What is a 'theory' ?

[Frank Merton]

I see no reason why music theory could not be falsifiable (in principle) through empirical observation and testing.

Why are some chords harmonious and others discords?

When I asked my piano teacher that, she told me, "It's the way our ears are built." Frankly I didn't believe that then and don't now, but she wasn't the sort a student could contradict with any safety, so I never pursued it.

I think its largely a matter of what we are use to. The first few cords of Beethoven's third were considered discords at the time, and quite an innovation. I listen to them and hear no such thing.

The Vietnamese (I live in Vietnam half the year) have a unique music form they call "opera" that is really hard for a Westerner to tolerate more than ten minutes at a time (much like Durrian -- repulsively sweet and with an obnoxious odor). It seems to have nothing to do with rhythm, and consists of tones that weave up and down almost randomly with tremulous outbursts every now and then.

I dunno, but as I learned the language (a little), and so came to be able to understand the demands of an isolating, tonal language, when you want to sing something, and as I perhaps got use to it, I have come to be able to tolerate it, even live amateur renditions that are not in tune (if the music form even has such a thing -- it has no definable scale that I can detect).

 

[blackout]

Why are some chords harmonious and others discords?

When I asked my piano teacher that, she told me, "It's the way our ears are built." Frankly I didn't believe that then and don't now, but she wasn't the sort a student could contradict with any safety, so I never pursued it.

I think its largely a matter of what we are use to. The first few cords of Beethoven's third were considered discords at the time, and quite an innovation. I listen to them and hear no such thing.

The Vietnamese (I live in Vietnam half the year) have a unique music form they call "opera" that is really hard for a Westerner to tolerate more than ten minutes at a time (much like Durrian -- repulsively sweet and with an obnoxious odor). It seems to have nothing to do with rhythm, and consists of tones that weave up and down almost randomly with tremulous outbursts every now and then.

I dunno, but as I learned the language (a little), and so came to be able to understand the demands of an isolating, tonal language, when you want to sing something, and as I perhaps got use to it, I have come to be able to tolerate it, even live amateur renditions that are not in tune (if the music form even has such a thing -- it has no definable scale that I can detect).

Minor chords have a specific construction.
Major chords have a specific construction.
Diminished, augmented, etc etc,
each has a specific construction "blueprint" or 'formula',
so to speak.

Why do different types of architecture make you "feel" differently?
Different color palates?

The construction of each type of chord would be priori.
The explinations for the ways in which they interact and relate,--
ie, the functional relationships, that make music work the way it works,
I think,
would be posteriori.
(unless it's priori, built on further priori, built on further priori?)

I would love it if someone could help me confirm or "trash' this idea.

Also, I am speaking specifically of the theory of traditional Western harmony.
this is my priori.

I suppose a 12 tone row would be it's own priori?

 

[Frank Merton]

I know that major keys are good in march music. Does that help?

Seriously, I doubt you would get much from a message board, unless by some remote chance a music theorist were lurking about.

In the end it comes down to what makes something beautiful and something else repellent. I don't know. We know that taste varies from person to person and even more extremely from culture to culture, but we also know that there are invariants that go from person to person all over the world.

If one wants to stick one's neck out, one might even go so far as to suggest that natural selection is inadequate to the task of explaining our sense of beauty. Now there is something to get everyone on this board huffing.

 

[blackout]

I know that major keys are good in march music. Does that help?

Seriously, I doubt you would get much from a message board, unless by some remote chance a music theorist were lurking about.

In the end it comes down to what makes something beautiful and something else repellent. I don't know. We know that taste varies from person to person and even more extremely from culture to culture, but we also know that there are invariants that go from person to person all over the world.

If one wants to stick one's neck out, one might even go so far as to suggest that natural selection is inadequate to the task of explaining our sense of beauty. Now there is something to get everyone on this board huffing.

I'm not asking about music theory.
I AM a "music theorist".

I am asking about the ideas of priori and posteriori.
I am trying to better understand scientific theory
by means of the only theory I do know in depth.
And that would be music.

I am not a scientist.
I am a musician.

If music theory is an explanation of music,
I want to know how (by it's very nature)
that is different
than an explanation of say, gravity.

The thread is about the meaning/s/nuances of "theory".
So I am trying to explore that.

but thanks anyway.

 

[Frank Merton]

I don't know that a scientific theory could be possible. You certainly have enough data (in the form of music that is widely appreciated that could be, and, no doubt, is, studied to try to find characteristics this music has in common and that less appreciated music lacks). Theory would seek to tell us what to make of anything of that sort that you find.

For example, most of us find major keys more pleasant than minor keys, which, in turn, seem more expressive of certain emotions (sadness, etc). A theory would offer reasons for why that is -- is it that we have come to expect it from the tradition (in other words, is it that we are use to hearing sad music in minor keys and so expect sadness when we subconsciously identify a minor key, or is it, perhaps, something in the way our brains are wired, or is it, perhaps, a Pythagorean cosmic thing -- getting away from normal scientific thinking here).

I am only speculating here in order to show the role of theory vis-a-vis the data. I would venture that it is virtually certain that such theories exist and have been tested, although, from the lack of definitive positions, it would appear apparently without definitive results.

 

[Iasion]

Is there some reason you need to yell?
It makes your posts hard to read.

Is there some reason you have to use bizarre childish colour?

It makes your posts hard to read.


Iasion

 

[blackout]

I am referring to music theory as it is most commonly understood,
and as it was brought up in this thread.

More as in the analysis and construction of Western music.

ie. the Dominant 7th chord pulls/resolves/"tends"/leads strongly to the Tonic chord.
(and as well to the vi chord- a deceptive cadence)
Any one diminished 7th chord can act as any one of 4 potential V7 chords,
(and IS actually 4 chords (potentially), depending on
which of the four notes a half step below, functions as the root in the bass)
because it is a composite of four tritones
(which can ACT as the major third and flat seventh of a dominant chord).
Which of the four potential dominants a fully diminished seventh chord 'actually' turns out to be,
depends on where the chord goes/resolves. (ie, its relationship to surrounding chords).
And still the fully diminished seventh chord can act in completely other capacities/functions.
(passing sixth chord/diminished/sixth chord/diminished for example)
The fact that a diminished seventh chord is constructed of 4 reoccuring minor thirds
stacked on top of each other, would be "priori".
That's just what a diminished seventh chord IS. By definition.
How/why it functions (as it does), is what you can observe about it. (posteriori)?

I was not speaking of theories/explanations of "why" a minor triad (1, b3 , and 5)
"feels" dark, or sad, or spooky, or depressing, or satisfying, or invigorating
to the human ear.
This is not what people generally mean when they speak of "music theory".

 

[blackout]

now color is childish and bizarre.

lol.

forget you.

 

[tumbleweed41]

S'ok UV. After 12,000 plus posts, I would be shocked and disappointing if you did not use your signature color.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, compromise is the essence of democracy.

I agree with Polyhedral that science is not a democracy, and the school curriculum should not be determined by the whim of popular sentiment. Basic biology cannot be taught in a classroom where religious myths are given serious consideration.

What you have now is that creationism is kept out of the books, and teachers generally avoid the issue entirely -- except for the minority who continue to teach creationism.

I don't agree. What we have now is a patchwork of different approaches and a visceral reaction against teaching the truth because it is inconvenient for a minority of parents. If there were a scientific controversy over evolution, then you might have a point. Not only is there no controversy, but the court system has upheld the legal position of those who would exclude creationism from the biology curriculum. You are capitulating in a battle that has already been fought and won.

In other words, the masses remain uninformed about evolution and about the evidence, except largely from what they get from the pulpit. I just can't see how your unwillingness to entertain compromise has achieved or will achieve anything.

40%, Frank. It is only 40% of the American public that appears to accept some form of biblical creationism, and the demographics are less depressing for young people than old people. The "masses" are divided, and that 40% should not be coddled into thinking that they have a point. Most other developed countries have much less of a problem than we do.

A little tale: There is a debate over whether or not it should be mentioned in American history textbooks that Thomas Jefferson had a slave mistress ...I come down in favor of teaching this information to students -- at least high-schoolers -- but accompanying it with full information about Jefferson's life, and the cultural and moral milieu of the day, so that the students can put it into some context. The matter should neither be skipped nor should it be taught in such a way that many will condemn him (although some still will, and I can't blame them).

Indeed. And that seems to be the way that it is handled in many high school classes. The controversy seems to be driven by squirmy parents who would like to censor the education of their children lest they arrive at beliefs that the squirmy parents do not hold. The same can be said about evolution. The truth needs to be fed to children straight.

The point here of my little morality tale is that teaching "Truth" is a complex business, and sometimes Truth misleads.

No, it does not. Sometimes people arrive at different conclusions when they learn the "Truth", and what seems to make you uncomfortable is that you fear they will reach different conclusions from the ones you have reached. Children need to be exposed to the truth so that they can think about what makes it complicated. What really misleads is being taught half-truths out of fear that they will not be able to handle the truth. It is really the adults who cannot handle the truth here.

"We must teach the Truth and not allow lies in the classroom" is the slogan of BOTH sides of the creationism in schools debate...

I understand what you are saying, but your wording is ill-chosen. There are no two "sides" to creationism. To teach creationism as a serious explanation of biological diversity is to teach a LIE. However, I will grant you one thing. The debate over creationism would itself make an excellent debate topic in a high school debate class. I could just see the teacher cowering behind a desk as the students debated each other. :faint:

I think that in a democracy both sides are entitled to a hearing, even in the schools, so long as it is presented in an objective way. I further think that this sort of situation would be vastly better than what has developed -- the situation we have now where in many schools evolution is avoided entirely, meaning that students tend to remain ignorant of the evidence, and therefore dependent on other sources (very often fundamentalist preachers) for the evidence.

Far from solving the problem, your recommendation is precisely the one that has led us to the current mess in our educational system. The curriculum needs to be developed and maintained by teaching professionals, not state legislatures. If parents send their children to public schools, then they have to put up with the possibility that their children will learn "dangerous" ideas. Those parents actually spend more time with their children than teachers do, so they have ample opportunity to do more damage than any school teacher can by telling their children the truth.

 

[Frank Merton]

I am referring to music theory as it is most commonly understood, and as it was brought up in this thread.

More as in the analysis and construction of Western music.

I was not speaking of theories/explanations of "why" a minor triad (1, b3 , and 5) "feels" dark, or sad, or spooky, or depressing, or satisfying, or invigorating to the human ear.
This is not what people generally mean when they speak of "music theory".

If I understand you correctly (and, from the examples you provide that I have omitted from the quote above, I think I do understand you), I would say that what you call "music theory" consists of empirically determined observations (i.e., a particular note of the scale followed by another note, etc., is seen to have certain effects -- especially one of "completion" or fulfillment. Kinda like when in a well-written poem or short story, we recognize the end without being told -- it "seems" completed.

Other empirical observations are the ones I mentioned, that certain keys have certain emotional effects, or that certain chords seem harmonious where others are discordant.

Put together enough of these observations and you might even make a rule book on how to write music (although probably not good music).

Observations that we observe empirically (we play them to people and write down what they think, and then find patterns in what different people think), is data, and when you find the pattern, it is a rule or a "law."

People being human, it is inevitable that the next question is asked -- why do these "laws" work? (I know that you tell me this is not what is meant by "music theory," but I am using the word as it is used in other sciences.) What is it about a certain arrangement of sounds that brings about a certain type of psychological feeling in hearers? Here is where you get "theory." My theory about this would probably be mainly that we like what we are use to and dislike what is novel, and I would support this by the fact that new music is rarely liked at first, and that there are therefore generational differences in taste.

With regard to why there are certain psychological effects, my "theory" is not as effective, but it could be said that perhaps we are use to hearing certain keys used for certain effects, and the relationship has been learned in childhood -- that the Western tradition says to use certain keys, so composers do, and we learn it subconsciously. (In actual fact, my opinion is that this doesn't really work, but I talk about it because I can't think of anything that might be better).

 

[Frank Merton]

I agree with Polyhedral that science is not a democracy, and the school curriculum should not be determined by the whim of popular sentiment. Basic biology cannot be taught in a classroom where religious myths are given serious consideration.

It is ironic: you complain that I say you are a dogmatist, yet your first sentence is classic dogmatism.

I think we are at the end of the line here: I think we haven't even tried my approach, you assert that it is my approach that is the problem; I think that we will never get evolution to really be taught without some compromise, you seem to be willing to accept the status-quo rather than see myth discussed in the schools.

No doubt you will want to have the last word, so please feel free to respond to this, but I think we have both made our points.

 

[blackout]

If I understand you correctly (and, from the examples you provide that I have omitted from the quote above, I think I do understand you), I would say that what you call "music theory" consists of empirically determined observations (i.e., a particular note of the scale followed by another note, etc., is seen to have certain effects -- especially one of "completion" or fulfillment. Kinda like when in a well-written poem or short story, we recognize the end without being told -- it "seems" completed.

Other empirical observations are the ones I mentioned, that certain keys have certain emotional effects, or that certain chords seem harmonious where others are discordant.

Put together enough of these observations and you might even make a rule book on how to write music (although probably not good music).

Observations that we observe empirically (we play them to people and write down what they think, and then find patterns in what different people think), is data, and when you find the pattern, it is a rule or a "law."

People being human, it is inevitable that the next question is asked -- why do these "laws" work? (I know that you tell me this is not what is meant by "music theory," but I am using the word as it is used in other sciences.) What is it about a certain arrangement of sounds that brings about a certain type of psychological feeling in hearers? Here is where you get "theory." My theory about this would probably be mainly that we like what we are use to and dislike what is novel, and I would support this by the fact that new music is rarely liked at first, and that there are therefore generational differences in taste.

With regard to why there are certain psychological effects, my "theory" is not as effective, but it could be said that perhaps we are use to hearing certain keys used for certain effects, and the relationship has been learned in childhood -- that the Western tradition says to use certain keys, so composers do, and we learn it subconsciously. (In actual fact, my opinion is that this doesn't really work, but I talk about it because I can't think of anything that might be better).

Ok, so you're saying that music theory
(as in analysis and construction of Western music)
is termed more as empirically observed data, than anything else.
I can see that actually.
I guess it's a bit like arithmetic.
2 + 2 = 4. The proof is in the observation of it.
Dominant resolves to Tonic. The proof is in the observation of it.
It just is.

Your hypothetical theory that we are 'just used to it',
is a speculative theory.
(and certainly one I would not intuit as correct)

Anyhow, this is actually where I could see traditional music theory as
(potentially) provably 'wrong'--
If people listened to what is termed as a cadence, for example,
and they heard no resolution,
or a leading tone... that was not heard/observed "to lead"...
the very "terms" themselves would lose their "correctness of meaning".
The "Laws" of harmony, would be discarded, by default.

The proof is in the observation.
Is that priori?

If I could succinctly understand why music theory
is not the same as scientific theory,
I could probably come to understand the latter
with better clarity.

How are observable tendencies of atomic/subatomic particles,
or the solar system different from the observable tendencies of music?
Is there "subatomic particle theory"?
When is the understanding of a system,
a true scientific explanation (scientific theory)
based on observation,
as opposed to a bunch of observations
that simply give cognitive reason to the way it works?
(ie, a Set of "Laws")
and yet... there are the "Laws" of gravity.
which... is? a true scientific theory?

Perhaps I am working to hard at this.

I feel as if something is on the tip of my mind....

 

[blackout]

Oh yes.... and what kind of explanation involving music
WOULD count as "scientific theory"?

 

[Frank Merton]

What you are doing seems scientific to me. I think perhaps we get too bogged down in the difference between "law" or "rule" (empirically observed pattern of nature) and "theory" (story we develop to "explain" the rule in human conceptual terms -- usually in the sense of "why" but also "how"). This distinction is important in my field, but most working scientists don't need to deal with it.

A deep theory of music appreciation probably will require much more knowledge about the working of the human brain than we now possess.

 

[blackout]

What you are doing seems scientific to me. I think perhaps we get too bogged down in the difference between "law" or "rule" (empirically observed pattern of nature) and "theory" (story we develop to "explain" the rule in human conceptual terms -- usually in the sense of "why" but also "how"). This distinction is important in my field, but most working scientists don't need to deal with it.

A deep theory of music appreciation probably will require much more knowledge about the working of the human brain than we now possess.

You're speaking more of "how humans react to (organized) sound".
or WHY they react to certain sounds as they do, I guess.
This is more biology than music, no? Well, at least a juncture of the two.

I don't know if anyone is getting anything from this beyond mySelf,
but thanks for the feedback.
I'm pushing my usual thought terrain here.

 

[Frank Merton]

This is more biology than music, no? Well, at least a juncture of the two.

I don't know if it will end up being biology or not; to me a theory of music appreciation will have to solve some very difficult philosophical problems before we can expect the neurologists to have anything meaningful to say. As it is, neurology can explain the perception of sound, but not its mental effect (known as its "qualia")

What is Qualia

 

[tumbleweed41]

Music Theory is more of a mathematical theory, or formal logic, than a scientific theory as used in the scientific method.
"Music Appreciation" is not Music Theory. And as Frank suggested, is much more philosophical than a biological theory at the moment.

 

[Copernicus]

It is ironic: you complain that I say you are a dogmatist, yet your first sentence is classic dogmatism.

You are taking any strong disagreement with your opinion as dogmatism. You do not perceive your own strongly-held opinion as dogmatism, because you perceive yourself as open-minded.

I think we are at the end of the line here: I think we haven't even tried my approach, you assert that it is my approach that is the problem; I think that we will never get evolution to really be taught without some compromise, you seem to be willing to accept the status-quo rather than see myth discussed in the schools.

Biology is taught today without "some kind of compromise" in biology classes all over the world, including even in the US. What you propose to do is impose a "compromise" on all of those classes within the US, even though it is not needed or wanted. It is also taught with your "compromise" in place and even with open hostility to the theory of evolution. There are areas of the country where religious fundamentalism is so ingrained in the population that their point of view prevails. The 40% of the population that accepts some strong form of biblical creationism is not evenly distributed across the country. What I favor is actually the legal status quo--that those classrooms in which creationism is mixed in with real biology are in violation of the US Constitution. That is what courts have ruled repeatedly. So what you advocate is not even legal in the US.

The main problem we have now is that a great many teachers who are not qualified to teach biology or science must play the role of biology teachers. The textbooks they work with are quite often of low quality in that regard precisely because textbook manufacturers fear the political power of states like Texas, which tends to promote your type of "compromise" in the classroom for purely political reasons. Your solution is "pragmatic" in your mind, because you have stereotyped all biology instruction as under attack by "dogmatists" who insist on teaching pure biology instead of some hybrid form that will appease the poor, downtrodden fundamentalist Christians. Apparently, you think that the education of all children suffers because we do not make compromises with a minority that fanatically clings to creationist ideas. In my mind, the solution is simply to insist that biology classes teach biology and school curricula follow the Constitutional mandate of not promoting religion.

No doubt you will want to have the last word, so please feel free to respond to this, but I think we have both made our points.

Gladly. I am confident that I have made mine.

 

[andys]

UltraViolet,
Hi. Sorry for not responding sooner, but I had abandoned this post.
You ask a good question:

I see no reason why music theory could not be falsifiable (in principle) through emperical [empirical] observation and testing.

Music theory encompasses a wide range of areas which, on one side of the spectrum, deals with the psychology of the human experience of music, (which I trust is empirically based and therefore subject to falsification); but on the other side, there is a well established systematic construct consisting of clearly defined concepts, symbols and rules that formally govern music.

It was this formally defined system that I had in mind when referring to the non falsifiability of music theory. I could have been more specific.

I trust you agree that this area of music theory is “true” by definition, (i.e., it an a priori “truth&#8221 which does not admit of empirical evidence for support or falsification.

Now if only I understood music theory, my lousy guitar playing might be tolerable to listen to.