Does music theory qualify as a theory?

[DonR]

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?

While music may not be able to convey ideas it can most certainly convey emotions. I certainly feel that it is in the scope of language.

 

[kemmler3D]

what's conventionally called music theory neither explains nor predicts anything

I don't know, would it be wrong to say It predicts the consonance / dissonance and general emotional impact of certain musical structures? That would be both explanatory and predictive.

Even the basic concept of minor vs. major chords seems like a proper theory to me. It's not obvious that certain groups of chords should be (broadly speaking) "happy" or "sad".

Of course, "music theory" is also not meant to be a proper scientific theory like gravitation, either. So saying "music theory isn't really theory" is maybe just a semantic cul-de-sac.

To put it another way, what would music theory explain or predict if it WERE a proper theory?

 

[nerdstrike]

Afaict, what's conventionally called music theory neither explains nor predicts anything.

I agree from the point of view of predicting gravitational waves and such, but a well trained musician can indeed predict what music might sound like without playing it first (subject to their interpretation).

Then again, the three body problem and ubiquitous reliance on ideal gas law, the incompatibility of quantum and general relativity rather make a mockery of explanation. They predict far better than their assumptions would suggest, but I don't feel like that makes much of anything beyond pure math innately superior to the clumsy descriptiveness of music theory.

 

[Prana Ferox]

Semantics, mixing up definitions

Also OP mentions number theory, and number theory does not magically explain the universe of, or take the wonder and joy out of, numbers. It provides a series of tools to add to the toolkit to solve more complicated problems. One could argue music theory does the same.

 

[pierre]

for me music and theory don’t go together. Maybe tine to read or re-read GEB?

 

[Dimitri]

Ok, reset.

The book is "Alien Listening"
"

About This Book​

An examination of NASA's Golden Record that offers new perspectives and theories on how music can be analyzed, listened to, and thought about—by aliens and humans alike. In 1977 NASA shot a mixtape into outer space. The Golden Record aboard the Voyager spacecrafts contained world music and sounds of Earth to represent humanity to any extraterrestrial civilizations. To date, the Golden Record is the only human-made object to have left the solar system. Alien Listening asks the big questions that the Golden Record raises: Can music live up to its reputation as the universal language in communications with the unknown? How do we fit all of human culture into a time capsule that will barrel through space for tens of thousands of years? And last but not least: Do aliens have ears?The stakes could hardly be greater. Around the extreme scenario of the Golden Record, Chua and Rehding develop a thought-provoking, philosophically heterodox, and often humorous Intergalactic Music Theory of Everything, a string theory of communication, an object-oriented ontology of sound, and a Penelopean model woven together from strands of music and media theory. The significance of this exomusicology, like that of the Golden Record, ultimately takes us back to Earth and its denizens. By confronting the vast temporal and spatial distances the Golden Record traverses, the authors take listeners out of their comfort zone and offer new perspectives in which music can be analyzed, listened to, and thought about—by aliens and humans alike.
"

So, yeah....

 

[Anton D]

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

That about sums it up.

 

[jooc]

... Imagine if that potential were fulfilled, that music theory did explain music, wouldn't that end music as an art?

I guess GPT 5.0 will let us know.

 

[Sokel]

I guess GPT 5.0 will let us know.

I suppose it will do it as it's done for the last 200 years with some exemptions,it will just step on classical and go on.

 

[mhardy6647]

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

Pretty sure you're thinking of evolution.

 

[Anton D]

Pretty sure you're thinking of evolution.

Or Gravity.

Or, as people really in the know call it: intelligent falling.

 

[Keith_W]

To put it another way, what would music theory explain or predict if it WERE a proper theory?

I am relying on my decades ago and mostly forgotten music lessons here! I can only think of one example - it would predict that certain chords would be consonant or dissonant.

 

[DonR]

Pretty sure you're thinking of evolution.

If I thought that I would not be thinking... at all.

 

[mhardy6647]

If I thought that I would not be thinking... at all.

'twas a joke.

Or Gravity.

Or, as people really in the know call it: intelligent falling.

excellent. I'll file that one away for future use.

 

[Multicore]

Even the basic concept of minor vs. major chords seems like a proper theory to me. It's not obvious that certain groups of chords should be (broadly speaking) "happy" or "sad".

Does music theory say anything about that? I don't think so. That's the aesthetics of a particular part of an audience in a particular musical tradition.

Of course, "music theory" is also not meant to be a proper scientific theory like gravitation, either. So saying "music theory isn't really theory" is maybe just a semantic cul-de-sac.

That's possible.

To put it another way, what would music theory explain or predict if it WERE a proper theory?

Like I hinted at above, to my mind the proposition of such a theory of music is incompatible with how I understand it to operate. If there were then either music with be foreclosed or or it couldn't do what I think it evidently does. What about poetry theory? A theory that correctly explains poems would encapsulate all poems and therefore foreclose poetry. Such a theory would make poems redundant.

 

[Sokel]

It can predict (by observation obviously,as many other science do before explain) the essence of our existence,emotions.
And I don't mean the sentimental aspect of it,but the automatic way,just like the nearly automatic emotional decisions that by far proceed the rational ones.

(yep,I know it's about the lazy,recourse preserving good old brain but no one said music is innocent )

 

[theREALdotnet]

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?

I agree, if you regard science as the attempt to understand and predict aspects of reality, then most of musicology (or music theory) is simply an academic discipline. Like much of linguistics, it describes, catalogs, categorises and classifies.

But also like linguistics, it contains a branch of actual natural science, the part that concerns itself with exploring how the human brain responds to and creates music (or language). That part treats our brain as a black box and explores its inner workings much like other sciences do – through experiment and observation. Provide (or observe) an input, record the output, theorise about how that output came to be (propose a transfer function), make predictions.

 

[mhardy6647]

But also like linguistics, it contains a branch of actual natural science, the part that concerns itself with exploring how the human brain responds to and creates music (or language). That part treats our brain as a black box and explores its inner workings much like other sciences do – through experiment and observation. Provide (or observe) and input, record the output, theorise about how that output came to be (propose a transfer function), make predictions.

Funny you should mention that. Just reading through the last few posts got me to thinkin' about Daniel Levitin... at least some of his earlier work.

Daniel Levitin

Daniel Levitin is a neuroscientist, cognitive psychologist, and bestselling author. He is the author of This Is Your Brain on Music, The World in Six Songs, The Organized Mind, A Field Guide to Lies and Successful Aging (published in the UK as The Changing Mind).

www.daniellevitin.com

Not music theory per se but plenty of theories focused on music.

 

[kemmler3D]

What about poetry theory? A theory that correctly explains poems would encapsulate all poems and therefore foreclose poetry. Such a theory would make poems redundant.

I don't think a theory has to be complete / final to be called a theory. Gravitational theories explain quite a bit, but there is no theory out there that explains all physical phenomena.

Does music theory say anything about that?

Consonance / dissonance? I think it does. It's pretty easy to predict if 2+ different frequencies will be consonant or dissonant, especially within a given tuning, but it can also predict if a given tuning will be consonant / dissonant? Or maybe I'm mixing up different lessons from college.

 

[Réidh]

Theoretically speaking one can compose music in a silent way.