What key is this in?

[Tricky-Loops]

Sigh. It's always such a minefield here. "What chord is this" often seems to d/evolve into "How do we understand reality?" Quite fascinating. Studying theory forum posts compared with those in other forums would probably be an interesting psychology project.

There will always be people whose greatest hobby is to gather arguments against the opinion of other people...seems to be even some kind of "polemic sport" in certain wealthy countries...

I challenge you to a flame war.

Thanks for the offer but I prefer Barbecue...

[sjm]

Caveman Ugga also didn't sit down and write up an essay on thermodynamics when he made fire for his woolly mammoth soup, that doesn't stop fire from being a completely explainable phenomenon that can be completely understood. <SNIP>

This has already been responded to, but this is a false argument. A dictionary would be a much better analogy. Music theory attempts to provide a theoretical explanation for what people have already done in music, much like a dictionary catalogs the words people have used. There's always a period of lag between a word entering relatively common usage and it earning its place in the dictionary. They are descriptive, not proscriptive (in English at least), and the same applies to music theory. It's not like physics, where reality prevents you from breaking the "laws" of physics. You can break with convention in music as much as you like, just like we can invent new words or play on or misuse existing words for rhetoric effect. That's part of what makes art art.

You also seem as confused about what linguistics is as you are about what music theory is. Linguistics attempts to provide a theoretical basis for language by observing languages. It has nothing to do with viewing language as an art. Furthermore, studying linguistics will not mean you can suddenly write a computer program that outputs a series of amazing novels in Swahili.