Originally Posted by: Silimtao
Christopher clarified his position that he was only interested in discussing Western theory.
[/quote]
There are two reasons for that.
1. There are systems other than the Western Diatonic/Chromatic system. They differ from the Western system primarily in how they divide the octave. One can of course devise an organized system based upon a set of intervals other than the 12 tone equal temperament system. However, the basis is still the octave.
All systems of music are ultimately measured by how they deal with the identification and division of the octave. This is because of the nature of human hearing - the snail shell curved shape of the cochlea results in humans being able to identify two (pure enough) tones one at double the frequency in Hertz as "similiar". Further, the cilia (the little hairs that vibrate and send the hearing "data" via electrical impulses to the brain) inside the cochlea are spaced such that human hearing is logarithmic in nature. These are the acts of reality that give rise to the basis of musical systems being the octave (the "empirical" evidence you mention).
The Western Diatonic/Chromatic system is based upon dividing the octave in a very specific manner. It's origins are mathematical ratios that are based upon how subsequent halving sound to the human ear and mind.
The distance between two pitches an octave apart is 2:1. Split the octave in half and you get a 1:1.5 ratio. This is what eventually turned into the interval of a fifth. Split the fifth in half and you get a 1:1.25 ratio, this is approximately and eventually what turned into the interval of the major third. And so on.
By this process you can see that immediately what happens is that you have isolated the pitches that in ratio to one another you have what humans identified as the major chord.
The early Greeks devised a system of diatonic pitches that evolved into Just Intonation, which then was further refined later in Well Temperament, and so on until it was refined into Equal Temperament. This was the process that enabled chromaticism, modulation, and a broadly integrated system.
The Western Diatonic/Chromatic system offers the most possibilities of permutations and reconfigurations due to the method by which it divides the octave: in 12 evenly spaced intervals (the 12th root of 2 is the mathematical distance in between each chromatic interval). Therefore the Western Diatonic/Chromatic system offers the most possibilities for expressing thoughts and emotions via musical data.
As a consequence, this is my personal preference for which musical system in which to work. I am not saying that any given human must prefer and use this system. I am saying it is does in fact offer the most possibilities and that I prefer it for this (and other) reasons.
It doesn't help my estimation that many other systems are frequently associated with and bandied about as having "magical" or "mystical" properties. :rolleyes: There are of course completely scientific ways in which to identify and organize any given musical system. After all we are talking about objects that vibrate the air in very specific manners that can be measured and referred to by means of physics, acoustics, physiology and math.
2. More to the point, I have no intention of practicing (applying the knowledge of) any systems other than the Western Diatonic/Chromatic system. And since this forum is on a site concerning playing the guitar, which is manufactured to create Western Diatonic/Chromatic systems of music, that is my focus of attention.
There are semi-tone (quarter-step) bends and other articulations to be found in Western Diatonic/Chromatic music (glissandos, fretless instruments, jazzy-bluesy bends, etc.). But those are ornamental effects and not the basis of the system. In fact these effects can only arise because of the nature of the system.
If you have a sincere interest in discussing other systems, perhaps you can start a new thread dealing with that topic. And there are plenty of sites on the internet that deal with this type of thing. FWIW, here is a great place to start for info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_music
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Eastern_MusicOriginally Posted by: Silimtao
A major scale is constructed a certain way. But this is predicated on rules that were agreed upon as correct.
[/quote]
This is misleading at best; and wrong at worst.
You make it sound as if there is no basis for the structure of the major scale other than "some people decided to agree upon it".
A rose is a rose is a rose, regardless of what phonetic sounds any given language uses to represent it. Different languages don't change the object to which the words refer. The major scale could have been called the "prime scale" or whatever. The word "major" was in fact settled upon by basic human agreement.
However, this does not in any way change the fact that the scale itself is a fact of nature that has specific objective, qualifiable and quantifiable characterisitics.
The major scale is the result of dividing the octave in a certain manner. See above for more on this; see the wiki links for the specifics.Originally Posted by: Silimtao
However, in other areas, I would say there aren't absolutes. Is there an "absolute" A tone or any other? I say yes and no. Yes if if we tune to 440 A- no, if not. Of course, it's been agreed upon that certain rules be followed, otherwise there would be total chaos. So rules have been accepted for the sake of uniformity.
[/quote]
The fact that humans can identify, measure and reproduce pitch specific tones at 440 Hertz is an absolute. It doesn't matter who wants to call this concert pitch A or A-flat or Q-triple-minor. I am not entirely sure what you could intend to accomplish by claiming that because someone can call it by different names this demonstrates non-absolutism.Originally Posted by: Silimtao
... are there any absolutes in music that are absolute from an empirical sense? An A tone isn't an A if we disagree on what concert pitch is, and that it should vibrate at a certain frequency.[/quote]
440 Hertz is 440 Hertz and it is not any other number of Hertz. It doesn't matter who wants to agree or not. And as far as labelling 440 Hertz, what would a person hope to achieve by disagreeing over what to call it? It is what it is. If you want to call it A or A-flat or Q-triple-minor, who cares? As long as you have a means of translation - my A equals his A-flat equals her Q-triple-minor - all of which equal 440 Hertz - everything is fine.Originally Posted by: Silimtao
Modes, etc, aren't what we accept them to be if we don't agree the major scale is the source from which everything springs forth.[/quote]
2 + 2 does not equal 4 if we don't agree that "2" means "2 objects of similar characteristics and attributes", that "4" means "4 objects of similar characteristics and attributes", or what it means to "add things together" in to a sum.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Because, obviously "2 + 2 = 4" even if some people don't want to admit it (or "agree upon it"). And modes are what they are regardless of who wants to pretend they don't exist or have specific identities.
[quote=Silimtao]
Is dissonance inherently inharmonious, unresolved, or a learned response? Again, I say yes and no. Yes dissonance is unresolved when following...let's call it conventional Western music theory. I say no, because I was coming from...I'll call it a "global take on music" for lack of a better description.
This goes beyond the scope of music theory into serious philosophical issues.
It depends upon what you mean when you ask, "Is dissonance inherently inharmonious ...".
The obvious answer is, "Yes, of course." Otherwise, what good is that word ("dissonant")? What in reality does it refer to? Why was that word invented?
It is a completely separate issue to ask, "What is dissonant to any given individual?". On that issue you will certainly find differences in what any given person regards as dissonant on a continuum between totally consonant - consonant - slightly consonant - slightly dissonant - dissonant - totally dissonant. And so on.
Even though 2 individuals can have differing preferences for what they regard as dissonant vs. consonant on that continuum, whatever they individually identify is in fact a measureable quantity (i.e. the ratio between 2 pitch specific tones) - i.e. a fact of reality.
When you start talking about "learned responses" you are presumably referring to "determinism". As in the position in philosophy (and many schools of psychology and sociology) that humans are essentially "reactionary balls without volition in the giant pinball game that is the universe." So if you (or anyone) want to claim that "dissonance is a learned response" or a "cultural phenomemon", then you are ignoring volition (i.e. free will).
If dissonance vs. consonance is a "learned response", then where does the "learned response" end and volition begin? What else is a "learned repsonse"? My "preference" for major and minor scales? My preference for dominant 7th chords? My preference for tonal cadences? My preference for Beethoven sonatas? My preference for Art Tatum Solo recordings? My own compositions?
What the idea of the "learned response" leaves out is this: where do new ideas come from in the first place?
Consider the first person or people that thought of creating the art of music. Why didn't their genes and environment create a "learned response" in their life? Any inventor or innovator that thinks of completely new and previously unthought of ways to rearrange the raw materials of existence into something completely new is the living embodiment of an individual that wasn't "molded by the learned response of their culture, genes and environment".
Why didn't Beethoven have the "learned response" to just write music that was exactly like everyone before him?
How does someone born and raised in Kentucky wind up disliking bluegrass music and instead enjoy Classical Indian ragas?
How does someone born and raised in Japan wind up loving Classical Romantic composers from Europe instead of traditional Japanese folk music?
There are two crucial aspects of some philosophies and many current schools of psychology and sociology that are seriously flawed:
1. "Culture" is not a cause; it is an effect.
Any given "culture" is the result of certain individuals ideas, creations, works, etc. becoming more predominant due to more people choosing to agree with, use or enjoy those ideas, creations, works. New ideas, creations, works come from individuals exercising volition; not from "societies" or "cultures".
2. Much of psychology and sociology has thus far failed to incorporate volition into their theories.
This results in the ever increasingly bizarre theoretical posturings we see in their theories. For example, "Guns kill people." Or for the more avant-garde, post-modern, "Bullets kill people." Or the ever-ready, "Society made me do it", "Society is responsible." This leads to all kinds of irresolvable contradictions. For example, John Doe (and his lawyer) might claim that cigarette manufacturers are responsible for his lung cancer. But the premise is that John doesn't have free will, right? So why do the people at the cigarette factory have free will? Why aren't they also "victims" of some "external influence"? Their mommies and daddies must have "made them" manufacture cigarettes? Right?
Of course, the "learned response" theorists stop short of that, because that is where the money stops. And if there is one thing all the "learned response" theorists are against it's anyone that is a success in exercising their free will.
I am not saying that you, Silimato are in agreement with these theories. What I am saying, however, is that if you grant the premises contained in "learned responses" then you've already agreed with the basic premise that makes these loony theories possible.
[quote=Silimtao]
But Chris narrowed it down to Western music theory, so of course I can't disagree.
You can disagree all you want. But in regards to music theory, I will ask you to clarify-justify your disagreement.
[quote=Silimtao]
Still, I don't accept that there are "absolutes" in music theory, because I believe theory is a set of accepted principles as opposed to the actual application of those principles.
By your definition all that needs to happen for a theory to exist is a group of people have to "accept certain principles". Like for example, the principle that "eating nothing but rocks is good for your health", or "repeatedly smashing your head with a large rock can make you smarter".
But fortunately for them, they don't have to actually apply those principles, because, again according to your definition, theories aren't necessarily meant to be practiced.
You've not specified how "certain principles" are arrived at in the first place. What is missing from your definition is that a theory is supposed to be first based upon concrete, perceivable facts of reality: perceptual observation, mental identification, classification & organization. This leads to a proper theory - conceptual knowledge about some aspect of reality that started with sense perception of some real-world object.
Likewise, a theory which you can't put into practice is worse than useless - it is a waste of the functioning of your mind.
[quote=Silimtao]
That's why it's called theory. I don't necessarily accept the ideas of "musical fact".
You don't have to accept anything. That doesn't make the facts go away. And there are facts a plenty in music theory and practice. :)
[quote=Silimtao]
... the discussion has been very enlightening. And Christopher, your explanations are mini-lessons all by themselves. In whatever areas we may disagree, I say simply- it's all rock and roll to me ...
I am glad you have an interest in this topic. I enjoy reading, thinking and writing about music theory. And of course the best is applying what I learn! It is always good for me to have to engage my mind to think hard about these things in order to reply. Thanks for the discussion. :)
