tonal ideas. If you've heard bebop you've heard arguably post-tonal ideas which came about a completely different way. People don't generally like listening to serialism or whatever, but its influence is real. We're not stuck with 1-4-5 forever.

[ghettosynth]

But atonal music is not new now. ...

...
It's irrelevant anyway how many people like it. The claim was "nothing new has developed in music theory since Bach" which is false.

Which is also really irrelevant because one doesn't need some radically new music theory to avoid "thinking along the same route."

[stratum]

The claim was "nothing new has developed in music theory since Bach" which is false.

No, the claim was just that no new theory was developed. In fact, returning back to that argument, I'll retract my idea that a different theory even exists in other cultures. Look what this guy is doing with this oud, he's just creating and relasing tension, trying to make sure that it evokes some emotion and is just doing so without explicitly audible chords. The scale is probably microtonal (my ears aren't educated enough to decide if it is or not), but this does not make a new theory either way. My guess is that chords+a microtonal scale constantly creates dissonance, just like atonal music, probably that's why that idea didn't develop in this culture.

[woggle]

Obviously there have been shitloads of theories of music since Bach - both descriptive and generative. I'm lost a bit about what is being claimed?

eg neo-reimannian analysis/theory ( the following video has an annoying narrator but a nice example using some Brahms)




and for understanding how music works it is hard to go past David Huron for a contemporary view that has little to do with the sorts of things Bach's contemporaries wold have written about.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/sweet-anticipation

so if these are not new relative to the time of Bach, what could be new?

[stratum]

Obviously there have been shitloads of theories of music since Bach - both descriptive and generative. I'm lost a bit about what is being claimed?

That they aren't theories. A theory is an explanation of why something is the way it is, how it works, what it is, etc. The way musicians sometimes use the word 'music theory' is awkward, what they mean is 'book knowledge', not theory. People like Schoenberg are very well aware of the difference between these senses, that's why they can take the theory, turn it upside down, and still work with it. They are not following youtube videos what music theory might be.

[woggle]

Obviously there have been shitloads of theories of music since Bach - both descriptive and generative. I'm lost a bit about what is being claimed?

That they aren't theories. A theory is an explanation of why something is the way it is, how it works, what it is, etc. The way musicians someties use the word 'music theory' is awkward, what they mean is 'book knowledge', not theory. People like Schoenberg are very well aware of the difference between these senses, that's why they can take the theory, turn it upside down, and still work with it. They are not following youtube videos what music theory might be.

I think you have an idiosyncratic notion of what a theory is.

[ghettosynth]

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/sweet-anticipation

+1

[stratum]

I think you have an idiosyncratic notion of what a theory is.

That's what the word theory actually means. From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory we have:

1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena the wave theory of light
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject theory of equations

The way most musicians use the word is a degenerate version of (3). It's actually directly connected to (1) and (5) and without those senses (3) is not interesting at all. Without an explanation of "the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art", those abstract principles would just be useless book knowledge.

[stratum]

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/sweet-anticipation

That's the same idea. We still don't have a new theory, as you can see.

[woggle]

I think you have an idiosyncratic notion of what a theory is.

That's what the word theory actually means. From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory we have:

1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena the wave theory of light
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject theory of equations

The way most musicians use the word is a degenerate version of (3). It's actually directly connected to (1) and (5) and without those senses (3) is not interesting at all. Without an explanation of "the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art", those abstract principles would just be useless book knowledge.

But then you don't think Huron's work as outlined in sweet anticipation or neo-reimannian theory are theories when obviously they are. Which makes me think that even though you put forward a reasonable dictionary definition you seem to reject that definition in your actual claims.

[woggle]

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/sweet-anticipation

That's the same idea. We still don't have a new theory, as you can see.

now you are just trolling, that's silly

[stratum]

now you are just trolling, that's silly

No, just try to be a little more careful. I'm not doing that.

But then you don't think Huron's work as outlined in sweet anticipation or neo-reimannian theory are theories when obviously they are. Which makes me think that even though you put forward a reasonable dictionary definition you seem to reject that definition in your actual claims.

That's the same theory since the days of J.S. Bach, just because Bach didn't explain what he was doing does not make Huron's work a new theory.

[nineofkings]

I think you understand what a theory is. I think you do not quite understand how specific and developed the music theory that describes Bach and other baroque and early classical composers is. "Triadic harmony" doesn't make it Bach. "Tension and release," while Bach was a master of that, isn't all it takes. It's very explicitly based on harmonies that go to the five and return to the root, where each chord has a function that propels the movement forward; there are specific voice leading tendencies that nobody happened to break until much later; etc. To look at someone like Debussy, or John Coltrane if you like, and think "ah, well, Bach could've done that" is not true. It's hard to see how we got to where we are today because we're living in it, but it's taken a few centuries and the way we write music (i.e. the theory of music) has evolved.

[stratum]

I think you understand what a theory is. I think you do not quite understand how specific and developed the music theory that describes Bach and other baroque and early classical composers is. "Triadic harmony" doesn't make it Bach. "Tension and release," while Bach was a master of that, isn't all it takes. It's very explicitly based on harmonies that go to the five and return to the root, where each chord has a function that propels the movement forward; there are specific voice leading tendencies that nobody happened to break until much later; etc. To look at someone like Debussy, or John Coltrane if you like, and think "ah, well, Bach could've done that" is not true. It's hard to see how we got to where we are today because we're living in it, but it's taken a few centuries and the way we write music (i.e. the theory of music) has evolved.

I don't think that there is a disagreement here. They have built an eleborate system upon their theory and that took centuries; and some others took the basics and created pop/rock/blues/etc. OK, these more simple musical forms actually show what the theory actually is, because the truth is not hidden behind some eleborate system of not-so-essential ideas.

[stonestreet]

What an excelllent thread. Could lead to a classic collaboration, a masterpiece. There is so much meat and veg to get a chew on.

I have been listening to this thread (more a braided rope) from a lay systems perspective. "Endless possibilities ....same route" If this were not the case we would not be here. I think that our way of thinking is so outdated for most of the time by some 2000 years or more. However were are so immersed in it it takes a baseball/cricket bat whack around the head a couple of times to knock us out of it for a second.

Some people think that evolution is the important thing and of course it has given us quite an interesting history. For that history to come about something had to be conserved and that is living. Systems are conservative. When living became conserved a space was opened for eveything else to change around that which is conserved. Look at the solar system. What stops these planets form being anywhere else? They are following the same route...

I hold the view that we bring forth the worlds we live with others whether we like them or not. We can only speak what the language we use permits. We end up going down the same routes.

I think that we are a bunch of habits living in a sea of chemicals.

My name is Mark and I am a Cretin and all Cretins are liars.

Have fun.