What is really a "music theory"?

[Musicologo]

Spin-off of other two recent topics, I started wondering what in fact is a "music theory". It seems people have been calling "music theory" to things that are actually "descriptions" of certain musical practices that then, after being published, somehow become "prescriptions" for others desiring to emulate the repertoires of those musical practices. Well, then those are not "theories", but more like "kitchen recipes" or "algorithms".

And here it seems to me, there lies a fundamental flaw. First, some people are equating the musical practices with the repertoires (often called "Text": the "works" whatever that is - being them "tracks", "records" or "sheet music"/"scores"). And therefore their "theory" is something that describes or tries to describe how the sound of those "works" can be replicated. But more often than not, those theories, don't actually EXPLAIN why such works exists, neither What are the true musical practices. Therefore I cannot see them as theories.

A complete music theory would be one that not merely describes works (The text), but EXPLAINS why a musical practice exists in the first place: How and Why "Texts" emerges from "CONTEXTS".

For instance, the "music theories" of western classical music c. 1600-1900 one learns in the conservatories, describe musical scores in terms of *somewhat arbitrary* parameters like pitch, rhythm, etc... but more often than not they don't explain WHY such works exist in the first place, how they were actually conceived. That "part" - often called "Context", is seen as "music history" detached from the body of works. Context and Text seem to be treated independent.

Also, many people seem to assume that "music theory" is something that can be done in first place because there is "a universal music" that can be theorized (described, explained). The problem is that there isn't. There is not "a music". There are MANY musical practices. All different, with different concepts, behaviours and repertoires/sounds. Therefore, even before one tries to make a theory one has to understand the concepts and behaviours shaping a certain musical practice. And then explain them.

"why suya sing"? "Why zappa plays guitar?" "Why beethoven plays piano and makes scores?" "Why there are beatle's records? where do they come from? how they were made?".

A music theory has to EXPLAIN all these things. And therefore this is why I'm again posting what I think better approaches a Music Theory, with an example of Lomax:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 00030/epdf

«The study of musical style should embrace the total human situation
which produces the music:
(1) The number of people habitually involved in a musical act, and the way in which they cooperate
(2) The relation between the music makers and the audience.
(3) The physical behavior of the music makers-their bodily stance, gestures, facial expressions, muscular tensions, especially those of the throat.
(4) The vocal timbres and pitch favored by the culture, and their relationship to the factors under 3
(5) The social function of the music and the occasion of its production.
(6) Its psychological and emotional content as expressed in the song texts and the culture’s interpretation of this traditional poetry.
(7) How songs are learned and transmitted.
(8) Finally, wecome to the formal elements in the situation: the scales, the interval
systems, the rhythmic patterns, the melodic contours, the techniques of harmony used; the metric patterns of the verse, the structure of the poetry, and
the complex interplay between poetic and musical patterns, the instruments and instrumental techniques. Only when the behavioral patterns covered by points 1-7 are taken into account can the formal elements under 8 be properly understood, for they are symbols which stand for the
whole.

In This paper he describes some musical practices, compares them, and specially looking at Italy and Spain, he tries to explain WHY and HOW people sing and play and WHY they do it that way and not the other way around.

Therefore, at this moment, I think the ethnomusicologists are the ones that "nailed" it, long time ago, and that "music theorists" are falling short. Most "theories" I've seen only adress SOME elements of (8) never addressing 1-7 and even missing some of 8.

Using Rice method that fuses Geertz with Merriam: A Musical practice is "Historically constructed, socially mantained and individually experienced", and this involves "Concepts, shaping Behaviours that shape the sounds". Without describing all these things first we can't have solid music theories.

What do you think of this?

[DJ Warmonger]

nd therefore their "theory" is something that describes or tries to describe how the sound of those "works" can be replicated

All the music theory, at least related to harmony, is a consequence of Fourier series. It's just for people who can't into maths

[Googly Smythe]

Seems to me that you are trying to reduce an art form into an "ology". Music is not a science. It has no rules. It does not consist of any facts, it is mostly just opinion, (eg "The Beatles were brilliant, but The Monkees were just noise" or "Beethoven was brilliant but Stravinsky was just noise", etc). This is something a lot of noobs don't seem to realise when they ask questions like "How do I become a successful producer", and "What tools do I need?" The tool thay're mostly in need of is talent, with a good helping of luck.
-
And I think you left out the most important part - music has to be listened to, and so requires an audience. Indeed, in a live situation, an audience can turn a performance into something marvelously uplifting or into something boring and uninteresting, depending on the mood of said audience.
-
Music theory, as taught in schools, is just a way to describe what has come before so that those to come may either learn from it or perform/replicate it, to build upon other' experiences.
-
Bottom line: I think you're over-thinking it.

Just my tuppence worth!

[slipstick]

No a music theory doesn't have to explain everything about anything that is or ever was associated however loosely with music. That's just nonsense.

Similarly a scientific theory doesn't have to explain everything that has ever been considered scientific. Large subjects are commonly divided into more manageable parts. Science is. No-one has ever complained that a cosmological theory about the expanding universe isn't a proper theory because it doesn't explain the reproductive biology of a fruit fly even though they're both science. No-one takes chemists to task because they no longer mention phlogiston.

Same with music. Explaining how Western music developed over the last 1000 years or so is a big enough subject to be worthy of study. But I'm pretty certain that trying to explain Beethoven's 9th in terms of the composer's bodily stance and gestures isn't going to get anyone very far...at least not in any interesting direction.

If you believe that ethnomusicology with it's emphasis on history, anthropology, sociology etc. is more interesting than a study which concentrates on the music itself then you're entitled to your opinion. I doubt if you'll find many takers though.

Steve

[VicDiesel]

Seems to me that you are trying to reduce an art form into an "ology". Music is not a science. It has no rules.

What was the title of Helmholtz' book again? On the Sensations of Tone as a Basis for the Theory of Music?

He argued that there is a precise theory of what sounds good, and then observed that actual music prefers the sounds that he had objectively conjectured would be most agreeable.

So it's not entirely that there are no rules.

Of course that's 150 years ago or so, when they hadn't invented noise music and such....

Victor.

[Dave Regolith]

I get the feeling that a true theory of music as you describe it would basically have to consist of all the music ever made and the human experiences that go along with it... it'd have to be like a 1:1 scale map updated in real time! I'm not sure there would be much to learn from it as I can't believe you could really reduce it down to anything compact enough to comprehend.


Where do you think your system would come in useful? What would anyone use it for? Don't you think it would be too complex for anyone to use for anything?

[Dave Regolith]

Seems to me that you are trying to reduce an art form into an "ology". Music is not a science. It has no rules.

What was the title of Helmholtz' book again? On the Sensations of Tone as a Basis for the Theory of Music?

He argued that there is a precise theory of what sounds good, and then observed that actual music prefers the sounds that he had objectively conjectured would be most agreeable.

So it's not entirely that there are no rules.

Of course that's 150 years ago or so, when they hadn't invented noise music and such....

Victor.

I managed to get through Roger Scrutons book that related to this https://www.amazon.co.uk/Aesthetics-Mus ... 019816727X - and he mentions that Hemholtz's theories have been disproved. I found the subject very hard to grasp so I won't attempt to explain it...but I got the sense that his ideas generally work in practice but the science of them falls apart under modern analysis.

My own opinion is that music doesn't have any kind of built in rules...

[deastman]

Western music theory starts with the harmonic series, and the observation that the physics of certain frequencies vibrating in relation to each other can evoke a positive emotional response in humans. Then it expands upon that with all sorts of subjective biases, not least of which is the somewhat arbitrary 12-tone system. But then you get John Cage, and then you get Throbbing Gristle and Skinny Puppy and the whole thing falls apart. Before you know it, dubstep is a dominant art form, dogs and cats are living together, and the end of days is upon us. If only I hadn't used that diminished chord...

[jancivil]

and therefore their "theory" is something that describes or tries to describe how the sound of those "works" can be replicated

All the music theory, at least related to harmony, is a consequence of Fourier series. It's just for people who can't into maths

Really?
(That insults everybody with an abiding interest in the subject and shows no indication of any understanding. Music isn't reducible to mathematics.)

One may find Fourier analysis useful in looking at waveforms, and for instance we find that pertinent to Chowning FM synthesis it may be used in comparison of resulting phenomena, but as any generative anything?

An analysis method as a cause, 'is a consequence of Fourier series', look, mathematics is after-the-fact. While we find truth in mathematics, the phenomena are not consequents of mathematics.

Harmony, western music's concept of harmony is based in a pseudo-equal temperament of 12 tones to an octave. The term octave is an artifice; in acoustics terms it is a 2:1 ratio of frequencies. But the 12 equal mathematically is 12th root of 2. The "music theory" of the Common Practice Period describes modi operandi that are prevalent in usage, which is cultural. The music theory of Arabic musics is based in ratio and its intervals derive from a development beginning with so-called Pythagorean intonation, division of a string as the basis, as all musics do, I mean they didn't really temper it (until recently where a 24-ET theory gained some traction). their intervals have to do with ethnicity and language, it's just that this is where determining intonation is per se and ratios were tried and found workable to suit the vocal character of that culture.

And harmony has no actual place in it, as harmony as I spoke of it so far falls apart as the "just" intonation intervals are based in a singular 'tonic' and is not transposable, which is where ultimately we wound up with a formula to ensure that equal footing on each of 12 tones. Indian music is another thing, different intervals usually than Arabic, because culture. Chinese music has its principles unto itself, and so forth.

These aren't theories, the very term is a misnomer, these are demonstrable facts or principles which are pretty much just true.

[jancivil]

Seems to me that you are trying to reduce an art form into an "ology". Music is not a science. It has no rules.

What was the title of Helmholtz' book again? On the Sensations of Tone as a Basis for the Theory of Music?

He argued that there is a precise theory of what sounds good, and then observed that actual music prefers the sounds that he had objectively conjectured would be most agreeable.

So it's not entirely that there are no rules.

Helmholtz was entirely mistaken on fundaments, though. It's all wrong.

http://www.wolfspiritradio.com/tune/wel ... and-wrong/

[jancivil]

For instance, the "music theories" of western classical music c. 1600-1900 one learns in the conservatories, describe musical scores in terms of *somewhat arbitrary* parameters like pitch, rhythm, etc... but more often than not they don't explain WHY such works exist in the first place, how they were actually conceived. That "part" - often called "Context", is seen as "music history" detached from the body of works. Context and Text seem to be treated independent.

My experience of conservatory is that 'Theory' (not a lot more than 'Harmony' in fact) and 'History' go hand-in-hand.

I got kicked out of History because I was never on time to the 8AM class and I just hated it and the professor who smelled bad.
We had done two trimesters and we were still bogged down in Church Music, I don't recall exactly if we had even moved into anything Renaissance, I think we had not. Our exams made us write why this composer sounded different than the next composer, and I reached saturation point on hearing all of this medieval music and I didn't really care why. It was not an easy course and it was so dry.
I think it was a little deficient because it started with a certain place in history and ignored for instance the whole history of intonation, and had such a Euro-centric focus a whole aspect was just missing. (I won't assert anything, but see if you can work out why the augmented second was illegal.)

But, here you see how practices developed, and some of the why. You would not be in the class I was in without knowing theory, it was 'Honors Curriculae', this and the "Theory" course.
In the latter we actually sight-sang from Neumes. So not only was your theory knowledge necessary to deal with the requirements in History, the Theory course was concerned with history. A bit.

[jancivil]

«The study of musical style should embrace the total human situation
which produces the music:
(2) The relation between the music makers and the audience.
(5) The social function of the music and the occasion of its production.

The reality of Mozart for instance is he had to gratify his employer and it was pretty typical for that person to be a dilettante at music with certain pretenses. We may read his letters to get a sense of that. So there is always a tension between a kind of line to be toed and pleasing himself, and as probably the most advanced musician around here is some real tension.

This is true all throughout the CPP to a greater or lesser extent, Royalty and the Aristocracy had to be pleased and this is one reason so much music is so mannered, and so effete. You see how they dressed socially, the wigs and the frillery, that's the music too. Much of it is Dinner Music for Aristocrats because this is where all the money was. Later there is more of the romantic hero, individualist aspect perhaps exemplified first in Beethoven.

[Harry_HH]

One approach to the music analysis could be the discourse what is "natural". Does "absolute universal exist"?
As said before, different traditions are based on different paradigms, Wesrern, Arabic, Indian, Chinese etc.
If "what is natural" or "what is beautiful" or "interesting" is relative, cultural-bound, isn't there anything common for the whole human race in music, over different times, and what? And what is the theory of that?
What is absolute? Pythagoras's theorem, of fundamental relation in Euclidean geometry states that the square of the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.
That is absolute. Pythagoras theorem of music was based on the mathematics, too, he believed that even planets follow great musical principles when they orbit in the space.
But the mathematical truth wasn't enough, it was not beautiful or natural in the world of intervals, that's why 12 tones are tempered. Intervals are not tempered (only) for practical reasons, or because of the Western tradition/taste. Or are they?
One of Bruckner's student has told that Bruckner used to hammer repeatedly one and same triad, shouting: listen how beautiful, its divine, these intervals are divine. Was he just a victim of the Wester propaganda. Or is there some universal, absolute laws which frequencies of sound waves fit together?

[jancivil]

(8) Finally, wecome to the formal elements in the situation: the scales, the interval
systems, the rhythmic patterns, the melodic contours, the techniques of harmony used; the metric patterns of the verse, the structure of the poetry, and
the complex interplay between poetic and musical patterns, the instruments and instrumental techniques. Only when the behavioral patterns covered by points 1-7 are taken into account can the formal elements under 8 be properly understood, for they are symbols which stand for the
whole.

FINALLY? No, that is something in itself. Your user name suggests you are interested in musicology.
I'm not. I have no desire whatsoever to be an authentic 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th century composer.
However if I had to for a job, I can suss a style with what I do have of it, which isn't very deep, and using my imagination would fill in what else I needed, because the techniques are so well-known.

"The forms are symbols", well if that works for you, great, have a good time thinking about it. The Sonata-Allegro forms, for example are known as abstractions.

In sum 1) no relevance afaic; 2) I actually know about somewhat; 3) if I were a singer and had to produce 'authentic period' characteristics... but truly, I'm a 20th century person; 4) definitely to some extent, see my remarks per Arabic music, vocal tendencies inform more than vocal music to be sure; 5) good to know as I spoke to, but hardly very consequential; 6) I'm a 20th century person; if I had to redo the whole thing as a sarod master in training, well confer Ravi Shankar and his brother; 7) I can't imagine why.

Why Frank Zappa plays guitar? "I hadn't heard any R&B then [starting with a snare drum] and was basically interested in orchestra music. Then I heard some R&B and wanted to be in a R&B band. I tried to get some money to get a band together. At that time the guitar wasn't the solo instrument; it was the saxophone. Then I started hearing a few guitars. I wanted them to do it this way and to play it that way, but they didn't do it."

So yeah, it makes sense if you really want to 'get it' to understand why he gravitated to Johnny 'Guitar' Watson, because the rhythms were speech-oriented (To Chad Wackerman: '4/4 is the most unnatural thing in the world "Why?" Do you talk in 4/4?) and the tone cut. But, I had my own experience and my own blues influences where I was which made FZ guitar tendencies make more sense than some. Similar experience, mind you.

[VicDiesel]

Helmholtz was entirely mistaken on fundaments, though. It's all wrong.

http://www.wolfspiritradio.com/tune/wel ... and-wrong/

Seriously? You're pointing me to a 432 website?

Victor.