Does music theory qualify as a theory?

[Multicore]

Afaict, what's conventionally called music theory neither explains nor predicts anything. It is a language for describing certain aspects of music, usually to do with pitch relationships and rhythms. It it certainly a language that's useful to people dealing with music but to someone like me with scientific training, a career in engineering and in interest in philosophy, including the philosophy of science, I have a notion of what qualifies as a theory, i.e. that whatever-it-is has to successfully at least explain observations. The theories I admire most have predicted observations that were later confirmed. Does music theory do either?

 

[jooc]

Afaict, what's conventionally called music theory neither explains nor predicts anything. It is a language for describing certain aspects of music, usually to do with pitch relationships and rhythms. It it certainly a language that's useful to people dealing with music but to someone like me with scientific training, a career in engineering and in interest in philosophy, including the philosophy of science, I have a notion of what qualifies as a theory, i.e. that whatever-it-is has to successfully at least explain observations. The theories I admire most have predicted observations that were later confirmed. Does music theory do either?

Interesting, I don't have a take right now because I don't know the scope of what constitutes 'music theory.' For example I'd be guessing what a music theory curriculum would be.

Anyway here's the general definition of theory to start with, maybe someone should chime in on how to define music theory and we'll see if one fits into the other:

"Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

I guess I don't see it fitting as a strict 'theory' either, maybe more of a language as you say. I think it would be interesting to explore from a cognitive theory aspect and how we respond to music, and then from that you could develop theories of why certain musical compositional choices are made past and present.

 

[Sokel]

Afaict, what's conventionally called music theory neither explains nor predicts anything. It is a language for describing certain aspects of music, usually to do with pitch relationships and rhythms. It it certainly a language that's useful to people dealing with music but to someone like me with scientific training, a career in engineering and in interest in philosophy, including the philosophy of science, I have a notion of what qualifies as a theory, i.e. that whatever-it-is has to successfully at least explain observations. The theories I admire most have predicted observations that were later confirmed. Does music theory do either?

Yes.
And has started as early as 2000 years ago,the famous math and music correlation (Pythagoras) .
Think notes as freqs and you have most of the answer.

 

[mhardy6647]

Think notes as freqs and you have most of the answer.

... and I think (FWIW) that even more of the answer emerges when one considers the challenge of "temperament" of the musical scale to suit the realities of different musical instruments and our psychological (?) expectations of harmonious sound. I apologize for offering Wiki-p's take on the topic, but I understand the topic only dimly.

Musical temperament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sokel]

... and I think (FWIW) that even more of the answer emerges when one considers the challenge of "temperament" of the musical scale to suit the realities of different musical instruments and our psychological (?) expectations of harmonious sound. I apologize for offering Wiki-p's take on the topic, but I understand the topic only dimly.

Musical temperament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not only different instruments but different keys of the same instrument as well.
Before that relationship it was like far west out there,even Bach's ingenious work is a starter but not the end.
Composers before that were simply heroes.

 

[mhardy6647]

Not only different instruments but different keys of the same instrument as well.
Before that relationship it was like far west out there,even Bach's ingenious work is a starter but not the end.
Composers before that were simply heroes.

Good point(s)!
I played fast and loose with my 'explanation' because I knew that the more I wrote, the more obvious it would be how pathetic peripheral is my understanding of the whole subject.

 

[Sokel]

Good point(s)!
I played fast and loose with my 'explanation' because I knew that the more I wrote, the more obvious it would be how pathetic peripheral is my understanding of the whole subject.

Unlike other subjects intuition works well in music theory because we all know that stuff without knowing them,just by living with them.
You don't have to have a perfect pitch to know that something is wrong,you feel it!

The tough thing was to know why.And the toughest was composing before that "why",one should know every singe instrument's idiosyncrasies and it's own too as keys change.
Math came to rescue once more and it was simple (but not as simple) as to divide.

That only touches the surface and believe or not,there's still debates as how "pure" earlier works were.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Why is it called music theory? Shouldn’t it be called music rules? - Wampler Pedals

This week, I am giving the floor to a FB friend of mine called Nik Harrison… Who is Nik I hear you ask… Well… “I teach music (piano, guitar, theory, GCSE, A Level etc) but I also teach thinking skills. Critical thinking, applications of (and limitations of) logic, exam revision etc. Also do...

www.wamplerpedals.com

Jim

 

[Dimitri]

conventionally called music theory neither explains nor predicts anything. It is a language for describing certain aspects of music, usually to do with pitch relationships and rhythms

Aren't all theories "words describing certain apsects aspects of <insert thing here>?
Music theory does explain and yes it even predicts the next "bunch of notes", with precision that rivals Ohms law.
Unless you get into improvisational jazz, in which case all bets are off from my prespective, but a music theory teacher might disagree !

 

[Robin L]

Something to take into consideration: the equal tempered scale was not always the tuning for keyboards. Before equal temperament, there were diverse tuning systems. They would favor one set of keys over others, and composers could have interesting effects depending on where the more dissonant modulations would be found. I worked for a man who tuned various instruments, including harpsichords. And he would use some of these tuning systems for a number of harpsichord recordings he produced.

 

[GXAlan]

This will be the best 22.5 minutes of your day if you are at all interested in music theory.

 

[mcdn]

This will be the best 22.5 minutes of your day if you are at all interested in music theory.

To @Multicore’s point though, that’s all descriptive. No point grumbling over it though, we all just need to accept that “music theory” is defined as “not music practice”, rather being a theory in the predictive sense.

 

[Multicore]

Yes.
And has started as early as 2000 years ago,the famous math and music correlation (Pythagoras) .
Think notes as freqs and you have most of the answer.

The numerology of integer pitch ratios does go back a long way but a) that's not music theory, b) it doesn't work to describe actual musical practice except in reductive trivial cases, and c) like music theory it doesn't work to explain anything either, as Aristoxenus showed a long time ago after doing really a solid job showing how number theory doesn't map to real music in any comfortable or convincing way.

The mystical attraction of understanding music as coming from number theory and ratios is ancient and powerful.

As the author here puts it: music theory's cosmic potential is too big to fail. Imagine if that potential were fulfilled, that music theory did explain music, wouldn't that end music as an art?

 

[Multicore]

To @Multicore’s point though, that’s all descriptive. No point grumbling over it though, we all just need to accept that “music theory” is defined as “not music practice”, rather being a theory in the predictive sense.

Yeah, this is notation and analysis and someone's arguments about how certain compositions work to produce certain subjective effects. Music theory doesn't touch that stuff.

 

[Multicore]

Something to take into consideration: the equal tempered scale was not always the tuning for keyboards. Before equal temperament, there were diverse tuning systems. They would favor one set of keys over others, and composers could have interesting effects depending on where the more dissonant modulations would be found. I worked for a man who tuned various instruments, including harpsichords. And he would use some of these tuning systems for a number of harpsichord recordings he produced.

Different musical traditions have used different scales, tuning and temperaments over time. What we have for Western music theory today applies to several of them including the equal tempered system that's pretty much taken over because it works so well. This fact alone shows that the ancient idea of integer pitch ratios explaining music is kinda suspect (besides not being music theory, and more like an esoteric fancy, like Plato's theory of forms, which is also not a theory in my book).

 

[Sokel]

The numerology of integer pitch ratios does go back a long way but a) that's not music theory, b) it doesn't work to describe actual musical practice except in reductive trivial cases, and c) like music theory it doesn't work to explain anything either, as Aristoxenus showed a long time ago after doing really a solid job showing how number theory doesn't map to real music in any comfortable or convincing way.

The mystical attraction of understanding music as coming from number theory and ratios is ancient and powerful.

As the author here puts it: music theory's cosmic potential is too big to fail. Imagine if that potential were fulfilled, that music theory did explain music, wouldn't that end music as an art?

View attachment 340560

Music theory is mot so much about practice but about creating.
If not for the established relationships,composing would be impossible in any other way but random.

Yes,it's hard to penetrate without help,and not only in the academic sense,is just that it needs time to digest so to make the visible complexity audibly simple.
As in lots of other aspects,practice can come to rescue so the audible clues fit.

Sometimes I feel about theory,like some closed sciences or crafts,a deliberate closed language,people with no intentions to leave outsiders in,etc.

If not the theory,the attitude sure reminds of theorists,doesn't it?
Even criticism is not about the theory itself,but mostly about the theorists if you dig into it.
So...

 

[Multicore]

Music theory is mot so much about practice but about creating.
If not for the established relationships,composing would be impossible in any other way but random.

I believe pretty much the exact opposite on both sentences.

Yes,it's hard to penetrate without help,and not only in the academic sense,is just that it needs time to digest so to make the visible complexity audibly simple.
As in lots of other aspects,practice can come to rescue so the audible clues fit.

Sometimes I feel about theory,like some closed sciences or crafts,a deliberate closed language,people with no intentions to leave outsiders in,etc.

I don't think music theory is especially hard. Certainly I found it much easier to learn than many other things I have learned. I just don't think it qualifies as theory because if fails to explain, it just describes, or as Nik Harrison put it "Music theory is the codification of the most commonly used frameworks within music."

If not the theory,the attitude sure reminds of theorists,doesn't it?
Even criticism is not about the theory itself,but mostly about the theorists if you dig into it.
So...

 

[DonR]

"Music doesn't exist. It's only a theory."

 

[Multicore]

Why is it called music theory? Shouldn’t it be called music rules? - Wampler Pedals

This week, I am giving the floor to a FB friend of mine called Nik Harrison… Who is Nik I hear you ask… Well… “I teach music (piano, guitar, theory, GCSE, A Level etc) but I also teach thinking skills. Critical thinking, applications of (and limitations of) logic, exam revision etc. Also do...

www.wamplerpedals.com

Jim

It's an interesting article. I like how Nick answered initially. I diverge as he explains how music is not a language. This is too narrow an understanding of language for my tastes. I prefer the rather broad concept of language that I got from Rorty. For example, is body language a language? What about dogs body language? The interesting thing about (abstract) music is that it is capable of communicating from the unconscious mind. Is that even compatible with the proposition that a true explanatory theory of music could be written down?

 

[Sokel]

I believe pretty much the exact opposite on both sentences.

There's a joke about music theorists (Musicologists with Phd,etc) and musicians,only one of them can be on stage,never both.

And theory,does explain.Not everything but it does.How could it explain the value of silence for example (which is not the defined pause but the space [not in time} between the unused notes in a chord,the absence in a sense) which was always a fierce debate?It's like the famous dark matter.

What makes the theory valid is repeatability,one can rely on it in every sense.