So why DO people get so emotional about music theory topics?

[vurt]

TBH though I think you'd be hard pressed to compose a piece that was a) listenable to any single person and b) not already at least MOSTLY covered by known theory.

but anything you cant explain, you say its not worthy.

[Toxikator]

How did you draw that conclusion?

There are lots of things I can't explain. That's why I make it my mission to LEARN.

Or did you simply assume that the only reason a person could ever have distaste for composers like Schoenberg or Cage was their inability to "understand" them?

[vurt]

How did you draw that conclusion?

it came from my ability to read.

it has little to do with any specific comment you have made and more to do with attitude.
theory as it stands at the moment doesnt really cover everything(or at least accepted theory) that happens in the world of music. the sooner some people realise this then i guess we can all move on.
over the years ive had many comments from theory buffs about how certain things i did werent allowed(understood by) in music and therefore imo that means they arent covered by theory.

to think that theory as it stands now or even a hundred years from now is the be all and end all of what music is, or ever will be is as arrogant as thinking were the only intelligent life in the universe.

theory in and of itself can be useful, but never will it cover every eventuality of sound.

[Toxikator]

theory as it stands at the moment doesnt really cover everything(or at least accepted theory) that happens in the world of music. the sooner some people realise this then i guess we can all move on.

But isn't that a bit like saying "Science can't explain everything, so why don't we just move on?"

However successful theory is at explaining the whole of music, that IS it's goal.

over the years ive had many comments from theory buffs about how certain things i did werent allowed(understood by) in music and therefore imo that means they arent covered by theory.

It depends on how much they know of theory, on the one hand. On the other, I don't doubt at all that there are musical ideas on the cutting edge of composition that theorists don't wholly (or even partially) understand. To you, this means we should abandon theory, but to me it means we should expand it further.

to think that theory as it stands now or even a hundred years from now is the be all and end all of what music is, or ever will be is as arrogant as thinking were the only intelligent life in the universe.

I never suggested that we know all there is to know about Music. We don't know all there is to know about anything. But what you're suggesting is that since we can never have a complete picture of what music is, it is foolish to try. I am saying that there is a theory for EVERYTHING about music, even if it hasn't been well-articulated or even postualted yet. The reason that theory continues to grow is because people want to know what makes music tick. Apparently you'd rather freeze our knowledge as it is, say "well, that's about all we need to worry about, figuring out the rest is a waste of time, I'd rather just not bother".

theory in and of itself can be useful, but never will it cover every eventuality of sound.

Not with that attitude it won't

In all honesty the tricky part of this is really the terminology. Do you see theory as a set of rules for making music? Because I see theory as a set of explanationsfor it. And if you were to ask me, suggesting that we will never be able to explain something if we cannot explain it right now is defeatist.

[vurt]

er where do you get the idea that i am "anti theory"?
i never said to give up on theory once, can you please show me where i did?

[Barf]

I'm not getting emotional over this (again), lets just say 'I vote Vurt!

[Kingston]

I vote 'please stop it people', and 'toxicator chill you don't need to prove anything and let other people talk for a change, it's getting old and fast.'

[Toxikator]

i never said to give up on theory once, can you please show me where i did?

It came from my ability to read

Your attitude regarding theory as a "tool" which should be used or not used depending on the context demonstrates (to me) your conviction that theory is a set of rules or ideas for certain uses and it doesn't apply outside of that.

I am proposing, instead, that it applies to everything. For all music there is an accompanying theory, at least hypothetically. It may not be one that you or I (or anyone) knows... but there is the potential for it to exist, given proper human effort.

I don't mean to tire out my analogy here, but to suggest that there can exist a music which Music Theory does not apply to is like suggesting that there is a chemical which chemistry does not apply to, a force which physics does not apply to, an organism which biology doesn't apply to, etc.

Even if we can't yet explain, for example, how birds are able to detect magnetic fields to aid their annual migrations, that does not mean that science will never be able to explain it and it certainly doesn't mean we should just disregard science when it comes to the case of the migration of birds.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, because that sounds like EXACTLY what you suggested. You dealt with musical concepts that your friends the theory buffs couldn't explain, so you therefore decided that when pursuing these concepts it would be better to just disregard theory altogether.

[vurt]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, because that sounds like EXACTLY what you suggested. You dealt with musical concepts that your friends the theory buffs couldn't explain, so you therefore decided that when pursuing these concepts it would be better to just disregard theory altogether.

your wrong.
again show me where is said "disregard theory".
my point was more along the lines of "disregarding theory buffs" if anything.
i probably know as much theory as you do, if not more. i just dont choose to let it tell me what i should do in all cases, for that i trust my ears and if what i hear sounds good to me.

so again SHOW ME where i POSTED "give up on theory" instead of assuming thats what i meant.

[Toxikator]

i probably know as much theory as you do, if not more. i just dont choose to let it tell me what i should do in all cases, for that i trust my ears and if what i hear sounds good to me.

If something sounds good there is a reason for it. Theory provides that reason (or attempts to, at any rate). It doesn't "tell you what to do". You do what you want and theory explains how it works (or, from the other perspective, you have a goal in mind and theory provides the means of figuring out how to get there).

To employ another catchy phrase, "Music theory is a map, not directions"

so again SHOW ME where i POSTED "give up on theory" instead of assuming thats what i meant.

Not unless you show me where I said "anything I can't explain is not worthy" first.

[vurt]

TBH though I think you'd be hard pressed to compose a piece that was a) listenable to any single person and b) not already at least MOSTLY covered by known theory.

just for you

now your turn.

[Toxikator]

theory as it stands at the moment doesnt really cover everything(or at least accepted theory) that happens in the world of music. the sooner some people realise this then i guess we can all move on.

It's not word-for-word, but it's about as close as yours was to mine (for the record, I wasn't suggesting that it couldn't be done, I was suggesting that it would be highly difficult, as I think most of the music that the average KvRian would even remotely appreciate is pretty well-covered. I stand by it)

[vurt]

theory as it stands at the moment doesnt really cover everything(or at least accepted theory) that happens in the world of music. the sooner some people realise this then i guess we can all move on.

so which bit of that means "disregard theory"?

[vurt]

It's not word-for-word, but it's about as close as yours was to mine (for the record, I wasn't suggesting that it couldn't be done, I was suggesting that it would be highly difficult, as I think most of the music that the average KvRian would even remotely appreciate is pretty well-covered. I stand by it)

and what you said was anything theory cant explain would probably be unlistenable, ie you would disregardsomething you cannot explain.

[Toxikator]

so which bit of that means "disregard theory"?

I think the "we can all move on" bit.

Perhaps a misunderstanding but what I took from it was "theory doesn't cover everything, it will never cover everything, and therefore there are more important things to do than to try and expand it."

It doesn't mean "disregard theory", but it IS pretty close to "give up on it", which is what I actually said I inferred from it...