The Mystery of Theory

[lau]

I was having a nice debate about this with my brother about what exactly theory is.

I think that one human of average intelligence could live in isolation his whole life with only a piano and would come to the same findings of theory as it is now. He could know what an octave is, but probably wouldn't call it an octave...perhaps a lottyshmallist. I thought theory wasn't something that was created, but it was discovered.

My brother thinks that theory is theory. Saying that it isn't proved, and that one in isolation wouldn't come to the same findings as everyone else. He also said that since it is a theory....and there are multiple theories for music. Is this true??

this is bothering me.

[allthumbs]

Well, I agree with you. Everything in the universe including music is based on the laws of Mathematics and consequently Physics for that matter.

What is ...is and always has been. It's a matter of humankind discovering that fact.

[scottmcc]

this is like that argument about monkeys typing shakespeare:  if you leave enough monkeys in a room with enough typewriters to bang on, for a sufficiently long time, would they eventually type out the complete works of shakespeare? (maybe not in a row)

isn't most theory based on the works of bach?  in which case...if someone were to create music theory without looking at his works, I think it would be significantly different.  really, the music came first, then the theory, as a way of explaining the patterns within the music.  so...if one were to create theory de novo, without music, the rules would necessarily be different.

by the way, regarding math:  to study the world, you need biology.  but the best biologists are really biochemists.  and the best biochemists are really physical chemists, and the best p-chemists are really physicists, and the best physicists are really just mathemeticians. 

oh yeah, the egg came first.  it definitely wasn't the chicken.  and schroedinger's cat is definitely dead.

[zheer]

  to study the world, you need biology. 

 Not exactly, biology is a latin word, " bio " means study , " logy " means life, so biology is the study of life not the world. 

 

[dana_minmin]

Not exactly, biology is a latin word, " bio " means study , " logy " means life, so biology is the study of life not the world. 

 

well.. "bio" means life and "logy" means logic. Trust me, I'm a biochemist.

[zheer]

well.. "bio" means life and "logy" means logic. Trust me, I'm a biochemist.

  Apology not latin but Greek, " bios " meaning life " logy " meaning study =
Life study ( the study of life ) not the study of logic. If your a biochemist you should know what is tought in a  biology class . 

[allthumbs]

this is like that argument about monkeys typing shakespeare:  if you leave enough monkeys in a room with enough typewriters to bang on, for a sufficiently long time, would they eventually type out the complete works of shakespeare? (maybe not in a row)

Not really, you are talking about creativity, not theory. The two are completely different, but not mutually exclusive.

isn't most theory based on the works of bach?  in which case...if someone were to create music theory without looking at his works, I think it would be significantly different.  really, the music came first, then the theory, as a way of explaining the patterns within the music.  so...if one were to create theory de novo, without music, the rules would necessarily be different.

I would disagree here, it's the other way around. That would be like saying that the apple that hit Newton on the head had to come first in order for gravity to exist.

In some way, it did help though that the apple came first with regard to Newton, because of the obvious fact that it gave him the impetus to discover the concept of gravity. He really didn't discover gravity, it was there all the time.

by the way, regarding math:  to study the world, you need biology.  but the best biologists are really biochemists.  and the best biochemists are really physical chemists, and the best p-chemists are really physicists, and the best physicists are really just mathemeticians.

 

Mathematics, as I stated previous is the basis of everything in the Universe.

oh yeah, the egg came first.  it definitely wasn't the chicken.  and schroedinger's cat is definitely dead.

Sorry, it was the chicken, but that's another argument.

Who was Schroedinger anyway?

[lau]

He really didn't discover gravity, it was there all the time.

I am confused, so does that mean that you cannot discover something that has existed before?

So I was right then? So I am curious to why this subject is called "theory". When there is a theory isn't there more than one theory? Is this actually a theory?

[Bob]

I'm not sure if one person could figure everything out, but a different place, a different time, different group of people... I think they would identify the same things.  I remember hearing in a music history class about polytonal things in Asia or Russia around the year 1,000.  Something like that.  They were discovering how to combine tones and then the West discovered the same thing a few hundred years later.  And there's Schoenberg on the inevitability of atonality. 

It makes me think no one owns the terroritory.  Someone just discovers it first.  But if they didn't, eventually someone else would come along and figure it out.

[lau]

I just  mean't that he would come to the same findings, he wouldn't have to discover everything.

[scottmcc]

schroedinger's cat:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

am I the only one who was forced into learning quantum mechanics at one point?  (luckily almost all forgotten by now)

and seriously, if the cat has been in that box since the 1930s, it is definitely dead by now.  there's no alive/dead cat, it's all dead.

my point, which I guess was woefully missed, was that thought experiments of the type you were engaging in originally, are relatively silly, and with skillful application of logic you can make any claim you feel like.  that was actually a lot of schroedinger's point--how can a cat be simultaneously alive and dead like the equation demands it be?

regarding music theory, I shall reference you to the opening sentences of my theory textbook:  "In music, as in many other fields, theory follows practice.  The conventions that we call music theory have been derived, over a long period of time, from the analysis of the works and practices of the master composers."


so again...it was the music first, and the theory second to explain the patterns in the music.  would someone in isolation develop their own series of patterns? yes.  but they wouldn'tbe the same patterns necessarily.

if you get bored sometime, and need a new thought experiment, take a look at this:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art

[zheer]

  Music theory came about when theorists began to question musical compositions to try and understand music better, its that simple.

[richard black]

Yup, I agree with Zheer's comment, pretty much. Music happened first, theory came along afterwards because (as with everything else) someone found it interesting to analyse. But some of theory's discoveries are more scientifically obvious than others, for instance tonality. That all comes down to the relation with natural harmonics. What's interesting about tonality is the degree to which we like it stretched or broken.

[term]

Theory is the reduction of what is by means of representation in systems and concepts that give insight into relations between things. It deals only with imaginary things. Is that definition good enough?
So that being in isolation will probably identify distance between keys and sounds and the differences in distance (visually as well as auditory), which is where we have our idea of intervals from.

Saying that it isn't proved, and that one in isolation wouldn't come to the same findings as everyone else. He also said that since it is a theory....and there are multiple theories for music. Is this true??

As he may know, 'key' is an idea. It's just a bunch of atoms, and atoms are an idea, too, so ideas speak about ideas ad infinitum without actual proof. It depends entirely on both intelligence and nature of something how it reduces things to one certain identity.
So 'multiple theories for music' (what's that, anyway) is a bit out of the blue but is correct within certain limits. Chances are that simple things like octaves will be known to that individual and certain complex theory it will never understand while it may find out other things we don't understand. Complex and simple are relative to the nature of the creature/the individual.