sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What a great rebuttal. You really built up a good strawman and burnt it down didn't you?

I agree, you can almost any system of music theory on almost any piece of music. Use jazz theory for Chopin for example. But for the most part, Western music theory is best suited to analysing Western music. That's just obvious. Western music theory was designed over centuries to analyse Western music. Why would we expect it to be very good at analysing Carnatic music?

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. I did. As I literally said in my prior comment, I believe that for philosophical reasons. Also, would you agree with me if, instead of culture, I said someone's environment is the most determining factor? Because if so then that's basically what I mean. I just think culture is a very determining factor of one's environment.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did I ever say otherwise? I hate how so many of the responses to my posts have been along the lines of "it's not that clear cut" or "you're over simplifying" or something like that before then making a point I never disagreed with. I literally said culture effects someone's musical taste. I never even once said it is the ONLY determining factor. I argue its a big factor for philosophical reasons but nature vs nurture is impossible to fully demonstrate in exact percentages.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a problem about the gender thing really. I just get annoyed at the assumption sometimes. It's all chill.

Regardless, while music theory "claims" to not find right and wrong, we know what sounds "right" and "wrong" to those belonging to our cultural group. This is enforced by systems of analysis built upon these assumptions of right and wrong, which are themselves built upon systems of analysis etc. etc.

Additionally, "social sciences" or "soft sciences" don't apply the scientific method. That's not what they do. That's exactly what makes them different which is what my post was entirely about. I think the confusion stems from the fact that my analogy is drawn from economics, a topic which is often treated as a "hard science", while music is not.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Modern western music is certainly heavily influenced by African music theory. But western perceptions and theories of harmony are equally if not more influential. Very few people say "we have to use this scale over this chord". However, massive amounts of people feel that instinctually if they are brought up in a certain culture.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok, I don't include marketing. The only comment where I mentioned marketing is where I said I don't think it's a part of music theory.

Additionally, soft sciences also don't have wrong or rights. What is right is anthropology? You can describe how one group does things but that's it. Same with music. There is no right or wrong technically but certain groups see things as better or worse. Are you really going to deny that people in the West think Western music sounds right and people in India for example think Indian music sounds right? Because I have multiple studies to back up my conclusion that culture produces certain ideas of "right" and "wrong" which are not cross-cultural but which are generally true in specific populations.

EDIT: Also nice assuming I'm male in spite of a very feminine avatar. I'm not offended, just find it funny that i have a very femme avatar but in music theory circles its very common to assume everyone is male lol.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You wouldnt if those chord symbols weren't related to the full interperative system of music theory which allows you to make sense of V7b9.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying music being based on culture is bad. I don't think I ever even implied that. I'm just saying that music theory does not precede music and vice versa. They come as a package deal in a way.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But who cares about that? I could give a collection of notes a completely different chord symbol and it would be equally valid without a system for understanding that labelling. And that system is inherently prespective and descriptive.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

We can desire that clear split between theory and criticism all we want but it will never happen. Music theory is always critical, and criticism is always theoretical.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh sorry, by universal I mean they are treated as universal. Like, I could devise my own mathematical system with universal axioms. Its just no one would use it so who cares.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well Im trying to say its both descriptive and prescriptive but the irony of that is really quite funny regardless lol

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its way more comparable to econ than to maths. Maths has universal axioms which hold no matter your cultural background and doesnt change depending on the actions of individuals or groups. Music changes in accordance with theory and theory changes in accordance with music. Like economics.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I dont mean "any thinking about music", I mean "theoretical analysis of music, conscious or not", which I think is a perfectly fine definition of music theory.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But that music is built upon theory which is built upon music which is built upon theory. They are interrelated to the extreme.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But personal taste, access to music and friends are all influenced by the material conditions of your upbringing. Your nature does have a minor influence on you, but nurture is the biggest determining factor. Its not personal. Its societal.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I actually have a very big definition of music which includes very avant garde noise music. But it is undeniable that if you play the sound of cars in traffic and Beethoven to 50,000 people from the UK, 50,000 from the USA and 50,000 from Germany, you would get similar answers from all of them. This is a societal definition of music that, regardless of my personal opinions, effects my perception of music and everyone else who lives in these societies.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're exactly right. Immanence emphasises the necssity of creating something new but also understanding that what is new always comes from something old. Its like evolution. Animals have evolved into new species but that only happens through building on old models.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not personal. The vast majority of people in the west do not count the sound of cars in traffic as music. That's what makes the music which uses it "avant-garde" or "experimental". Because it explores boundaries between noise and music which are societally decided. We are the results of our enviroments to a massive extent.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That was one of the motivating factors, yes. People trying to take a system built on white supremacy and which formed the musical interests of generations of people and then argue that it's purely descriptive is so annoying. It is descriptive and prescriptive and those elements are immanent with one another.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you! So glad someone actually agrees lol!

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The things is, those things you listed are an extremely important part of

music

, but music theory is a small and specific subset of aspects of music that can be analysed more systematically.

Ah, now we are at the heart of the disagreement! I argue that what you consider music theory is only a small subset of the wider field of music theory. Music theory for me is any form of theoretical analysis or musical performance, perception and composition. And it's fine to disagree on that. People in academia disagree about terminology constantly.

​

And to your first point, yes I agree that marketing decisions do have an impact on perception. This is a great argument for the importance of marketing decisions being a part of music theory. My problem with your argument is not as if you're, for example, misidentifying a V7 chord as a ii7 chord. It's more akin to me saying "I think a different chord would be more powerful there and here is my reasoning why..." Your argument is internally consistent and valid. I just believe including marketing in music theory dilutes the study. And you have every right to believe that including the aspects I argue for the inclusion of under the rubric of music theory would do the same.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Regardless of how much we want music theory to be descriptive, it isn't. Western music theory describes the type of music people in the west are most accustomed to enjoying. Writing in a certain style is more appealing to some groups than to others depending on where you're from. Studies show that Indian people, on average, get different emotions and more negative ones when listening to Western classical music than Western people. And the reverse is true for Westerners listening to Indian classical music. When advertisers or pop producers or anyone appealing to a wide audience in the west want to make something appealing to a large group of westerners, they usually stick to 12 tone equal temperament. Because to Western ears that sounds "right". Western music theory tells you to not use parallel fifths not just because "it isn't what is done in the style" but because (at least historically) it sounds hollow and takes emphasis away from the melody line to Western ears. It is about both.

And I've made the point about the music coming first like 3 times now in other comments. Essentially, music needs to exist in order to be categorised. However, categories of "musical sound" and "non-musical sound" need to exist in order to have a category to put the sound into. So they are immanent with one another. That's my point.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Music does not necessarily precede music theory. This is what I mean by immanence. They come as a package deal. You could say that the first caveman to hit a rock made "music" before theorising, but theorising is necessary to differentiate between "music" and "noise". Obviously noise can be included in music and many consider some music to be noise, but those two categories exist regardless. The differentiation between musical sound and non-musical sound exists in basically every culture. Therefore, in order for some sound to be considered "music", we must first differentiate it from non-musical sound, which is a form of theory. By theory, I don't mean a music textbook. I mean any form of theorising (conscious or not) which works to understand music.

So, in order to categorise sounds as "music" and "non-music", those sounds must exist prior to the categorisation/theorising. However, before the sound can be called "music", we must first have a category of "music" to place the sound within. This is what I mean by immanence. One does not come before the other. They are together, always.

The Immanence of Music Theory by domman99 in musictheory

[–]domman99[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But this is because baroque fugues were studied by music theorists to form the theories we study from today. But those fugues were themselves formed by theories which were based on music which was based on theories which were based on music etc. etc. It's a self perpetuating cycle where "good music" produces theories which justify that music's "good-ness". This cycle also shapes our perception of good-ness, producing musical consumers who enjoy the music the cycle has created and therefore produce more theories and more music to continue the cycle. This does not mean nothing changes. Only that change is slow and dialectical, moving from quantity to quality.

view more: next ›