term - ~music theory~

[imapnotchr]

why is music theory called ~theory~?  How did it get that term?  I think of ~theory~ as an idea that cannot be proven.  Music doesn't fit that definition, especially the study of the construction of chords, etc. 

[leucippus]

why is music theory called ~theory~?  How did it get that term?  I think of ~theory~ as an idea that cannot be proven.  Music doesn't fit that definition, especially the study of the construction of chords, etc. 

I think your definition is a personal perception.  My dictionary has the word theory defined as:

Theory - Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

Moreover, they still refer to Einstein's Relativity as a "theory", yet it has been proven over and over again about as much as anything can be proven.

So I don't think they reserve the word "theory" for things that cannot be proven.  I think you're confusing the word "theory" with the word "conjecture".   Although, a conjecture could possibly be proven.  But if is is proven then it isn't considered to be a "conjecture" anymore.  Then it becomes a "theorem" which has been proven.

Actually they should call Einstein's relativity a "theorem" instead of a "theory" since it has in fact been proven.

[squir_rel]

Music theory is dealing with music theoretically: understanding, analysing etc. You're not practically producing a sound or anything.

[timothy42b]

why is music theory called ~theory~?  How did it get that term?  I think of ~theory~ as an idea that cannot be proven.  Music doesn't fit that definition, especially the study of the construction of chords, etc. 

A theory is a systematic and well established explanation of the observed data.  It is far stronger than a hypothesis;  it is what you get after your research has thoroughly supported your hypothesis.

A theory is NOT a guess or conjecture.  Though it is often used this way, usually by dishonest people who know better, the word has nothing to do with the level of proof. 

[leucippus]

why is music theory called ~theory~?  How did it get that term?  I think of ~theory~ as an idea that cannot be proven.  Music doesn't fit that definition, especially the study of the construction of chords, etc. 

I'm just curious.  What do you think it should be called?  ~Music Study~ ? 

Actually that's not bad, that would be  ~ Musicology ~  but that could be confused with studying music in general, where ~ Music Theory ~ is more concerned with just the technical aspect of how music is constructed from elementary concepts.

It's hardly a perfect system.  In truth, anything goes.  The bottom line of music theory is just to try to make some sense of it for the purpose of reading, analyzing and composing music.

It's probably better to think of music theory as a "rule of thumb" type of thing rather than as a concrete guide that must be followed.  After all, music is ultimately an art, not a science.

I mean, you can hardly "prove" music theory.  There's nothing to prove.

[prometheus]

why is music theory called ~theory~?  How did it get that term?  I think of ~theory~ as an idea that cannot be proven.

This idea is just nonsense. 'Theory' never means something that cannot be proven, or rather cannot be supported by evidence&observation. Ever.

[timothy42b]

This idea is just nonsense. 'Theory' never means something that cannot be proven, or rather cannot be supported by evidence&observation. Ever.

Like the theory of gravity.  Right. 

[leucippus]

Like the theory of gravity.  Right. 

I think the whole idea of "proof" is also contextual.

Laymen tend to think of the word "proof" as meaning that you need to prove something to them personally.  Almost like a philosophical proof.  You need to "convince" them unequivocally that something is true.

In science that kind of proof would be laughed at.  There is no need for scientist to prove anything to philosophers or laymen.  When scientists talk about proofs they are talking about them within the context of the "theory".  And the theory is a well-structured logical formalism based on initial premises.

The problem with laymen and philosophers is that they refuse to believe the fundamental premises.  Well, that's all fine and dandy.  But the point of that is that if they don't accept the premises then they are basically rejecting the theory in the first place because a good theory always begins with premises.

For example, one of the premises of Einstein's theory of relativity is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  That's a premise.  It's not provable.  At best scientists can only say that they have never observed anything that can travel faster than the speed of light.  However, once you accept that premise then the rest of the theory holds solid based on that premise.

So when a person talked about proofs there are basically two kinds of proofs.  Scientific proofs, and philosophical "proofs".  Personally I don't believe that it's possible to prove anything philosophically so the word doesn't even really apply to that type of thinking at all.

More to the point, "music theory" isn't a rigorous logical mathematical science.  It's more like the study of English.  There are probably more exceptions than rules.

What could you "prove" about music theory???

Going from the rules outward you might be able to think you've proved something.  In other words, if you start with a scale and ask someone to give you all the triads for that scale you could prove whether what they gave you did or didn't satisfy the rules.

However, going from a composition back to music theory you'd be hard pressed to prove anything at all.  Ultimately anything goes in music and the composer may not have even been thinking about music theory when he or she wrote the piece.  In other words, the composer could have easily broken some of the "rules" of music theory.   That leads back to the fact that there are more exceptions in music theory than rules.

On the other hand, if you can find an instance of something traveling faster than the speed of light then you could denounce the theory of relativity because you would have demonstrated that at least one of its premises is false.

So when it comes time to "prove or disprove" a theory of gravity, this can indeed be done from a scientific point of view.  But from a philosophical point of view you can't prove or disprove anything.  So when you talk about proving something you really need to specify the context in which you are attempting to prove or disprove it.  If the word "premises" isn't involved then you may as well chuck the word "proof" too because without premises to support or deny you can't prove or disprove anything.  All you are really trying to do is to "convince" someone of something, which isn't at all the same as proving something within the context of a logical formalism.

Like I say, Music Theory isn't really a logical formalism. its more like the study of a language.  It just helps to offer some insight into to possible structures but doesn't dictate what is or isn't ultimately possible.

Gravity, on the other hand, says that if there is a massive object near you, you WILL feel the effect of the warped spacetime.  That's an unequivocal prediction.   It's either true or it isn't.

The bottom line is that the word "theory" has a differnet meaning in "Music Theory" than it does in a "Scientific Theory".  These are two entirely different beasts.

[prometheus]

Proof only exists in math and logic.

In law and science there is only evidence.

The word 'theory' never implies something lacks evidence. That would be called a hypothesis.

The difference between a theory and a law is the nature of the model of reality. A law is something that exists at a lower level, it is simple and straightforward. A theory works on a higher level.

Yes, originally the idea that nothing could exeed light speed was a premise and Einstein only had a hypothesis. I don't know how exactly Einstein came to his ideas. But, at this point in time there is a lot of evidence to support the model of reality Einstein proposed. If a model of reality is falsifiable and has not be refuted then this is good indication the theory is useful.

If light speed could be exeeded this would have all kinds of concequences that a new model of reality needs to work out. It just turned out to be that one cannot propose a theory that does make sense that does propose the speed of light can be exeeded and that does not get refuted.

It is all very comples. Just take Einsteins equations. If you try to put in a speed that exeeds light speed the formula will give you gibberish. So the equations need to be adjusted. Etc etc.

[keyofc]

So then are you saying that all theories have been proven?

[keyofc]

In one of my music theory books, the author said
music theory is an intellectual dance.
I think that's true enough.

All of our sheet music is just pretend music - what we think music looks like

[Bob]

I was told music theory is just ideas about music, not necessarily music reality.

Rules you can follow if you want to follow the ideas.  There may be other ideas out there that haven't been discovered yet.

[mad_max2024]

Maybe you can call it "musical study of things we don't actually need an instrument to learn since they are not practical"

Sheesh
 

[prometheus]

So then are you saying that all theories have been proven?

They can't be proven. They can only be refuted. This is why only theories that can be falsified are useful. Otherwise you can't know if they have any value or not. Again, there is no proof in science. There is only evidence that can make something probable.

But this is in science. Music theory isn't a science.

Maybe it only means the theoretical part of music rather than the practical.

I just had to respond and talk about the scientific aspect of the word 'theory' because imapnotchr seems to have been a victim of the 'evolution is a theory, not a fact'-thingy.

[netzow]

So then are you saying that all theories have been proven?

A Theory is a hypothosis that has some evidence to back it up. In other words it hasn't been around long enough to be a fact but has some evidence going for it. When it has stood up over a period of years it is a fact. Therefore All Theories have not been proven. When they become a fact they have been proven

P.S Hypothisis by my definition is an educated guess.

[jlh]

Music theory is but an explanation of music in non-musical terms.  It is called theory because it is always searching for a better way to explain music.  It asks the questions "why?" and "so what?" for any given work.  It is not in itself music.  Music notation is also not music.  Music is ONLY aurally appreciated (or in rare cases seen)  and music theory as well as notation are but explanations of what is heard, described in a manner that would be widely understood.

It is also a descriptive term.  If you termed what we call "music theory" as "music study", then it would not be a concise descriptive term since there are MANY different disciplines that could use that same term.