Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Do away with dogmatism
- Thread starter Chris K
- Start date
Since music theory is giving names to sounds that already exist then it has already been proven as fact. I think the OP is hung up on the semantics of the name "Music Theory". There is nothing theoretical about the analysis and categorization of sounds that already exist. It is concrete.
Perhaps calling Chris an idiot is wrong, and let apologize publicly to him for saying that. It makes no sense for me to edit the previous post since it has been quoted multiple times here. But, let me go on the record as saying that this thread smells strongly of a troll...
Perhaps calling Chris an idiot is wrong, and let apologize publicly to him for saying that. It makes no sense for me to edit the previous post since it has been quoted multiple times here. But, let me go on the record as saying that this thread smells strongly of a troll...
nevermind. i don't think there's a western civilization thread to continue this conversation in.
- Dec 18, 2000
- 13,201
- 340
- Disclosures
- greenboy designs: fEARful, bassic, dually, crazy88 etc
Anyway, I've found the sure fire way to end dogmatic approaches to any style of music. Simply play a lot of notes that nine out of ten of both schooled and unschooled audience members will agree "don't fit". Make sure through inebriation or "altered conciousness" that these notes are rather random and thus, driven by inspiration.
Works every time!
Of course, eventually a new dogma will be born of it, and a sub-genre will be formed.
Works every time!
Of course, eventually a new dogma will be born of it, and a sub-genre will be formed.
I am going to take a chance here and recommend a book that I think is relevant to this thread. (I got blasted once before on TB for recommending this book! Yes, there are a few mistakes, but he addresses them on the website.)
http://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Music-Obsession/dp/0525949690 or
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Actually, I listened to the audio book, which was great. In the book, the author "describes the components of music, such as timbre, rhythm, pitch, and harmony and ties them to neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, cognitive psychology, and evolution." (wikipedia) He talks about what is happening in your brain when you listen and play music. He also gives multiple theories about the evolution of music.
http://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Music-Obsession/dp/0525949690 or
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Actually, I listened to the audio book, which was great. In the book, the author "describes the components of music, such as timbre, rhythm, pitch, and harmony and ties them to neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, cognitive psychology, and evolution." (wikipedia) He talks about what is happening in your brain when you listen and play music. He also gives multiple theories about the evolution of music.
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
- Dec 18, 2000
- 13,201
- 340
- Disclosures
- greenboy designs: fEARful, bassic, dually, crazy88 etc
Sounds very interesting. I'll have to give it a spin. No big deal to get blasted by the dogmatic doctrinaires.
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,408
- 9,865
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
There is more than one definiting of the word theory, and your use above is incorrect.
dictionary said:the⋅o⋅ry
Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries. 1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.6.contemplation or speculation.7.guess or conjecture.
OK. Your right. There are multiple definitions for the word "theory". I will stand by my statement that the sentence "Music theory is fact" is illogical.
- Dec 18, 2000
- 13,201
- 340
- Disclosures
- greenboy designs: fEARful, bassic, dually, crazy88 etc
I think we can all agree that Dogma is not man's best friend.
Ben Affleck, Dogma:
Invalid Link Removed
Skill portion from above image:
Ben Affleck, Dogma:
Invalid Link Removed
Skill portion from above image:
The confusion on 'theory' is my fault, Í'm afraid. IMHO in the term 'music theory' theory means 'body of knowledge', not 'hypothesis'.
Music theory can be called fact in the historical sense of the word fact. Modes, for instance, are historical fact. They exist as a logical system that was developed in the past.
But music theory isn't fact in the way fact exists in the natural sciences. And even there we have some very metaphysical discussions going on.
The moon is there, but wether we like or hate the moon is defined by cultural factors. With the Pythagorean intervals it's pretty much the same thing.
However trivial the difference between historical and physical fact may seem, it's important, because some people on this forum tend to present their views on music theory as not-to-be-discussed fact. And presenting theory as fact we call dogma.
Music theory can be called fact in the historical sense of the word fact. Modes, for instance, are historical fact. They exist as a logical system that was developed in the past.
But music theory isn't fact in the way fact exists in the natural sciences. And even there we have some very metaphysical discussions going on.
The moon is there, but wether we like or hate the moon is defined by cultural factors. With the Pythagorean intervals it's pretty much the same thing.
However trivial the difference between historical and physical fact may seem, it's important, because some people on this forum tend to present their views on music theory as not-to-be-discussed fact. And presenting theory as fact we call dogma.
But as in this context, theory means "body of knowledge" or as in the dictionary definition : principles or methods - then it is equivalant to "fact(s)".
And so to present them as such, is not dogma - but rather, is good advice - as opposed to misinformation!!
Just a quick reply as I believe that I do not possess the necessary knowledge fundamental to debate the issue.
As I understood it, you are against addressing certain variables to changes as if they are the best(and sometimes only) possible scenarios. Especially because setting "matches"(as in A goes with B) would go against the essence of creativity even though the choice is proven to work? Is that correct?
It must be. I believe it would be very hard to interpret it differently. Though I could be wrong(one has to keep that possibility in mind!
.) If so, then why would anyone argue against that?
That is what confused me.
Maybe I am not thinking enough about the issue in its practical sense. But again, going against such recommendations in an improvisational context is not what is being discussed... right?
As I understood it, you are against addressing certain variables to changes as if they are the best(and sometimes only) possible scenarios. Especially because setting "matches"(as in A goes with B) would go against the essence of creativity even though the choice is proven to work? Is that correct?
It must be. I believe it would be very hard to interpret it differently. Though I could be wrong(one has to keep that possibility in mind!
.) If so, then why would anyone argue against that?That is what confused me.
Maybe I am not thinking enough about the issue in its practical sense. But again, going against such recommendations in an improvisational context is not what is being discussed... right?
Surely an apology is more appropriate from any person providing misinformation, which would hold inexperienced players back...?
See, Chris' whole premise is based on the idea that if you start right in with theory, then you can't think for yourself and you've imposed limitations on yourself that you wouldn't have had if you just fumbled around for a few years and then learned theory. What he doesn't get is that for everything you can do musically, there is a theory lesson to explain it. So these folks who think they're doing something original when they come up with a sound you never heard before? Well maybe you never heard it THAT WAY before, but trust me...there's a theory lesson to cover it.But as in this context, theory means "body of knowledge" or as in the dictionary definition : principles or methods - then it is equivalant to "fact(s)".
And so to present them as such, is not dogma - but rather, is good advice - as opposed to misinformation!!
BTW, the number of people who actually accomplish that is miniscule, with or without theory.
