Theory & Impro Do we really need theory?

[Tenor Viol]

Indeed.
That word has evolved - in English - and wrapped itself in connotations so that it's use in non-sciences doesn't work or sets up expectations that are (no longer?) fulfilled. So people go "pha! Theory! That doesn't work in music!" - and quite right; not because music "theory" is no good but the meaning of theory has shifted

I'd'v thought Music Analysis would work, but, go on, what might be a better word?

Indeed, there is a huge difference between a scientific theory, which has a formal definition and precise meaning. A scientific theory, e.g. evolution or the 'Big Bang' (not a good descriptor, but it's stuck...), is the best current understanding of how something 'works'. It is tested by evidence and by verifying predictions that the theory makes.

That does mean that if evidence does not support the theory, or a prediction does not happen, then the theory needs further work. The theory wasn't wrong, but better data means it needs refinement. For example, Newton's laws of motion and theory of gravity works extremely well in any ordinary everyday experience. You can do things like work out where the planets are in the sky... but better measurements showed that there was a problem predicting Mercury's position in the sky and Newton wasn't cutting it. Along comes Einstein and Relativity and the intense gravitational field close to the sun introduces differences which Newton could not predict but Einstein could (and did).

The general public's use of the word 'theory' is no more rigorous than 'I have an idea', which is not the same thing as a scientific theory.

In music, 'theory' is short-hand for all the technical aspects of describing music and how it works, including notation and musical analysis.

 

[mizmar]

Perhaps the time taken to writing such drivel might be put to better use by reading a few chapters on what is commonly called "music theory"

As I said in the above, the problem with books I have read, called "music theory" is they don't problamatize just what that is. They go "this kind of stuff is what everyone calls theory, so I will to".
So? People often go "who needs music theory, just use your ears" and such.
And People who do think music theory is useful go "who needs to understand what music theory actually is, use your eyes"... It's a bit lame.

Rather than debate the theory of music,

The thread title is Do We Need Music Theory?
I've been curious about music theory for a good while; where it comes from, how it developed... How it's used. The book I put a page of above even asks about how other cultures theories music.. and use those theories. But to do that you must problematize "what is theory" and Indeed, "what is music". Its fascinating, not drivel.... Though, not everyone's cup of tea.

 

[Pete Thomas]

In music, 'theory' is short-hand for all the technical aspects of describing music and how it works, including notation and musical analysis.

I would say that it describes how "music works"(or attempts to) but that notation is not part of that description, it's just a tool that is used to communicate.

 

[Pete Effamy]

As I said in the above, the problem with books I have read, called "music theory" is they don't problamatize just what that is. They go "this kind of stuff is what everyone calls theory, so I will to".
So? People often go "who needs music theory, just use your ears" and such.
And People who do think music theory is useful go "who needs to understand what music theory actually is, use your eyes"... It's a bit lame.


The thread title is Do We Need Music Theory?
I've been curious about music theory for a good while; where it comes from, how it developed... How it's used. The book I put a page of above even asks about how other cultures theories music.. and use those theories. But to do that you must problematize "what is theory" and Indeed, "what is music". Its fascinating, not drivel.... Though, not everyone's cup of tea.

I don’t understand this word “problemetize” when used in reference to music theory.
Music theory “came from” a want for “best practices “ - as I think someone else might have said. History of music, is tied up in history itself, alongside art, fashion, dance, wealth (or not), patronage (and breaking free), political oppression and control of the arts and general social slants.

The history of music might be a better pursuit than the history of music theory.

 

[Pete Thomas]

The history of music might be a better pursuit than the history of music theory.

Or maybe the theory of the history of music theory.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Or maybe the theory of the history of music theory.

But where are the practicalities in that ? 🤫

 

[mizmar]

Or maybe the theory of the history of music theory.

Indeed.
The technical term for "theory of history..." Is historiography. I can't even pronounce it!
Same issue. We all know what history is. Absolutely. And yet if you "problemetize" History writing/construction, things start shifting quite quickly... History being, as they say, written by the victors about the good and the great and ignoring the poor etc. "History" as seen in books or TV is not just the facts of what happened!

The history of "music theory" includes gentleman scholars willy-waving, teachers developing better pedagogical techniques, professions making sure churches or films are filled with acceptable sounds... All sorts.

 

[ghostler]

I think for example, the theory behind swing era jazz, where contrary to normal thinking, the up beat in a syncopated rythm is emphasised instead of the longer down beat. An awareness to this helps one to better enjoy swing.

Also, for example, in Glenn Miller's In the Mood during the solos, the tenor sax "echo" to the alto sax used octave intervals, high then a low "bomp". We don't see this IMO much used in modern jazz, but to understand the styles of the earlier artists helps us to better appreciate and mimic that era.

So, even if one is not participating in a class, is doing their own "theorising" to help better perform the part they are playing.

The history of "music theory" includes gentleman scholars willy-waving

I usually refrain from that (if you know what I mean) 😉

 

[thomsax]

In the beginning ...... without practice (praxis) no theory.

You don't need theory to learn or play the saxophone. I play (roughly) the sax and songs in the same way as I did when I was 16 as I do today when I'm 70. My ears are "better" today. I've also learned by my mistakes.

Theory is cutting time. You get sooner out to play. I just learn the theory that needs to solve a problem. And I've solved many problems over the years ..... .

 

[Pete Effamy]

The history of "music theory" includes gentleman scholars willy-waving, teachers developing better pedagogical techniques, professions making sure churches or films are filled with acceptable sounds... All sorts.

Not surprisingly. Likewise, it’s better that Newton, Einstein and the like published their findings rather than people like me. I have no findings.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I have no findings.

Maybe you once had them, but have now lost your findings?

(Actually that might not be as facetious as it sounds)

 

[Pete Effamy]

Maybe you once had them, but have now lost your findings?

(Actually that might not be as facetious as it sounds)

forgotten maybe, never lost.

 

[Colin the Bear]

It's always easier to find out how something works if you have a manual. If you know how it works you can fix it when it goes wrong.

 

[Targa]

It's always easier to find out how something works if you have a manual. If you know how it works you can fix it when it goes wrong.

I recommend:

 

[Dr G]

There you have it. Let’s see if that is as enduring as “Music Theory”.

‘Tis amusing to me that one conversation can talk about how popular use creates relevance for newly accepted uses of words, while another decries an application that has been in universal vernacular for centuries.

How long has the term “music theory” been applied as a concept?

 

[Dr G]

P.S., FWIW, and OBTW: As a scientist, I remain ever amused by people talking about science as if they know something about it.

 

[Pete Thomas]

It's always easier to find out how something works if you have a manual

My version of that is it's always easier to find out how something works if you ask someone else how it works.

P.S., FWIW, and OBTW: As a scientist, I remain ever amused by people talking about science as if they know something about it.

I'd have thought most scientists have got used to that and just accept it.

 

[cappers]

P.S., FWIW, and OBTW: As a scientist, I remain ever amused by people talking about science as if they know something about it.

An old Monty Python sketch:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs

 

[cappers]

P.S., FWIW, and OBTW: As a scientist, I remain ever amused by people talking about science as if they know something about it.

................. I'd have thought most scientists have got used to that and just accept it.

I'm also a scientist (retired) and I think the most common laypersons' opinion of scientists is that we can't make up our minds They don't understand that what might be considered 'true' today may not be so in the future when new data becomes available.

In science a theory is simply a systematic and rational form of abstract thinking about a phenomenon backed up by empirical and testable knowledge. But theories are not set in stone; if repeatably testable and robust data are found that contradicts a theory it has to be abandoned or at least modified. It is an ongoing iterative process.

Apologies to @Pete Effamy for further discussion ("drivel") about the meaning of theory.
FWIW to me 'music theory' is the collection and classification of acquired musical knowledge and practice for current and future musicians' and music students' benefit.

I suppose some with a good ear could learn to play well by 'hunting and pecking' for several years without any knowledge of chords, chord progressions, consonance and dissonance or the mechanics of breath control, embouchure etc but it certainly has helped me.

 

[mizmar]

I'm also a scientist (retired)

Me also. As well as touching on engineering, social sciences and humanities here and there professionally and recreationally. And I'm pretty sure practitioners of any discipline (I'm not referring to you or anyone in particular) are not guaranteed to be good at reflecting on the underlying principles of the subject. Some; just no guarantee. Indeed often they're so invested in the own success and self image at work that they're actually bad at critical reflection.
Indeed the critical reflection rabbit hole can be counter productive. For example If you look at the Early Music Sources database; "Theory" is absent until the late 1700s when it appears in English. But "Theori" is used much earlier in Italian or Latin. Which raises issues of translation, source preservation etc. it's a can or worms.

Sure it's beat to use some common consensus baseline of meaning. That's what dictionaries provide. But it's worth keeping an eye in the rearview mirror and not take everything for granted....
... That's what, in part, good science is about. Shame that raising those perspectives has caused upset.