BOOM(!!) ... let there be Music Theory.

[m1469]

Do you think that Music Theory is basically dealing with or defining "cause and effect" in music?  

[yale_music]

Not really, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

[birba]

No you wouldn't.

[yale_music]

Haha okay

[m1469]

Your loss!

[ted]

If it does then it is not very good at it. I have made several attempts to understand it over the years, but it seems to me to make a lot of very arbitrary assertions, nearly always concerning harmony and chords for some odd reason, which have absolutely no connection with the sort of sounds I enjoy. Cause and effect, if they exist at all in art, are personal options and not universal. It would certainly be possible to create theories which have as their object the replication of known styles. In our age, this would be best accomplished by computer algorithms such as those of David Cope. But even those would surely be heuristic and particular and not universal or general.

It would also be possible to create theories applicable only to one's own music, but even then, anything more definite than vague guidelines would flush the creative baby out with the intellectual bathwater. Music is constantly evolving, both externally and personally, and therefore cause and effect, if present, must evolve too.

[yale_music]

If it does then it is not very good at it. I have made several attempts to understand it over the years, but it seems to me to make a lot of very arbitrary assertions, nearly always concerning harmony and chords for some odd reason, which have absolutely no connection with the sort of sounds I enjoy. Cause and effect, if they exist at all in art, are personal options and not universal. It would certainly be possible to create theories which have as their object the replication of known styles. In our age, this would be best accomplished by computer algorithms such as those of David Cope. But even those would surely be heuristic and particular and not universal or general.

It would also be possible to create theories applicable only to one's own music, but even then, anything more definite than vague guidelines would flush the creative baby out with the intellectual bathwater. Music is constantly evolving, both externally and personally, and therefore cause and effect, if present, must evolve too.

Very well said, Ted. Thanks for that.

My short answer to m1469 is as follows:

The debate depends wholly on your definition of theory.

If theory is simply "a single person's description of causal relationships," then your question becomes tautological (i.e., of course all theory is cause and effect, because that is how we have defined it).

If, however, your definition of theory deems it intersubjective (i.e., a commonly agreed upon set of principles), then it is possible only for the individual act of analysis to be causal. In other words, the theoretical principles are just there—they just *are*. It is only when an individual analyst puts them to work that they become agents and patients.

To paraphrase Ted, music doesn't act in any universal way; it acts differently on different listeners (theorists included), because each listener brings his or her own set of experiences to the listening process.

[m1469]

If it does then it is not very good at it. I have made several attempts to understand it over the years, but it seems to me to make a lot of very arbitrary assertions, nearly always concerning harmony and chords for some odd reason, which have absolutely no connection with the sort of sounds I enjoy. Cause and effect, if they exist at all in art, are personal options and not universal. It would certainly be possible to create theories which have as their object the replication of known styles. In our age, this would be best accomplished by computer algorithms such as those of David Cope. But even those would surely be heuristic and particular and not universal or general.

It would also be possible to create theories applicable only to one's own music, but even then, anything more definite than vague guidelines would flush the creative baby out with the intellectual bathwater. Music is constantly evolving, both externally and personally, and therefore cause and effect, if present, must evolve too.

Ted, even before Schooly McSchoolerson Schooled me in my Schooly thread about School-related Theory, I wanted to ask you how you define what theory is.  So, what does theory mean for you?

[Bob]

Theory explains what's there and gives a framework to work off/break away from.

[chopin2015]

Theory is a philosophy about musical possibilities, explaining boundaries that are known so that we can imagine what the unknown is like and discover it as something we experience in every day life.

My friend and I talked about music and he said anything that someone gives in to is just a means for expressing the unobtainable/unknown

the only thing that is certain is that nothing is for certain.

[ted]

To me, strictly personally ? I do store a number of guidelines for creating my own music, the music I like to hear. For instance, for several years now, I have found the notion of cellular transition (my own term) to be astonishingly productive in the matter of dynamic improvisational form. In other words, using this internal guideline tends to produce sounds of the kind I like to hear. If it ceases to do so I shall not use it.

An important point is that my personal theory (call it that for the sake of argument) is constructive and dynamic, not descriptive and static. That is to say, its principal effect lies in producing music, not in describing music which already exists. I think this distinction is very important. We may construct all manner of descriptive theory about the appearance of a flower, but such detail, however complete and accomplished, does not lead us to understand how a flower evolves from its biological instruction.

To take a more direct example from the forum, Derek recently posted videos about mental methods he employs to improvise the sound known as "baroque". These are essentially personal constructive theories, dynamic guidelines. Their results sound good to him, and probably to others, therefore he nurtures them. They are dynamically useful to him. They have little in common with the huge body of static descriptive theory which no doubt exists for baroque music.

It isn't that one is "better" than other, I'm not iconoclastic about centuries of scholarship, but it does depend on what you want to do. As a boy, I bought Tovey's analysis of Beethoven and actually read most of it. It is an admirable work of tremendous scholarship, but it is a strictly descriptive and static theory. If I actually wanted to imitate Beethoven (I don't !) I would immerse myself in his sounds and form constructive, flexible, dynamic guidelines of the sort Derek is using for his baroque.

Those are two meanings of "theory" for me.  

[chopin2015]

To me, strictly personally ? I do store a number of guidelines for creating my own music, the music I like to hear. For instance, for several years now, I have found the notion of cellular transition (my own term) to be astonishingly productive in the matter of dynamic improvisational form. In other words, using this internal guideline tends to produce sounds of the kind I like to hear. If it ceases to do so I shall not use it.

An important point is that my personal theory (call it that for the sake of argument) is constructive and dynamic, not descriptive and static. That is to say, its principal effect lies in producing music, not in describing music which already exists. I think this distinction is very important. We may construct all manner of descriptive theory about the appearance of a flower, but such detail, however complete and accomplished, does not lead us to understand how a flower evolves from its biological instruction.

To take a more direct example from the forum, Derek recently posted videos about mental methods he employs to improvise the sound known as "baroque". These are essentially personal constructive theories, dynamic guidelines. Their results sound good to him, and probably to others, therefore he nurtures them. They are dynamically useful to him. They have little in common with the huge body of static descriptive theory which no doubt exists for baroque music.

It isn't that one is "better" than other, I'm not iconoclastic about centuries of scholarship, but it does depend on what you want to do. As a boy, I bought Tovey's analysis of Beethoven and actually read most of it. It is an admirable work of tremendous scholarship, but it is a strictly descriptive and static theory. If I actually wanted to imitate Beethoven (I don't !) I would immerse myself in his sounds and form constructive, flexible, dynamic guidelines of the sort Derek is using for his baroque.

Those are two meanings of "theory" for me.  

I almost feel like the sound people like and use(in short) cannot be completely associated just to music theory. There are moments in time which cannot be repeated the same, exactly, ever. Because of that, theory is like a binary code for creating music. Yes, it can create basic and complex songs but it's not as analog as a person and an instrument. A simulation is different than what they call "real time" in audio. A certain creativity can interpret the numbers of theory and share the interpretation consiously! I think ideas change as you experience them first, subconsiously, then you try to make them sound and the more attempts you make, you loose quality or improve it(if you're pro)
 this is way beyond me in terms of improv theory. Theory can ge used in many ways. Where one might find limits and cannot visualize the music without reading countless books, another will read one sentence or word and fill in the gaps with the power of the brain functioning in time. The results are always different, though and cannot be repeated exactly or the chances are extremely low for that happening.

Theory helps create a sense of permanence by giving us rules that relate to...you know...music and sound. Otherwise, it might as well be useless except many educated people find it a requirement to reach proficiency in. Like math classes and english. A smart person will find interacting with theory-enabling. Next, a smart person finds it too general or obsolete! As if theory should be engraved into our minds!

That's my rant for the day! *lights imaginary cigar*

Lol

[yale_music]

As a boy, I bought Tovey's analysis of Beethoven and actually read most of it. It is an admirable work of tremendous scholarship, but it is a strictly descriptive and static theory. If I actually wanted to imitate Beethoven (I don't !) I would immerse myself in his sounds and form constructive, flexible, dynamic guidelines of the sort Derek is using for his baroque.

I'm surprised you find Tovey's work to be "strictly descriptive and static". Next to Schenker, he's probably the most "musical" theorist of the late-19th/early-20th century. Take, for example, the opening of the book you cited:

"The first condition for a correct analysis of any piece of music is that the composition must be regarded as a process in time. There is no such thing as a simultaneous musical coup d'oeil; not even though Mozart is believed to have said he imagined his music in that way."

After two sentences, he's already way ahead of most. And he incorporates this philosophy into his observations and digressions, which, in my opinion, are far from being strictly descriptive and static.

---

And Maya, I'm sorry that I preempted your question for Ted with my...schooling? I didn't know it was considered poor form to be educated.

Y'all enjoy yer highfalutin philosomophizin' now...

[ted]

I'm surprised you find Tovey's work to be "strictly descriptive and static". Next to Schenker, he's probably the most "musical" theorist of the late-19th/early-20th century. Take, for example, the opening of the book you cited:

"The first condition for a correct analysis of any piece of music is that the composition must be regarded as a process in time. There is no such thing as a simultaneous musical coup d'oeil; not even though Mozart is believed to have said he imagined his music in that way."

After two sentences, he's already way ahead of most. And he incorporates this philosophy into his observations and digressions, which, in my opinion, are far from being strictly descriptive and static.

That's right, the best one is to the effect that form is not a jelly-mould into which musical matter is shovelled. I certainly agree with that, but probably in a much more liberal interpretation than he would have intended. Funnily enough, when I took private lessons from a prominent local composer he asserted the precise opposite; that everything was best done using a sort of paint by numbers approach; so many bars of this, so many of the other. He has a tremendous academic knowledge of music and amazing natural ability. However, after the course had finished, I still liked my "wrong" music much better than his "right" corrections of it.

See what I mean ? That is the sort of personal problem I have with theory. I can understand the "what" in the form of musical data, the notes which are there, what harmony is present, how it is structured and so on; surely anybody can do that, it's obvious. What I cannot grasp is the "why". I have never experienced a desire to follow a certain chord with another particular one, or a feeling that phrases and motifs are better developed, grouped into twos, "answered", repeated and so on. Deepest of all, the rhythms which move me most strongly are pretty well intractable in terms of notation, and analysis does seem to be about notated music. No, hang on a minute, the jazz brigade are even worse, with their interminable analytical discourses, as if all music were nothing but a series of complicated chord blocks.

The lack, if lack it is, certainly lies with me, and I suppose I ought to be wary on forums about expressing opinions which may hinder serious students. Nonetheless it might provoke justification of theory's existence as a creative tool, which would be interesting for me. So I'll hang around, albeit perhaps appearing the forum's William McGonagall of piano music, which I probably am come to think of it.  
 

[yale_music]

Ted, I think we come at theory from two different angles. You seem to look at it as a compositional tool, of sorts, whereas I would never be so bold as to make that claim. For me, theory is a way of understanding music that has already been written. We can probably blame Schenker for his notion that there is something "natural" about the way music works. Even the terms he uses betray this belief—Urlinie, <b>Ur</b>satz, etc.—not to mention that he wrote books on counterpoint and harmony from a *compositional* point of view. One thing of which I am certain is that *modern* theorists, in general, do not see theory as a tool for composition.

One other point that struck me when reading your qualms with the strictures/limitations of theory is that you seem very tied to those theories written about classical-era music. Even a composer as early as Liszt is renowned for saying that any chord can follow any other, and theorists too that into account. Have you ever looked at the theories of Ernst Kurth? I think you might find a more congenial approach in his work.

[ted]

Agreed, thanks for that, descriptive and constructive theories are very different. No, I haven't read descriptive theories relating to modern music; perhaps I might get something out of doing so. In fact, I don't think I have ever listened analytically at all, and even many years ago when I wrote heaps of compositions, the process was entirely intuitive, based on sounds I liked in old-fashioned music. Improvisation has now become almost everything musical to me, and conscious guidelines are necessary only to initiate the feedback loop for that.

I'll follow up the names you mention; any background knowledge can do no harm and I have plenty of time these days.

 

[abacaba]

When we were small we learnt alphabets, then words, then phrases, and soon we can read and write. When we got used to the "English language system"  we became "literate". 

Same with music, all the theory stuff is just like a language system, so that we can be "literate" in music, and can communicate with other people who uses the same system.

Of course, language and theory are artificial, while emotion and music are natural. A Van Gogh painting does not need language to explain. A Beethoven sonata does not need theory to be appreciated.

If you are a Van Gogh or a Beethoven, you can play down the importance of language or theory. But as I am, I can tolerate learning theory just to understand a little bit more into the minds of great composers.