Re: A theory question (or why do some notes sound right?)

Derek Tearne <derek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
RichL <rpleavitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jim Carr <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Derek Tearne wrote:

If you drop something it will fall. That isn't a rule that we've
created and imposed as part of the theory, that is a rule that we
have derived from observation and experimentation as part of
formulating the theory. Every action has an equal and opposite
reaction, that's not a rule we've imposed on objects, it is a rule
which we have observed from the interaction of objects.

Music theory isn't so different.

Sorry, that metaphor doesn't work. We've been through this before.
Music is an invention. The "scale" as we know it could have been
much different. In fact, it *is* much different around the world.
What sounds "good" is a matter of opinion and culture. Sure, theory
is descriptive, but it's descriptive of something humans created.

Gravity was discovered. Its laws existed before we came along and
will exist long after we're gone. There's no opinion involved.

The use of "theory" in the musical context does a disservice to the
word as it's commonly understood in a scientific context:

- Music theory has no predictive power whatsoever.

Yes it does.

Example?

- A legitimate scientific theory does not allow numerous exceptions.
One can disprove a scientific theory by finding a single violation.

I used gravity as an example specifically because, although most of us
seem to believe it was all cut and dried once Newton had eaten his
apple, it is not really that well sorted yet. There are exceptions
for objects moving really quickly etc.

Even so, using Newtonian gravitational theory, most of us will get an
adequate result most of the time - and even if and when the theory is
inadequate no one floats off into space.

The discovery/invention of general relativity invalidated the Newtonian
theory of gravity. It is now considered to be an approximation, valid
under certain circumstances.

The discovery of quantum field theory and the recognition that it must
apply somehow invalidated general relativity. Einstein fought the
implications of this tooth and nail until his death. Yet the fact
remains. If someone were to ask a knowledgeable physicist "What is the
correct theory of gravity", the most appropriate answer is "Right now,
there is none". Until the big boys get all the strings sorted out, that
is!

So both general relativity and the Newtonian theory of gravity are
approximations to the truth but no one knows what the truth is. Neither
is now considered a valid theory of gravity.

Furthermore - even if musical theory doesn't conform to the rigid
requirements of a scientific theory that doesn't mean it is invalid -
after all it is *not* a theory in that sense.

I just object to the word "theory". I'm not saying it doesn't have some
utility.

Theories which observe nature often have exceptions. For example, all
planets rotate in a counter-clockwise direction, except venus...

But there's no currently valid theory that predicts this. Newtonian
gravity didn't even predict this. It's an attempt at a generalization,
not a theory.

- Scientific theories forbid certain things to happen. Music
theory's rules are made, yea encouraged, to be broken.

Stuff and nonsense. Theories forbid nothing.

Conservation of energy, for example, forbids creating energy from
nothingness. Modern electrodynamics forbids the net charge of a closed
system from changing its value. The list goes on...

A scientific theory
wlll allow behaviour to be predicted, including things which are not
expected to happen as part of that theory. But that doesn't
necessarily stop unexpected things from happening. They do, and
theories change to accomodate them.

Right, and once those unexpected things happen, they invalidate the
theory if they are inconsistent with it. And in the end they provide
the impetus for the discovery of new, better theories.

One does not invalidate music theory by finding an exception.


.

Relevant Pages