MUSIC & SYTHESIS THEORY - Not for the faint hearted

[BosseJo]

Let's ask wikipedia. That should be fairly up there on the "respected authorities" list, yeah?

Sorry but no. There's a lot of crap there.

[Toxikator]

In some cases yes, but I think the article on Music Theory is pretty well-done. You can check for yourself if you don't think it's reputable

[whyterabbyt]

No he's not, but according to the main page, Music Theory constitutes "Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.".

As herodotus points out, that description is overly narrow of the actual intention.

Topics on synthesis, filters, wavetables, fourier analysis etc. would probably better be placed in the Sound Design or Modular Synthesis, or any of the other forums which it may be relevant to.

I disagree. So would, say, Wishart.

If you're not interested in discussing the theory behind the art of music (as opposed to the science or technology of music), or as you put it getting "dragged down the same bloody path", then don't come here. Simple.

Translation : "if you dont accept what I tell you you should be talking about, bugger off."

Erm, no. Alternately, why dont you, and Toxikator and the like just keep your noses out of threads that dont conform to your narrow viewpoint of what this forum entails.

[BosseJo]

I think all right thinking people in this country
are sick and tired of being told that
ordinary decent people are fed up in this country
with being sick and tired.

[nuffink]

Anyone up for a Diatonic Harmony Forum? The academy of old time music theory bores can hang with each other chuntering about how it all went wrong at the end of the 19th century. Make 'em both moderators and they can bar everyone else from spoiling it.

It's a winner.

[JumpingJackFlash]

No he's not, but according to the main page, Music Theory constitutes "Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.".

As herodotus points out, that description is overly narrow of the actual intention.

Narrow or not, intentional or not, that is the what is written, and until (and unless) that changes, that would seem to be the best definition of what this forum is all about.

If you're not interested in discussing the theory behind the art of music (as opposed to the science or technology of music), or as you put it getting "dragged down the same bloody path", then don't come here. Simple.

Translation : "if you dont accept what I tell you you should be talking about, bugger off."

Not at all. I only responded here in the first place because of your blatant hostility towards people who were clearly talking about a topic relevant to this forum. Comments like "Why does every bloody thread in this forum get dragged down the same bloody path?" are uncalled for, since that 'same bloody path' is music theory (which is unequivocally what the forum is for).

Erm, no. Alternately, why dont you, and Toxikator and the like just keep your noses out of threads that dont conform to your narrow viewpoint of what this forum entails.

I think you would agree that KvR (and for that matter the majority of similar forums) are primarily geared towards music technology. - Ie, the use of DAWs to record and mix sounds, using a range of samples, synths, plug-ins and effects. - And all that goes with that. - There's nothing wrong with any of that of course, but I thought the whole point about this new Music Theory forum, was it was a place to get away from all that; a place to talk about music itself, - the compositional process for example, the nature of different scales, the discussion of harmony, orchestration, counterpoint... - All clearly topics that do not belong to any of the existing forums.

Now, I don't mind discussing other topics that may be relevant, but surely there are countless other places where you can discuss synthesis and the like?
For example, the topic of theoretical physics may be theory, but it's not music.

Yes, it might only be down to tradition as to what we call 'music theory' and what we call 'music technology', or whatever other term you want to call it, but tradition dictates life on so many levels; you can't just reinvent a term to mean whatever you want, even if society is now different to when those traditions first came to be. When music theory is taught in schools, or by other teachers, scales, chords and the like are what is covered. Like it or not, synthesis is simply not covered within traditional music theory (it is taught separately).

[nuffink]

Keepin' it narrow.

[Toxikator]

It's not that I don't give credence to the DSP side of the ideas in the OP's post, it's just that in a music theory board I think it's most appropriate to talk about them in musically sensible ways. I only said what I said to point out that the first reply (about how the only thing musically relevant about DSP is stuff like 440Hz) was kind of narrow.

I don't know why everyone is being so hostile. Whyterabbyt, if you want to discuss the musical importance of other elements of that paper, let's go! I'm sure I'd find it very enlightening and interesting. But let's keep the discussion about the MUSIC instead of how much everyone hates everyone else.

[whyterabbyt]

Narrow or not, intentional or not, that is the what is written, and until (and unless) that changes, that would seem to be the best definition of what this forum is all about.

No, its an adequate description of what some of this forum is about. I cant see any justification for dismissing threads which dont specifically fit as though it were a binding requirement. Or, as has happened, deliberate spoilage of those threads.

Not at all. I only responded here in the first place because of your blatant hostility towards people who were clearly talking about a topic relevant to this forum.

No, its actually my 'blatant hostility' to those who were trying to hijack a topic relevant to this forum, and change its focus to something quite different which they insist should be the only areas considered relevant.
And there's a big difference there.

Comments like "Why does every bloody thread in this forum get dragged down the same bloody path?" are uncalled for, since that 'same bloody path' is music theory (which is unequivocally what the forum is for).

No, they're not uncalled for. There are other bloody paths being disrupted which still fit under the term 'music theory', just not the 'right' one.

I think you would agree that KvR (and for that matter the majority of similar forums) are primarily geared towards music technology. - Ie, the use of DAWs to record and mix sounds, using a range of samples, synths, plug-ins and effects. - And all that goes with that.

Primarily, yes.

- There's nothing wrong with any of that of course, but I thought the whole point about this new Music Theory forum, was it was a place to get away from all that; a place to talk about music itself, - the compositional process for example, the nature of different scales, the discussion of harmony, orchestration, counterpoint... - All clearly topics that do not belong to any of the existing forums.

And yet the discussion revolves primarily around a single aspect of music, and a single perspective on that.

Its funny, I have a whole bookshelf covering the history and language of electronic and electrocoustic music which talks about the philoshophy, the methods, the achievements and the theory, and yet you want to dismiss that entire

I dont. Thats my 'music theory', and you dont get to decide it has no relevance here.

Now, I don't mind discussing other topics that may be relevant, but surely there are countless other places where you can discuss synthesis and the like?

There are countless other places you can discuss diminished 4ths. Im not complaining that people get to derail what is, at core, a computer music site with that. I'd like to be able to discuss aspects of electronic, computer, and electroacoustic music that I consider theory without being jumped on by the topic nazis.
And I will, whether thats alright with you or not. And I'll continue to be 'blatantly hostile' to those trying to prevent it.

For example, the topic of theoretical physics may be theory, but it's not music.

The constant discussions of how to notate a chord arent theory either, any more than spelling competitions are linguistics. Its an aspect of transcription, thats all. Where's the theoretical component?

Yes, it might only be down to tradition as to what we call 'music theory' and what we call 'music technology', or whatever other term you want to call it, but tradition dictates life on so many levels; you can't just reinvent a term to mean whatever you want, even if society is now different to when those traditions first came to be. When music theory is taught in schools, or by other teachers, scales, chords and the like are what is covered. Like it or not, synthesis is simply not covered within traditional music theory (it is taught separately).

Ah. The fascism of cultural conformity. How sweet. But for the record, where's Ben's PM stating that this forum had to be a rigid enforcement of a specific group's narrowmindedness?

[whyterabbyt]

It's not that I don't give credence to the DSP side of the ideas in the OP's post, it's just that in a music theory board I think it's most appropriate to talk about them in musically sensible ways. I only said what I said to point out that the first reply (about how the only thing musically relevant about DSP is stuff like 440Hz) was kind of narrow.

The normal etiquette would be to have said 'sorry mate I think this is the wrong forum'.

A more open minded approach would be to consider why it might be relevant in the first place instead of resorting to 'its not what I do or know, so it cant be relevant'.

I don't know why everyone is being so hostile. Whyterabbyt, if you want to discuss the musical importance of other elements of that paper, let's go! I'm sure I'd find it very enlightening and interesting. But let's keep the discussion about the MUSIC instead of how much everyone hates everyone else.

Try reading the introduction and preface. There are very good summations in both as to the relevance of this. Believe it or not, there are musicians who work solely within the computer realm from an academic and theoretical viewpoint from which the building blocks of music are not those of western chords. This book is aimed at them, and the theory that is relevant to them. I strongly suggest you widen your perspective considerably.

[Toxikator]

Hey now.

First of all, my reply was in DEFENSE of the OP (and the potentially contested stance that DSP and acoustics are relevant in a music theory discussion). Furthermore, I DON'T think this is the wrong forum for this discussion. In fact, I think a lot of it is worth talking about, even outside the realm of timbre, particularly discussing things like tuning (thumbing to a random page on the DSP sheet revealed a discussion of equal temperament).

My point all along has been that discussions of acoustics and, by extension of DSP emulations of acoustic phenomenon (read: synthesis) are important ones for theoreticians to consider. Which is why I pointed out in my post that there's far MORE to the musical relevance of DSP than just octaves being doubles and us hearing logarithmically rather than linearly (in contrast to what one KvRian had said).

I thought we were doing well until you complained that these threads all go "down the same road", that road presumably being a musical discussion of the topics rather than a physical or computational one, and I said that, this being the Music Theory board, that's the angle we're gonna tend to take.

I don't see why there's this fight. Some people seem to think that in my comments I've tried to insinuate that these discussions AREN'T worth having since they're not a part of classical harmony, which is total bollocks (and in fact I seem to recall being lambasted here on more than one occasion for having a particularly BROAD definition of what constitutes music and music theory). For my own reasons I consider engineering to be a part of the total compositional process and am very interested in how the concepts of synthesis and engineering can be employed to musical ends; for example, how dynamics of timbre can affect music, similar to how dynamics of volume can. Or how the frequency content of a sound can be altered in such a way that, though it's pitch does not change, it can be a foreground element. Or how the unnatural nature of a sound might cause a 'jarring' effect, similar to dissonance, which intrigues our ears and is resolved by natural timbre, akin to consonance (something I wonder at when dealing with songs that do heavy vocal manipulation; the contrast between the heavily processed vocal parts and the natural sounding ones has a tension-release effect that doesn't exist when one part is simply maintained w/o change).

I welcome that discussion with open arms!

[JumpingJackFlash]

Narrow or not, intentional or not, that is the what is written, and until (and unless) that changes, that would seem to be the best definition of what this forum is all about.

No, its an adequate description of what some of this forum is about. I cant see any justification for dismissing threads which dont specifically fit as though it were a binding requirement. Or, as has happened, deliberate spoilage of those threads.

I'm not dismissing the thread (although personally I do think it would be better placed in an alternative forum). My main objection was when you chimed in with your hostile "bloody path" reference. - That is what started this whole derailing in the first place, up until your post, everything everyone posted was about music theory.

No, its actually my 'blatant hostility' to those who were trying to hijack a topic relevant to this forum, and change its focus to something quite different which they insist should be the only areas considered relevant.
And there's a big difference there.

The first mention of traditional theory in this thread was from Toxi, who was responding to the claim that "all we need to ever know about that stuff would be: 440hz = A (perfect)". - Clearly that is not all we need to know. Toxi mentioned the overtone series, which I certainly don't think is irrelevant to synthesis. Then, someone got (understandably) confused about the same term meaning different things, and this was elaborated on by Varadin, then later by sante, who, in the process, explained the differences in the meanings. - Both posts were direct replies to a specific statement, it was not going off onto a tangent and was not changing the focus. It was at this point that you chimed in with your hostile remarks, which as I said, I think were uncalled for. - If anything, you were the one prohibiting what people could talk about.

For example, the topic of theoretical physics may be theory, but it's not music.

The constant discussions of how to notate a chord arent theory either, any more than spelling competitions are linguistics. Its an aspect of transcription, thats all. Where's the theoretical component?

How to spell a chord is definitely related to music theory. In fact, in some cases it is a crucial aspect. The same way how to spell a word is part of English language. - To use an analogy, They're and Their might sound the same, but in theory they are totally different.

[Download SOphist]

I think all right thinking people in this country
are sick and tired of being told that
ordinary decent people are fed up in this country
with being sick and tired.

Admirable simetry. On the other hand (if you have one ), what does right thinking mean?

[Dayl]

well...you guys rock, all of you!

Some interesting points being raised here.

[BosseJo]

I think all right thinking people in this country
are sick and tired of being told that
ordinary decent people are fed up in this country
with being sick and tired.

Admirable simetry. On the other hand (if you have one ), what does right thinking mean?

I can't take credit for it. It's from Monty Python and I wrote it from memory. Here is the correct quote:

"I think all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent-thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not – and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am."