Theory & Impro Do we really need theory?

[mizmar]

'Theory' is probably not the best word

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?

 

[Ghr9204]

I have a theory, perhaps it should not be called "music theory" but "music fundamentals" or "music basics"? 😉

 

[mizmar]

So, I have some music theory books and, of course, they don't problematize "Theory". But I have a book called "Music Theory in Ethnomusicology" which pretty well has to! But "copy" is disabled... So here's a screenshot of that.

 

[Pete Effamy]

But, someone prove me wrong, I've not seen anything that give the Right Answer universally.

That’s because you haven’t defined the answer that you want. If you want to write and sound like Glenn Miller, there’s a set way of treating your harmony for melody notes falling on the beat, and for passing notes. There’s also a fairly set way to voice the chords and you put the clarinet at the head of the pack.
But there is no one way to create music that sounds like Mozart, Miller or Stravinsky all in one, any more that a scientific experiment can produce thousands of answers.

 

[mizmar]

That’s because you haven’t defined the answer that you want. If you want to write and sound like Glenn Miller, there’s a set way of treating your harmony for melody notes falling on the beat, and for passing notes. There’s also a fairly set way to voice the chords and you put the clarinet at the head of the pack.
But there is no one way to create music that sounds like Mozart, Miller or Stravinsky all in one, any more that a scientific experiment can produce thousands of answers.

Well, yes. Those are what I'd think of as heuristics. That's fine. And those can come from; experience, custom and practice, analyses etc... with some generalisation, that's in "music theory" and the theories of many disciples. All good... But way different to how "theories" work in the mathematical/physical sciences... which set the standards for modern use of the word "Theory".

 

[Dr G]

I guess I haven't seen all the music theory out there but, from what I have seen - here's the thing compared to Theory in, say, a physical science.
I've never seen any music theory that comes up with an answer.
Sure, it has - what the physical science call - heuristics. Rules of thumb relative to one or another style that encapsulate custom and practice. Some quite strict in its context, even...
... But nothing like an equation that, when solved for a given model, produces The Answer.

Sure, those heuristics get derived from whats going on. And modified through time. And some can be learned deeply enough to use extemporaneously.
But, someone prove me wrong, I've not seen anything that give the Right Answer universally.

So?

 

[Dr G]

Well, yes. Those are what I'd think of as heuristics. That's fine. And those can come from; experience, custom and practice, analyses etc... with some generalisation, that's in "music theory" and the theories of many disciples. All good... But way different to how "theories" work in the mathematical/physical sciences... which set the standards for modern use of the word "Theory".

Oh no! Now tell us that other words such as “bright” and “dark” are already assigned to other disciplines and are not appropriate in the context of music.

Please suggest a more correct term to replace “Music Theory”.

 

[LostCircuits]

I guess I haven't seen all the music theory out there but, from what I have seen - here's the thing compared to Theory in, say, a physical science.
I've never seen any music theory that comes up with an answer.
Sure, it has - what the physical science call - heuristics. Rules of thumb relative to one or another style that encapsulate custom and practice. Some quite strict in its context, even...
... But nothing like an equation that, when solved for a given model, produces The Answer.

Sure, those heuristics get derived from whats going on. And modified through time. And some can be learned deeply enough to use extemporaneously.
But, someone prove me wrong, I've not seen anything that give the Right Answer universally.

Interesting idea. But wat is music other than a physical science? You have waves (physics), you have frequencies (physics), you have clock multipliers and dividers in harmonics (physics) and so on. You have frequency hopping used by Hedi Lamarr and George Antheil as a method for encryption (ok, that's actually hiding the answers).

Music theory has been applied to all kinds of other sciences even if it was not explicitly acknowledged. Or to disallowing army parades to walk in lockstep across some bridges.

 

[mizmar]

But wat is music other than a physical science?

That's a whole other can of worms.
Sure, well all just quarks and leptons... But that doesn't explain Mozart or Bob Dylan.

For the purposes of this thread I'm going with "no"

 

[Ghr9204]

Music theory has been applied to all kinds of other sciences even if it was not explicitly acknowledged. Or to disallowing army parades to walk in lockstep across some bridges.

Here is a dictionary definition of theory:

Definition of THEORY

a scientifically acceptable or plausible general principle or body of principles based on data and offered to explain phenomena; a hypothetical structure explaining or relating to an observed set of facts… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Here, M-W gives a definition for music theory:

4 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

| music theory​

IMO, when one becomes aware of the nuances (structures, chords, phrase-ology, timing, sequences, etc.) used by a particular artist, arranger or composer, that makes their music unique and enjoyable, helps one to duplicate or enhance their style.

There is more than general physics, because music is an abstract expression, like a "feeling".

One can use world events to create music. Some years back outdoors near the door front of Wal-greens Drugstore, during Winter bell ringing for the Salvation Army, someone's car alarm went off with horns blaring with a steady on-off-on beat. I think the upper note of the top horn is A (440), lower horn is F. It was at the same tempo as "Jingle Bells", so I started playing that on my bari sax until the owner turned off the alarm or it timed out/reset.

That garnered a couple laughs from nearby listeners and broke up the sometimes monotony when playing at night with lesser crowds. 😉

 

[Targa]

Well, yes. Those are what I'd think of as heuristics. That's fine. And those can come from; experience, custom and practice, analyses etc... with some generalisation, that's in "music theory" and the theories of many disciples. All good... But way different to how "theories" work in the mathematical/physical sciences... which set the standards for modern use of the word "Theory".

I have a vague feeling this thread is wandering into the Glass Bead Game.

 

[cappers]

If I may add input as a relative beginner, I am finding the theory side more and more valuable as I progress.

I think if one wants to noodle alone or to friends and family, or play in a band without soloing (unless from a prepared notation) and can either play by ear and or read music, then theory is not so important.

On the other hand if one wants to make their own music i.e. improvise, rather than just play other peoples' music or a written or memorised solo, I think understanding some theory becomes more necessary.

Initially I didn't really care about concepts such as 3rd & 5ths & 7ths, the cycle of fifths/fourths etc. Then I learnt why some intervals sound pleasing and others don't; why certain notes and chords can sound nice or not; why knowing triads, arpeggios and scales is so key. The information and exercises in Vol 2 Beginners Impro have been so useful (Thank you @Pete Thomas).

I don't know any in-depth theory, just snippets as I go along but I am finding that somehow my hearing and understanding of what I am hearing has improved. It is possible that could have happened with enough practice and experience without knowing theory but I feel that it has helped me.

 

[LostCircuits]

I have a vague feeling this thread is wandering into the Glass Bead Game.

Making music together is the best way for two people to become friends.

 

[PiccoloPirate]

Yogi!!!

Interviewer: What is syncopation?

Yogi: That's when the note that you should hear now happens either before or after you hear it. In Jazz, you don't hear notes when they happen because that would be some other type of music. Other types of music can be Jazz, but only if they're the same as something different from those other kinds.

*********

Interviewer: Are there any great Jazz players alive today?

Yogi: No. All the great Jazz players alive today are dead. Except for the ones that are still alive. But so many of them are dead, that the ones that are still alive are dying to be like the ones that are dead.

 

[atwl77]

Dictionary definitions of the word "theory" aside, over here we generally use "theory" as something like studying from the textbook, as opposed to "practical" which is where you put the textbook aside and actually do something with your hands.

For example, my kids' school science classes (physics, biology, chemistry) are categorized as theory or practical classes. In the theory class, the teacher teaches from the textbook. In the practical class, the students all go to the lab to do actual experiments.

This is not just confined to science, but even art. My son's art class would have a theory session where they learn from the textbook, which includes stuff like history, color science, perspective, etc, and then a practical session where they put the textbook aside and start drawing/painting/crafting.

So I see music "theory" in the same way -- something you learn from the books, as opposed to actually playing an instrument.

Other examples of the broader use of the term that I have heard, is like in the job market, employers are more after people with practical experience rather than those high-scoring graduates who only learnt "theory" in college/university but have little or no "practical".

 

[Pete Thomas]

Making music together is the best way for two people to become friends.

Well yes, in theory it is 😉

 

[Pete Effamy]

I have a vague feeling this thread is wandering into the Glass Bead Game.

I think it wandered into a forest without any breadcrumbs. Pointless. Rather than debate the theory of music, it has gone further and is now debating why the theory of music uses the term "theory". 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", although, whilst inevitably learning more about music theory, I suspect that the answer to why it is such labelled might be further out there in the vast expanse.

 

[Pete Thomas]

it has gone further and is now debating why the theory of music uses the term "theory".

It’s all fine IMO, as long as, theoretically, it stays on topic.

 

[Dr G]

Oh no! Now tell us that other words such as “bright” and “dark” are already assigned to other disciplines and are not appropriate in the context of music.

Please suggest a more correct term to replace “Music Theory”.

@mizmar We are all still waiting to hear your answer.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Please suggest a more correct term to replace “Music Theory”.

Analysis could be a better word. Which brings us nicely back to the OP:

All great "art" whether it is music, visual art, dance, or poetry can be experienced and as human beings we can be moved by those experiences. However to fully understand that art it needs to be broken down into its elements and undergo some type of analysis.