# And this guy thinks he has figured out how music works (really!)



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

http://arxiv.org/html/1202.4212v1/

Let me say, I don't think I've read something so...bad...in a long long time. A lot of what the guy says in here is wrong, conceited, biased, or supported by extremely weak sources.

But feel free to peruse through it. I know the majority of you aren't super into music academia, but I think this is written in a way that is supposed to be accessible to most who have a basic knowledge of terms.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

In general, am I the only one who thinks It's better that Natural Scientist don't talk about Humanistic Science fields?

"Music comes out of your genes." ... 
My reaction: B*llsh*t 
Its the production of mind and possibly intuition.

"But Science is conquering every field" 
Ah in his dreams... One who believe in other ways moreover Empiricism or is kind of skeptic, don't put faith in science to reveal and explain everything. Many phenomenas are beyond experience ...

*talked like a third rate philosopher*


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I have no idea if the guy has figured out how harmony works, didn't get that far. He certainly hasn't figured out how _writing an article_ works.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

He's obviously passionate about music (or about something else and channels it through music), so one can welcome him for that. After all, we can relate to that, I guess.


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

He's obviously got some weird chip on his shoulder regarding the way music theory is taught. He may very well have something interesting to say in the article, but I stopped reading after a couple of pages because I couldn't care less what his opinion about music theory is. 
Just present your facts and get off the soap box. I can't imagine how anyone who might be interested in the topic of music theory would want to read through all of that.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

The thought occurred to me that the writer might be an ALIEN 

At one point he says "in a manner similar to the way a human would".


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Romantic Geek said:


> http://arxiv.org/html/1202.4212v1/
> 
> Let me say, I don't think I've read something so...bad...in a long long time. A lot of what the guy says in here is wrong, conceited, biased, or supported by extremely weak sources.
> 
> But feel free to peruse through it. I know the majority of you aren't super into music academia, but I think this is written in a way that is supposed to be accessible to most who have a basic knowledge of terms.


The text is too long. Many points. It doesn't invite me to read it so much. The first idea I found was wrong, about the combination of black and white keys in order to produce "nice tones". This is ridiculous and goes againts dodecaphonic theory and more modern schools where all sounds are permitted. Usually, I read until I find flaws... After that I stop reading, my time is precious. I have too many interesting things to read.

Martin


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

I have to admit, I didn't get through parts of the article myself, but he makes many assumptions, quotes too many old theories, and apparently doesn't realize that there is a lot more current materials out there.

Really, it's a shame to see someone passionate be so misguided.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Doesn't your heart sink when embarking on an article like this (which, funnily enough, doesn't seem to have been accepted by any mainstream publications) - the unique combination of righteousness, wrongheadedness, condescension and obscurantism just switch me off completely after fifteen seconds max.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Doesn't your heart sink when embarking on an article like this (which, funnily enough, doesn't seem to have been accepted by any mainstream publications) - the unique combination of righteousness, wrongheadedness, condescension and obscurantism just switch me off completely after fifteen seconds max.


Yeah, it's dismaying on multiple fronts - and you are right, it could be an article in Time Magazine.


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

I found another egregious article published by the same Cornell Library. These mathematicians have so many things wrong with their use of musical terminology, not to also mention that they craft their definitions to of course put major as the most musical "mode" (as they call it.) Really, they're talking about scales...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2654


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Wow. Talk about one of the more blatant rationale / apologias for simply not understanding something, this should win some sort of prize.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I wasn't able to follow. It just seems like the rantings of someone who is somewhat crazy.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I thought it was kind of interesting. But not enough to read more than part way. I'll wait for the condensed version. Shoulda had an abstract up front!


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

There is an abstract, which concludes by stating: _if you don't like it, to quote Richard Feynman, "Don't bug me man!"_


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Romantic Geek said:


> http://arxiv.org/html/1202.4212v1/
> 
> Let me say, I don't think I've read something so...bad...in a long long time. A lot of what the guy says in here is wrong, conceited, biased, or supported by extremely weak sources.
> 
> But feel free to peruse through it. I know the majority of you aren't super into music academia, but I think this is written in a way that is supposed to be accessible to most who have a basic knowledge of terms.


Come now, isn't this just too long an article to expect reasoned responses based on a thorough reading? I mean you might be correct - but I (we?) simply don't have the necessary time to devote to it. Why not provide textual evidence to support each of your objections to speed the process up and enliven the debate. As it is there is risk of an outbreak of "nodding dog" syndrome.


----------

