Emotion vs theory?

I agree...theory comes as a way to describe music being made. Just like hypotheses of what gravity is came after gravity itself was discovered. Music theory merely attempts to describe music's properties

Tracker --

Formal theory is a set of rules and hypothesis about the apprehension of phenomenon in the field of music.

That apprehension happened the first time the phenomenon happened. At that point music theory existed. It wasn't formalized, but it was there. Just as gravity is there the first time there were bodies with mass.

So I make a distinction -- formal theory is the collection of formal statement surrounding music. But music theory as used by musicians is the understanding of how musical eliments combine to make the music express what they want to express.

Simply because it's not conceptualized as a formal set of rules doesn't mean it isn't what those formal sets of rules are trying to encapsulize.

Formal theory is a set of rules and hypothesis about the apprehension of phenomenon in the field of music.

Sorry but, to me, that is an oxymoron.

Tracker --

Formal theory is a set of rules and hypothesis about the apprehension of phenomenon in the field of music.

That apprehension happened the first time the phenomenon happened. At that point music theory existed. It wasn't formalized, but it was there. Just as gravity is there the first time there were bodies with mass.

So I make a distinction -- formal theory is the collection of formal statement surrounding music. But music theory as used by musicians is the understanding of how musical eliments combine to make the music express what they want to express.

Simply because it's not conceptualized as a formal set of rules doesn't mean it isn't what those formal sets of rules are trying to encapsulize.

Formal theory is a set of observations about the way music in the Western tradition is usually made. In that context, the name "music theory" is a bit of a misnomer. Instead of attempting to explain musical phenomena, it only attempts to describe them.

The latter, musical knowledge used by musicians, is, to me, a different beast. I hesitate to call it theory since that quickly leads to confusing it with formal theory. It's theory in the "theory of mind" sense. An understanding of what goes on in the realm of music. Naturally a person can't play without some level of this -- you have to have at least as much as your audience.

In my opinion, neither of those things are worthy to be called Music Theory. The former does not approach anywhere near the genarality a theory of music needs. A theory of music has to be comprehensive. The latter doesn't explain or even qualify music. It's "just" an understanding of how music can be made. Important, but not a theory of music.
And just because you don't understand theory, it doesn't mean that what you are doing isn't encompassed by it.
But neither does it mean that anything you might do is encompassed by it. If I were to play an interval consisting of a note, my root, and another note a fourth plus a quarter tone above it, how can I apply theory to it? My options are limited. I can't even really name the thing. A theory of music which really applied to anything I might do would recognize that 11:8 interval (the higher note has a frequency 1 3/8 times that of the lower) and suggest which intervals might follow it well.

The notion that a theory that doesn't cover everything is not worthy of being called music theory baffles me.

The entire field of physics fails to cover anything close to every phenomenon out there. Does that make the body of theory in physics unworthy of being called physics?

I'll have to disagree on the argument that music came first, theory later.......................They co-exist and always have.

From the moment of the first note, theory was there. It's just it didn't have much to draw on at that moment.

I like the gravity analogy. If you don't understand it would you suddenly float away? Nah....

Sorry, but I don't agree with you, there. Physics, chemistry and music are all manifestations of man's need to rationalise and explain. For centuries, if not millenia, thunder and lightning (along with just about every other unpleasant natural phenomenon) were attributed to the Gods being angry.

Gravity is a natural phenomenon that has always been there, long before man came into being. The science of Physics did not exist until man started to find reasons for things that happened around him.

Music was around long before man, found in bird-song, etc.. There was no music theory, as there was no human there to notice.

Speech was around a long time before anyone got the idea that they could invent a method to record it. Until the first writing came along, there was speech - but no spelling.
Until man learnt to write, stories (which were very often the history of the tribe) were passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth.

Music theory is the same - there was music, but no means to "spell" it. It was passed down, in the same way as stories. The means to record and "explain" came very much later.

Gravity is a natural phenomenon that has always been there, long before man came into being. The science of Physics did not exist until man started to find reasons for things that happened around him.

Music was around long before man, found in bird-song, etc.. There was no music theory, as there was no human there to notice.

Here's an interesting question.

Is birdsong music?

I'd say no. Music to me is an artform. For something to be music it requires intentionality. Without intending the music, it's just sounds. Some sounds certainly possess a musical quality, but that alone doesn't make them music.

So while gravity existed prior to there being people to experience it. Music didn't.

Bird - song

Singing is making vocal music.

it's called bird song because it's analogous to human's singing.

But it's really just bird vocalization and it is devoid of intentionality to be musical.

So i'll ask my question again -- is it music? I don't think it is, again, because it lacks intentionality. It may be apprehended as musical, but that doesn't make it music.

My dog can wag his tail next to my guitar rack and play a tune . . but it's not music however much better than me he might sound . ..

"...musical theory is not a set of directions for composing music. It is rather the collected and systemized deductions gathered by observing the practice of composers over a long time, and it attempts to set forth what is or has been their common practice. It tells not how music will be written in the future, but how music has been written in the past."

Walter Piston

So based on what Walter says I'll stick to my guns. As long as someone was there to observe music, learn from it and make future choices based on past events, whether or not they understood the mechanics, music theory existed.

When Og dropped the second hollow stump next to the first and got a different pitch, and when he discovered that banging them together pleased Thag no end, that was music theory in action. (It was also the beginning of the argument over which wood had better sustain, but that is a different story)

When Og decided to go find a third stump, that was music theory in action too.

At that point however, Og's wife told him he had too many damn stumps and to grow up and go get a real job. Music theory was put on hold for several millenia.

I'll agree with this: The study of "Music Theory" does not actually produce a recognizable tune.

I also find myself agreeing with "Music Theory" is a misnomer and does the thing a disservice.

I can see this course offered at the local community college:

Observations of common practice in Western music over time 101

That fits better I think.

After writing a long email I went back and reread Greybeard's last long post and I absolutely agree with his argument.

Music/organized noise whatever you want to call it had to come before theory.

Its a action/reaction thing. The music was the action and the reaction was music theory trying to quantify and explain it. If there was never any action (music) then there would never be a need for a reaction (music theory).

Do you think before the first sound was made someone said I think I'll play a I-VI-V progression that'll sound good. No there was no need for rules because music wasn't around.

Anyway this post started about emotional vs theortical players and to that I say one man's steak is another man's poison. It doesn't matter the musician plays with feeling or not, knows theory or not, if the music they make does something to you, you'll like it. It's all about personal taste and there's no way to quantify that.

"...musical theory is not a set of directions for composing music. It is rather the collected and systemized deductions gathered by observing the practice of composers over a long time, and it attempts to set forth what is or has been their common practice. It tells not how music will be written in the future, but how music has been written in the past."

Walter Piston

So based on what Walter says I'll stick to my guns. As long as someone was there to observe music, learn from it and make future choices based on past events, whether or not they understood the mechanics, music theory existed.

When Og dropped the second hollow stump next to the first and got a different pitch, and when he discovered that banging them together pleased Thag no end, that was music theory in action. (It was also the beginning of the argument over which wood had better sustain, but that is a different story)

When Og decided to go find a third stump, that was music theory in action too.

At that point however, Og's wife told him he had too many darn stumps and to grow up and go get a real job. Music theory was put on hold for several millenia.

I'll agree with this: The study of "Music Theory" does not actually produce a recognizable tune.

I also find myself agreeing with "Music Theory" is a misnomer and does the thing a disservice.

I can see this course offered at the local community college:

Observations of common practice in Western music over time 101

That fits better I think.

Absolutement!

And the only semantic justification for calling it theory happens to be that one definition for theory is "a system of rules" -- no causality implied. Of course, it might be that this particular definition was developed through use -- some git insisted on calling it music theory in order to make the course sound grander, and so eventually the definition was expanded.

Yeah, I think anyone thinking that knowing theory will make them COMPLETELY understand music or become aware of how to make the perfect song has alot to learn. Anyways, i think the sense of mystery that comes with music is what makes it so interesting... I think if I understood music and if it came easy to me, i'd forget about playing guitar and take on another challenge like learning psychology or chemestry.

I actually think that music theory IS a good title for it: I see music theory as "general rules for music". That being said, any form of art, be it music, acting, sculpting, whatever, must make an effort to break these rules. As these rules are broken, someone will come along to analyse it and create a new rule set on these broken rules: so I may not be an expert but I think music theory is ever growing.

Anyways, that's my opinion. It seems like this post is beginning to turn into a philosophy discussion more than anything else :lol:

i agree with wes, david gilmore plays with more emotion and feeling
than just about anybody i have ever heard, his solos really nail me in the heart.

just because i like to throw random things out. the guitarist for the moony suzuki once said...(well something along these lines anyways)

"i got more out of a 3 note Son House solo than an 800 note Frank Zappa run"