# Metaquestion: Why do you think posts to the theory sub-forum are so infrequent?



## drmdjones

Curious about other's opinions on this.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Maybe because it's not so entertaining  Theory is serious business and not so fun for most people.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think a lot of people here who are trained in music theory just accept it as a body of "givens" and apply it to the Common Practice period. Why post about a body of knowledge that is unchanging and already fixed?

I am still exploring music theory, and actually try to apply it creatively. Many times when I have an unorthodox idea, it is written off as nonsense. I think that "properly trained" academics have difficulty dealing with any idea which is out of the ordinary. 

Also, I notice there is little interest in tuning, temperament, and physics of music (acoustics).

Why, are they thinking about dropping it?


----------



## drmdjones

I don't think they are dropping it.

I guess we tell undergrads that common-practice harmony, voice leading and forms are given and fixed. This is not really true however. Recent theory journals are filled with examples of novel ideas about CP music.

But CP harmony and voice leading are only a small part of the discipline. There are also Schenkerian theory, neo-Riemannian theory, atonal theory including set theory and group theory, transformation theory, et al.


----------



## tdc

Actually this sub forum has been a little more active than I expected it would be. Its good I hope it stays, I've found some helpful and interesting information. Maybe it is less active because those who are seriously interested are more likely to get knowledge from a teacher or a book than from a message board? Not sure.

I don't know too much about Schenkerian analysis, but from what I've read its use is limited to certain music and doesn't provide that much useful information, maybe I'm wrong? 

Wasn't it Schoenberg who complained that Schenkerian analysis skipped over all of his favorite parts of the Eroica? Charles Rosen said that Schenkerian analysis can't provide information like what makes a Mozart piece better than one by J.C. Bach, and analysis of both pieces will lead to essentially the same conclusion.


----------



## mikeh375

MillionR's post implies a good suggestion for a thread on applying theory creatively, which might enliven the board a little more. After all, that is why theory is there from a composing pov. Ultimately though it is the composer's proclivities and fantasy that should be supported by theory and not dominated by it. Dry, formal CP can be off-putting and undue emphasis on its seeming intractability can be stifling. (it is still important to know though).

I personally always look for ways of applying technique in order to find that one moment, the spark, that will ignite a section or a piece, or suggest new directions and a way forward. Tips on motivic development, chordal expansion, modes and so on might be fun...(for us geeks anyway..)


----------



## Ingélou

I think it's simply because people who know about musical theory and people who want to know are vastly outnumbered by people like me who just listen. 

I think the sub-forum is a great resource, though, and thanks to the people who do contribute.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> MillionR's post implies a good suggestion for a thread on applying theory creatively, which might enliven the board a little more. After all, that is why theory is there from a composing pov. Ultimately though it is the composer's proclivities and fantasy that should be supported by theory and not dominated by it. Dry, formal CP can be off-putting and undue emphasis on its seeming intractability can be stifling. (it is still important to know though).
> 
> I personally always look for ways of applying technique in order to find that one moment, the spark, that will ignite a section or a piece, or suggest new directions and a way forward. Tips on motivic development, chordal expansion, modes and so on might be fun...(for us geeks anyway..)


I see music theory as a way of expanding one's conceptual horizons so that deeper, more solid understanding can be achieved. For instance, in my quest to understand atonality, I realized I had to understand tonality, so that a 'dialectic' could be set up, in which the two things mutually define each other. It does not further understanding to be "stuck in the box" of "given" concepts. Everything must be understood, and to do that, one must recognize essential qualities. To do that, one must have some method of comparison and identification.

Application, and "doing," applied as 'given' ways of doing things, do not add to understanding if they are routines or activities without a base in true understanding. Also, many of the details of "the assumed" do not add to real understanding, because they are too particular and codified into "lingo" of specialists who usually have no interest in venturing into more generalized territory.


----------



## Woodduck

Ingélou said:


> I think it's simply because people who know about musical theory and people who want to know are vastly outnumbered by people like me who just listen.
> 
> I think the sub-forum is a great resource, though, and thanks to the people who do contribute.


Often the simplest explanation is the right one.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think a lot of people here who are trained in music theory just accept it as a body of "givens" and apply it to the Common Practice period. *Why post about a body of knowledge that is unchanging and already fixed?*
> 
> I am still exploring music theory, and actually try to apply it creatively. Many times when I have an unorthodox idea, it is written off as nonsense. I think that *"properly trained"* academics have difficulty dealing with any idea which is out of the ordinary.


The best reason for posting about an established body of knowledge is that not everyone possesses that knowledge.

The quotation marks around "properly trained" save you from an unfair generalization. I see nothing about being properly trained in common practice harmony to keep anyone from dealing with other kinds of harmony and systems of analysis. That doesn't mean that any unorthodox idea that comes along must be found worthy of consideration.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> I think a lot of people here who are trained in music theory just accept it as a body of "givens" and apply it to the Common Practice period. Why post about a body of knowledge that is unchanging and already fixed?


Theory is not primarily a body of knowledge. It is in large part a set of tools and methodologies to facilitate understanding of actual music. It is a means of gathering knowledge, not a static body of knowledge.



millionrainbows said:


> I am still exploring music theory, and actually try to apply it creatively. Many times when I have an unorthodox idea, it is written off as nonsense. I think that "properly trained" academics have difficulty dealing with any idea which is out of the ordinary.


Difficulty? Has it occurred to you that well-trained theorists might just be good at identifying nonsense and that it is easy for them? Just a thought.


----------



## millionrainbows

I saw obfuscation occurring on the Baroque "chord progressions" thread, where the figured bass method of Bach was being used to obscure what might have been a clarification. That was not "exposing nonsense," but was a deliberate obfuscation. If one possesses specialized knowledge in an area, it shouldn't be used as a bludgeon against those who are seeking an obvious truth.


----------



## Woodduck

Deliberate obfuscators who bludgeon with specialized knowledge the seekers of obvious truths are scrofulous scoundrels. Not even interminable and ubiquitous accusation, insinuation, complaint and self-aggrandizement can undo the atrocities they perpetrate. 

Hold the miscreants in contempt! Impeach them! Vote in 2020!


----------



## mikeh375

"Scrofulous"...had to look that up Wooduck - It's now my word of the day...

Edward, you forgot to mention that theory can also be used to compose with....


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> I see music theory as a way of expanding one's conceptual horizons so that deeper, more solid understanding can be achieved. For instance, in my quest to understand atonality, I realized I had to understand tonality, so that a 'dialectic' could be set up, in which the two things mutually define each other. It does not further understanding to be "stuck in the box" of "given" concepts. Everything must be understood, and to do that, one must recognize essential qualities. To do that, one must have some method of comparison and identification.
> 
> Application, and "doing," applied as 'given' ways of doing things, do not add to understanding if they are routines or activities without a base in true understanding. Also, many of the details of "the assumed" do not add to real understanding, because they are too particular and codified into "lingo" of specialists who usually have no interest in venturing into more generalized territory.


You know MR, when I was at my alma mater, there was a fellow student composer who admitted to me that he didn't know much about CP at all and yet, was writing dense atonal pieces (he wasn't the only one btw). This was actively encouraged by the establishment whose ramparts where seemingly impervious to any incursion or indeed influence by traditional techniques and especially to the benefits they impart to a composers development. 
They would not let a budding instrumentalist anywhere near the building unless all scales and arppeggios where mastered at wild speeds, because they would be unable to play concert repertoire. This begs the question as to why they would let composers in who think they know how to handle notes and create cogent music in atonality _without_ any of the valuable learning and insight one gets from studying traditional technique from the 'bottom up'.
I do get that to be 'new' means breaking with the past, but encouraging a composer to 'fly' without wings so to speak, is only possible for the truly gifted.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> You know MR, when I was at my alma mater, there was a fellow student composer who admitted to me that he didn't know much about CP at all and yet, was writing dense atonal pieces (he wasn't the only one btw). This was actively encouraged by the establishment whose ramparts where seemingly impervious to any incursion or indeed influence by traditional techniques and especially to the benefits they impart to a composers development.
> They would not let a budding instrumentalist anywhere near the building unless all scales and arppeggios where mastered at wild speeds, because they would be unable to play concert repertoire. This begs the question as to why they would let composers in who think they know how to handle notes and create cogent music in atonality _without_ any of the valuable learning and insight one gets from studying traditional technique from the 'bottom up'.
> I do get that to be 'new' means breaking with the past, but encouraging a composer to 'fly' without wings so to speak, is only possible for the truly gifted.


In my own defense, you're completely missing the point I made when I said "I had to understand tonality before I could understand atonality."

Your statement _"This begs the question as to why they would let composers in who think they know how to handle notes and create cogent music in atonality without any of the valuable learning and insight one gets from studying traditional technique from the bottom up"_ is misleading. 
Jazz players are able to play and create tonal music, without learning about figured bass and ornamentation.

From what I've seen on this forum, none of the "traditional tonalists" here _really know _what tonality is. 
They apparently don't understand intervals expressed as ratios, which I've outlined in my many blogs, which is crucial in understanding the hierarchy of tonality.
They don't understand (or have never mentioned) how dissonance is ranked in this way; or how "harmonic models" can be created in this way. 
Some even refuse to recognize scales other than major/minor, and refuse to recognize modes as "scales "in the modern way, building chords and functions on the steps.

To them, modes are strictly melodic. This is archaic, non-harmonic thinking which restricts one's view of what tonality is, or how it functions harmonically. It's just a very idiosyncratic, specialized way of thinking, which is myopic, and cares nothing about any "larger picture" or "larger view," even if that were to prove practical.

In the theory forum, the concept of "chord progressions" in Baroque music was rejected in favor of Bach's figured-bass method, which does not specify roots of chords, but only intervals.

Sure, they can talk all day about appoggiaturas and figured-bass, but when it comes down to actually "grokking" what tonality is, they apparently don't know because they don't have to, they have no desire to, and they are happily "inside the box."

I've heard nothing about how scales are_ made; _only how they are used. Such meta-ideas are apparently irrelevant to an academic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok

I challenge you, or anyone here to _discuss tonality_ in these basic terms, in a civil manner. I very much doubt that you have the tools to do it, from the general impression I get from your post.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> In my own defense, you're completely missing the point I made when I said "I had to understand tonality before I could understand atonality."
> 
> Your statement _"This begs the question as to why they would let composers in who think they know how to handle notes and create cogent music in atonality without any of the valuable learning and insight one gets from studying traditional technique from the bottom up"_ is misleading.
> Jazz players are able to play and create tonal music, without learning about figured bass and ornamentation.
> 
> From what I've seen on this forum, none of the "traditional tonalists" here _really know _what tonality is. They apparently don't understand intervals expressed as ratios, which I've outlined in my many blogs, which is crucial in understanding the hierarchy of tonality. They don't understand (or have never mentioned) how dissonance is ranked in this way; or how "harmonic models" can be created in this way. Some even refuse to recognize scales other than major/minor, and refuse to use modes as scales in the modern way, building chords and functions on the steps. To them, modes are strictly melodic. This is archaic, non-harmonic thinking which restricts one's view of what tonality is, or how it functions harmonically. It's just a very idiosyncratic way of thinking, which is myopic, and cares nothing about any "larger picture" or "larger view," even if that were to prove practical.
> 
> Sure, they can talk all day about appoggiaturas and figured-bass, but when it comes down to actually "grokking" what tonality is, they apparently don't know because they don't have to, they have no desire to, and they are happily "inside the box."
> 
> I've heard nothing about how scales are_ made; _only how they are used. Such meta-ideas are apparently irrelevant to an academic.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok
> 
> I challenge you, or anyone here to _discuss tonality_ in these basic terms, in a civil manner. I very much doubt that you have the tools to do it, from the general impression I get from your post.


jeez, MR, so much for my chatty,civil tone, forget that in future pal. I should have mentioned that I was referring to concert art music but apart from that, I don't care about your defense, nor where you under attack, I was merely telling you about an encounter I had in my formative years that seemed to follow on from your post.
As to my ability...check out my website and although you may not like my music, you probably have enough wits about you to see it is well written. I have the tools allright but not the inclination to engage too much with you.


----------



## Roger Knox

Woodduck said:


> Deliberate obfuscators who bludgeon with specialized knowledge the seekers of obvious truths are scrofulous scoundrels. Not even interminable and ubiquitous accusation, insinuation, complaint and self-aggrandizement can undo the atrocities they perpetrate.
> 
> Hold the miscreants in contempt! Impeach them! Vote in 2020!


This post is in the prose style sometimes employed of Lord Black of Crossharbour, the ex-Canadian media mogul who has just been pardoned by President Trump on his U.S.A. convictions for fraud and obstruction of justice.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/15/conrad-black-trump-pardons-ex-media-mogul

As the style worked for Lord Black, let us now bring it to bear on the arcane conundrums of music theory!


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> jeez, MR, so much for my chatty,civil tone, forget that in future pal.


I thought the tone was condescending, and was biased in a certain direction, as regards this thread.



> I should have mentioned that I was referring to concert art music but apart from that, I don't care about your defense, nor where you under attack, I was merely telling you about an encounter I had in my formative years that seemed to follow on from your post.


You did address your reply to me:


mikeh375 said:


> You know MR, when I was at my alma mater, there was a fellow student composer who admitted to me that he didn't know much about CP at all and yet, was writing dense atonal pieces (he wasn't the only one btw)...I do get that to be 'new' means breaking with the past, but encouraging a composer to 'fly' without wings so to speak, is only possible for the truly gifted.


This seems to be implying some things which I take offense to.



> I have the tools allright but not the inclination to engage too much with you.


Then don't.


----------



## millionrainbows

Roger Knox said:


> This post is in the prose style sometimes employed of Lord Black of Crossharbour, the ex-Canadian media mogul who has just been pardoned by President Trump on his U.S.A. convictions for fraud and obstruction of justice.


You'd better hope that he also got pardoned for being insulting to other members.



> As the style worked for Lord Black, let us now bring it to bear on the arcane conundrums of music theory!


You mean, as LBJ said, "Let us con-TIN-yah"? Poor old LBJ, the war was what got him in the end. He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.


----------



## philoctetes

I sometimes wonder if I'm reading the same thing others see. Why does common interest make people dislike each other, especially in music?

If you look around this forum, and the groups, you'll see quite a few people interested in science, physics, relativity, cosmology, QM, genetics, and other esoteric natural philosophies... but when it comes to music theory, no way man, cause all I gotta do is listen! Learning how music actually works is just too much trouble! Well, I can appreciate the sight of a rainbow as well as anybody else, but that doesn't rule out wanting to know how it happens.

If one is not a musician at all, and has no urge to analyze anything for any reason, this may be the only excuse available... but for those who claim to LOVE music, who often analyze it subjectively, as a matter of "taste", are really disarming themselves of a valuable asset not unlike those who talk about all the esoteric topics I mentioned above without ever learning the basic methods used in those fields. In either case they are left holding arguments of passion against those who hold arguments of reason.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> *From what I've seen on this forum*,* none of the "traditional tonalists" here really know what tonality is. *
> They apparently don't understand intervals expressed as ratios, which I've outlined in my many blogs, which is crucial in understanding the hierarchy of tonality.
> They don't understand (or have never mentioned) how dissonance is ranked in this way; or how "harmonic models" can be created in this way.
> Some even refuse to recognize scales other than major/minor, and refuse to recognize modes as "scales "in the modern way, building chords and functions on the steps.
> 
> To them, modes are strictly melodic. This is archaic, non-harmonic thinking which restricts one's view of what tonality is, or how it functions harmonically. It's just a very idiosyncratic, specialized way of thinking, which is myopic, and cares nothing about any "larger picture" or "larger view," even if that were to prove practical.
> 
> Sure, they can talk all day about appoggiaturas and figured-bass, but when it comes down to actually "grokking" what tonality is, they apparently don't know because they don't have to, they have no desire to, and they are happily "inside the box."
> 
> I've heard nothing about how scales are_ made; _only how they are used. Such meta-ideas are apparently irrelevant to an academic.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok
> 
> *I challenge you, or anyone here to discuss tonality in these basic terms, in a civil manner. I very much doubt that you have the tools to do it,* from the general impression I get from your post.


I second mikeh375's response to this laughable posturing, which isn't even worth taking apart (although that wouldn't be hard) and which might be thought genuinely insulting to the unnamed "traditional tonalists" it references were it anything more than an ego trip on the part of someone desperate for "validation." Your idea of "a civil manner" is curious; it's very unconvincing to insist on civility while telling knowledgeable people that their knowledge of a subject is worthless and that they lack even the "tools" to discuss it.

Really, the only sequence of words in your post worthy of our attention is "From what I've seen..." Reading that, we are well-advised to spare ourselves the labor of assessing the rest.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm just playing the same game as I am given. Meanwhile, I can have much more productive conversations with EdwardBast in the "Harmonic Puzzle" thread, and actually get some clarity on some issues.
If you keep being negative and antagonistic, Woodduck, none of what you say will contribute anything of substance.

I've already commented on mike375's 'posturing.'


----------



## mikeh375

That'll be a game of Assumption no doubt.

_I thought the tone was condescending, and was biased in a certain direction, as regards this thread.[/I

Get over yourself, you mis-interpreted it because of your hang ups, it was meant to be a chatty anecdote and if it carried any bias, so what, it wasn't an attack, merely my opinion based on experience. It was addressed to you in the spirit of a conversation.

If my post offended you then perhaps you need to harden a little or chill more effectively. Either way you assumed and got it wrong._


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> That'll be a game of Assumption no doubt.
> 
> _I thought the tone was condescending, and was biased in a certain direction, as regards this thread.[/I
> 
> Get over yourself, you mis-interpreted it because of your hang ups, it was meant to be a chatty anecdote and if it carried any bias, so what, it wasn't an attack, merely my opinion based on experience. It was addressed to you in the spirit of a conversation.
> If my post offended you then perhaps you need to harden a little or chill more effectively. Either way you assumed and got it wrong._


_

No, I don't think so. You generalized students who were allowed to "get away with murder" in composition, while students in performance were held to higher standards, making it sound like "any dummy" (like me?) could write atonal music.

I don't think most musicians "know" what tonality is, because they're immersed in it; they've never had anything to compare it to, and never had to compare it, in terms of a harmonic system, until they study it.
This doesn't mean they are "stupid," but that they never had to think outside the box._


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I second mikeh375's response to this laughable posturing, which isn't even worth taking apart (although that wouldn't be hard)...


Stop complaining. Stop replying to my posts. Try saying something about the ideas presented that someone could actually benefit from hearing.



> ...and which might be thought genuinely insulting to the unnamed "traditional tonalists" it references were it anything more than an ego trip on the part of someone desperate for "validation."



I'm sorry, but this is feeble. It becomes very difficult to participate in a conversation when it comes to be dominated by statements as gob-smackingly ignorant as this. It just goes to show that smart people can be idiots on occasion...How much of this trolling do you think we're going to tolerate? Was there anything you wanted to say about Tonality? Or did you just want to make up nonsense about other members who actually do have something to say about it? If you're going to put ideas into the public forum, others will respond to them with their own views, and it isn't up to them to "step back and let you continuously try to speak both for and about everyone. Your arguments are fundamentally incoherent and contradictory, and your numerous pithy posts appear to be little more than special pleading for the ideas you try - without success - to promote. This is a lot of hogwash.



> Your idea of "a civil manner" is curious; it's very unconvincing to insist on civility while telling knowledgeable people that their knowledge of a subject is worthless and that they lack even the "tools" to discuss it. Really, the only sequence of words in your post worthy of our attention is "From what I've seen..." Reading that, we are well-advised to spare ourselves the labor of assessing the rest.


You are a perfect example of someone who uses obsessive self-repetition to make up for your limited aesthetic sensibility and your failure to understand the difference between taste, opinion and...What does any of this mean? Even where it's comprehensible, there's not much truth in it.


----------



## Larkenfield

I would like to see those who discuss theory post audio examples of their own work illustrate the points they’re going to make, otherwise the explanations seem to generate into abstract explanations where it’s hard to know if the person understands what he’s talking about. Or post examples by other people that illustrate the points. But without examples, I see no clarity. It would also be nice to see people who are poison to each other avoid each other, and someone has to make the first move. I believe there are many people on the forum fond of both of you.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> ..........making it sound like "any dummy" (like me?) could write atonal music.


Well, I was saying and meaning the literal opposite to this.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Well, I was saying and meaning the literal opposite to this.


Then what was the point of relating this situation you encountered? The way in which atonal music was allowed to insinuate itself into academic composition, or to differentiate the requirements of performance vs. composition, or something else? Any context come to mind?


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> I see music theory as a way of expanding one's conceptual horizons so that deeper, more solid understanding can be achieved. For instance, in my quest to understand atonality, I realized I had to understand tonality, so that a 'dialectic' could be set up, in which the two things mutually define each other. It does not further understanding to be "stuck in the box" of "given" concepts. Everything must be understood, and to do that, one must recognize essential qualities. To do that, one must have some method of comparison and identification.
> 
> Application, and "doing," applied as 'given' ways of doing things, do not add to understanding if they are routines or activities without a base in true understanding. Also, many of the details of "the assumed" do not add to real understanding, because they are too particular and codified into "lingo" of specialists who usually have no interest in venturing into more generalized territory.


Composing music is, in fact, application of principles to create a work of art. You don't need to understand fully how the principles were arrived. In math, I've seen a very simple technique like adding 1+1=2 actually having a very complex proof, but we teach it to Grade 1's. The application is seen as more practical. Just as composing (applying) tonal, or atonal music, you don't need to understand the most fundamental principles of how scales are derived, they accept certain principles as givens, that is the starting point.

A prof once gave the class an example of how a pool player doesn't understand all the physics of friction, etc., but knows them intuitively, and it is enough. There is no point in debating how he won a pool tournament if he didn't understand the fundamentals of motion. Atonal composer doesn't need to know the finer points of tonality. Just enough to apply in practice. That's what I got from Mike's post.



millionrainbows said:


> In my own defense, you're completely missing the point I made when I said "I had to understand tonality before I could understand atonality."
> 
> Your statement _"This begs the question as to why they would let composers in who think they know how to handle notes and create cogent music in atonality without any of the valuable learning and insight one gets from studying traditional technique from the bottom up"_ is misleading.
> Jazz players are able to play and create tonal music, without learning about figured bass and ornamentation.
> 
> From what I've seen on this forum, none of the "traditional tonalists" here _really know _what tonality is.
> They apparently don't understand intervals expressed as ratios, which I've outlined in my many blogs, which is crucial in understanding the hierarchy of tonality.
> They don't understand (or have never mentioned) how dissonance is ranked in this way; or how "harmonic models" can be created in this way.
> Some even refuse to recognize scales other than major/minor, and refuse to recognize modes as "scales "in the modern way, building chords and functions on the steps.
> 
> To them, modes are strictly melodic. This is archaic, non-harmonic thinking which restricts one's view of what tonality is, or how it functions harmonically. It's just a very idiosyncratic, specialized way of thinking, which is myopic, and cares nothing about any "larger picture" or "larger view," even if that were to prove practical.
> 
> In the theory forum, the concept of "chord progressions" in Baroque music was rejected in favor of Bach's figured-bass method, which does not specify roots of chords, but only intervals.
> 
> Sure, they can talk all day about appoggiaturas and figured-bass, but when it comes down to actually "grokking" what tonality is, they apparently don't know because they don't have to, they have no desire to, and they are happily "inside the box."
> 
> I've heard nothing about how scales are_ made; _only how they are used. Such meta-ideas are apparently irrelevant to an academic.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok
> 
> I challenge you, or anyone here to _discuss tonality_ in these basic terms, in a civil manner. I very much doubt that you have the tools to do it, from the general impression I get from your post.


It isn't really that advanced theory, but most "traditional tonalists" know how tonality is achieved. The most basic way to define tonality is the use of asymmetric scales which imply a certain hierarchy in certain intervals. Pentatonic and Diatonic are the most common in Western music. The interval frequency ratios are not the most important, only to those that are not "thinking out of the box" enough . The most stable ones like 2:1, 3:2 for octave and perfect fifth are only for Western music. One scale in Gamelan music is a stretched octave, and significantly out of tune from a perfect fifth. Some use 5 TET some 5 notes out of the 7 TET, and there are other deviations. Their hierarchies is not based on what we Westerners call consonance or low order ratios.

http://www.neuroscience-of-music.se/pelog_main.htm

Major/minor tonality only concern 2 specific scales, this is as low-level or fundamental traditional tonalists really needs to be concerned with, in addition to some other much more important concepts, other than how they were derived.


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> Composing music is, in fact, application of principles to create a work of art. You don't need to understand fully how the principles were arrived. In math, I've seen a very simple technique like adding 1+1=2 actually having a very complex proof, but we teach it to Grade 1's. The application is seen as more practical. Just as composing (applying) tonal, or atonal music, you don't need to understand the most fundamental principles of how scales are derived, they accept certain principles as givens, that is the starting point.


Then those who do not seek insight, and see things practically, aren't very cogent in discussing theoretical points. From what I've seen they tend to get frustrated and spin-off responses like "that's nonsense," etc.



> It isn't really that advanced theory, but most "traditional tonalists" know how tonality is achieved. The most basic way to define tonality is the use of asymmetric scales which imply a certain hierarchy in certain intervals. Pentatonic and Diatonic are the most common in Western music. The interval frequency ratios are not the most important, only to those that are not "thinking out of the box" enough . The most stable ones like 2:1, 3:2 for octave and perfect fifth are only for Western music. One scale in Gamelan music is a stretched octave, and significantly out of tune from a perfect fifth. Some use 5 TET some 5 notes out of the 7 TET, and there are other deviations. Their hierarchies is not based on what we Westerners call consonance or low order ratios.


This is rather vague for me, and the use of Gamelon music doesn't make sense, since their music is strictly melodic and has no chords or harmony.



> Major/minor tonality only concern 2 specific scales, this is as low-level or fundamental traditional tonalists really needs to be concerned with, in addition to some other much more important concepts, other than how they were derived.


Syntax problem with that long sentence above. Confusing.

Since Western music divides the octave into 12 notes, a tonalist needs to understand the Pythagoran-derived procedure which generated those notes, especially since this lives on in the 'circle of fifths.'

This video by Rick Beato shows that if one wishes to work with scales creatively, one must understand some principles of how chords are derived from them. Major/minor is very limiting, and this is not "rocket science" as you said.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> Then what was the point of relating this situation you encountered? The way in which atonal music was allowed to insinuate itself into academic composition, or to differentiate the requirements of performance vs. composition, or something else? Any context come to mind?


Wrong on all counts. 
Ironically (and sadly) the tale was an oblique affirmation of your approach to learning which I was moved to write as a result of my admiration for your autodidactic paradigm. I was saying that the foundational, bottom up approach to technique (a formal academic training, or one in which the student _knows_ CP) was not in much evidence at my alma mater in either the students nor the composition courses and the Institutions approach was not ideal imv for one who wanted to write atonally. I believe one needs a firm aesthetic footing when encountering the massive open fields of atonality if one is to steer through a cogent creative piece. This can be acquired by working through formal training at a formative stage, (granted it's not the only way, but it is a sure bet) because in the learning, one will find oneself artistically speaking and will then be fully, musically self-aware and able for the atonal adventure.
This belief in the power of formal CP training as a precursor or a necessary step to powerful personal statements in contemporary language is a key I believe, to expressing one's music in the most effective manner.

The reference to instrumentalists was simply a metaphor, but also useful - a young pianist could not play a concerto with understanding and expressive musicality without years of scale and arpeggio work to free them from technical restraints. Similarly a young composer surely cannot be expected to write
effectively and with conviction (even sincerity) in atonality unless at the very least they have wrestled with some prior technical procedure. I acknowledge that they could start their learning with strict dodecaphony before venturing into free atonality, rather than CP, but this is not ideal imv because it could be seen as too much of a dictat for younger composers, one that might sublimate natural inclinations and fantasy which would more readily show themselves and become self-evident to the composer in a 'safer' [tonal] environment to start with.

You clearly haven't bothered to listen to my music and that's fine, but if you had, you would hear atonality in the Clarinet concerto and the Preludes and fugues. That would have told you I was not against atonality, in fact I rummage around in it everyday.

It's a shame your hubris is getting in the way MR, the post was not an insult to you, far from it. This is the second run-in I've had with you and both times have resulted from misunderstanding. I'll accept that you missed the tone of my post and I might have been able to word it differently to make it clear, but only if you reach over the edge of the pan of home made stew you are sitting in and turn down the gas.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> It's a shame your hubris is getting in the way MR, the post was not an insult to you, far from it. This is the second run-in I've had with you and both times have resulted from misunderstanding. I'll accept that you missed the tone of my post and I might have been able to word it differently to make it clear, but only if you reach over the edge of the pan of home made stew you are sitting in and turn down the gas.


In that case, mike375, I apologize for my defensiveness, and I appreciate that you have answered my inquiry. It sounds like you have some other good tales to relate, from what I've noticed.

This leads directly to the original thread question: Why do you think posts to the theory sub-forum are so infrequent?

I'm on the defensive because of the way I've been responded to. When I mentioned ideas from the book "A Geometry of Music' by Dmitri Tymoczko (from the thread "Decoding Beethoven") it was ridiculed:




> What does any of this mean? Even where it's comprehensible, there's not much truth in it...(you're)





> a naive intuitive autodidact who's easily fooled by name-dropping, diagrams, and scientific-sounding terminology...



That why I personally do not post any ideas for consideration in this music theory forum.
When I posted a diagram from Schoenberg's "Structural Functions of Harmony," I got this reply:



> Only a modern rationalist could imagine that all this silly diagramming adds anything to the understanding of a Beethoven sonata. Such doodles are a waste of time to a real musician.


No attempt to discuss: only a blanket dismissal, with the implication that I was not a "real musician."


> "...





> this thread proposes to "explain" Beethoven's compositional procedures by means of a visual system, and to teach us how to compose music with it as well. It's horsepuckey.






> You resent being corrected, which, unfortunately is bound to happen when you have trouble distinguishing contrapuntal from harmonic events. And if you didn't enjoy dust you'd be reading modern sources on "geometric" methods, parsimonious voice-leading, and various conceptions of the Tonnetz, like the work of the neo-Riemannians, rather than dredging around in the early stages of the field.


To which I replied:
*All that Edwardbast and Woodduck do is take pot-shots at other people's ideas; notice that they never start any threads. This is a martial-arts principle which they've adapted for internet use: let you enemy make the first move, then strike. I'm used to this sort of behavior.
*


> What is it you think you know (but don't)? Your favorite third-person "Woodduck" only dislikes "geometric ideas and charts" when they're stuck like barnacles onto things that don't require them. It's lucky for that guy in the video that Beethoven wasn't standing there with a plate of sauerkraut and bratwurst ready to launch at the appropriate target. That would've been much more entertaining than these video games, at least to those of us "spiritual" enough not to have to "rationalize" what we've understood about music - by listening to it - since grade school.





> Your first post on this thread is feeble foolishness and you know it. All you've done since is dig your intellectual grave deeper. Why bother? You're already underground.







> What you have written above is, in music theoretic terms, nonsense. Believer in diatonicism? That is a category no one with training would use. "Quantities in pitch space?" What is that supposed to mean? "the old Church method?" This connects to nothing in reality, or at least nothing remotely related to any of the music under discussion. It doesn't sound like you know any Schenkerians or that you have studied Schenkerian analysis either. They graph nonexistent or implied tonics. "A polemic between simple diatonic thinking and chromatic thinking?" This is a complete mischaracterization of the discussion. Who do you think you're fooling with this pseudo-theoretical word salad?


After which, I essentially removed myself from the "discussion."


----------

