Prog and (how much) Music Theory?

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Certif1ed wrote:

So what you're saying is that understanding the theory - and the finer points of it - is important?

No, that's not what I said (although incidentally I do agree with it); rather I merely intended to point out that you don't really mean to use "quantum mechanics" as an analogue.

Quantum Mechanics is a kind of framework, so my choice of terms is accurate enough for the purpose.

Yes, it is a framework, but you haven't specified how this selection is "accurate enough for the purpose."  All you've done is given a vague assertion that " If you took quantuum mechanics as the branch of physics you were considering, then you'd see this."  I simply have no idea what meaning you intend this statement to have.

Understanding and applying theory is essential to progressing music, otherwise you're simply aping. 

Why?  Defend this point rather than declare it.  What reason do we have to believe it?

I'm sorry you're not sure what I meant - I know that music can be really complex and demanding. Hopefully the links I've just hinted at should give more than a clue to a quantum physics student! 

See my above remark.  (By the way, I'm not a student of physics.)

You said earlier that the rules of music aren't hard; "To be frank, music theory is not a particularly demanding field: it is basically like studying a very regular grammar." - now you're asking me what they are? 
There's nothing inconsistent in this.  I've made the uncontroversial claim that music theory is descriptive rather than prescriptive--this is not a concession that the theory contains any rules.  You've claimed otherwise, and so now I'm asking "Well, what are those rules?"
I said that the rules of music are complex - why would you think that it's not difficult to explain them?
Do you mean to say that music theory itself is complex?  Or rather that the rules of music theory are complex?  Or still perhaps that the relations between these rules are complex?  In the first possibility, a complex theory may be generated from comparatively simple rules (e.g., axiomatic set theory generating mathematics).  For the third case, we observe that despite relational complexity the rules themselves may be (or may not be) straightforward.  The second case (which might be what you mean, but even so it would require some substantive support) allows for the possibility that the rules may be articulated easily yet their content is complex (again we can look to definitions of mathematical objects as ready examples). 
In any case, there is a distinction between the concept that "the rules of music are complex" and that "it is difficult to explain them."  Hopefully, my above discussion illustrates that distinction.  Moreover, this is also distasteful from a pedagogical perspective in that the inability to articulate knowledge implies lack of thorough understanding of that knowledge.

I don't know all the rules of music so can't tell you all of them - that was one of the points I was making. 

Then, perhaps, you shouldn't make claims that you can't support.

You seemed to suggest that you do, therefore isn't it you that should be listing the rules to me, not the other way around?

Again, see my above discussion.

You've taken my point about one piece of music entirely out of context - do I detect some sour grapes at work?

Not sure what you mean here.

I only stated key signatures, because that was what you said - now it seems you're disagreeing with yourself!

Not really.  I don't debate, as I think it misses the point to take one side of an argument and stick with it no matter what arises in the process.  In any case, I wrote "keys, time signatures, etc."--more or less a randomly chosen list of examples.

Personally, I do not believe that Bach composed purely for excercises in complexity - he loved to improvise.

Sure.  But improvisation, by definition, is not the same as composition, and composition is after all what
we are discussing at present.

There are most certainly compositions which appear to be "mere" excercises in complexity in other periods - why would you say that it's not common? Aren't the compositions of Mozart, Debussy, Wagner, Liszt, Schoenberg or Birtwhistle complex? What about Palestrina, Tallis or even Leonin?

Not saying that you can't find such pieces in other periods, but merely that complexity for its own sake was pursued mainly during the Baroque era.  This is uncontroversial.

I choose most of my words carefully, and from your statements and questions in this thread, it becomes ever clearer. 

Not carefully enough as it turns out as at least one person (me, in particular) disagrees that your point is "clear."  Use of words like "clear" or "obvious" should be used sparingly if at all.  Too often their use is intended to conceal the ignorance of the author, and even if not it's just bad writing--see Orwell's famous essay on the English language.

You seem to dismiss music and the arts as "light" subjects...

I don't think that the arts have much intellectual content, but by that I don't intend to denigrate those fields at all; on the contrary, I greatly value their emotional content, something lacking in the most intellectually substantive fields (like mathematics, for example), and through my participation in the arts I obtain fulfillment that elsewhere I can't find.

...yet show little knowledge
of them whilst appearing to suggest that you can understand all
music just by listening to a tiny portion of the canon. 

In the context of music there is little to understand.  Do you know anything about the concept of universal grammar?  I think that an accurate analogue can be constructed between music theory and universal grammar.  In any case, since this is a metamusical discussion, appeals to musical knowledge are largely irrelevant.

If that were true, why are you not a mega-platinum-selling megastar?

Not sure if this question is worth comment.

Clearly, if you haven't studied something you can't possibly have a grasp of it.

Yes, I do concede that it is "clear" in so far that the statement is trivially true.
If you hadn't studied the theory of grammar, you would not have been able to elucidate your thoughts.
Sure I could.  Illiterate people can speak, correct?  Anyhow, the point is that grammar also is a descriptive rather than prescriptive theory (a point often missed by grammarians).

If you had studied the theory of music, your thoughts would be different.

It reeks of arrogance for you to think that because I disagree with your views I must have lesser breadth of knowledge.  In fact, it may be otherwise.

Personally, I don't feel "mired" by theory at all - quite the opposite - presumably you have evidence to support your hard assertion, which I feel is quite ridiculous and at odds with reality.

I admit that my statement was essentially rhetorical.

It's hard to see any truth in the statement; "wannabe artists" (clearly you have something in mind by adding the quotes - aren't we all wannabes until we're recognised?  Are you actually a megastar in disguise so you exclude yourself from the category of wannabe, or are you just not artistically inclined?) 

What I had in mind was quoting your words.  There's no subtext here.

have mired themselves with "theory" (again, you use quotes, as if theory is somehow a debatable concept when applied to music). 

On the other hand, there is subtext here.  Whereas all theories are basically descriptive models, the "theory" of music cannot be construed, in even the most liberal treatment, as a scientific theory (neglecting, of course, physical models of sound, which are entirely irrelevant to what is generally subsumed under music theory):  for music theory is purely descriptive.  So, I suppose that the term "theory" is justified in this circumstance, I prefer to keep some distance from it as I don't feel that it's entirely accurate or at least exemplary of the technical use of the word theory.