Re: Is music theory REALLY so mathematical?

On Jul 6, 11:43 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ludwig77" <gregjg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1183727919.474338.315550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I often hear people describing music theory as being mathematical,
however I see this as a misassociation.

The presence of numbers in music theory, doesn't make it any more
mathematical than a telephone number.

I know that Pythagorus applied a lot of mathematics in studying
overtones and harmonics and that the physics of string vibrations and
frequencies is VERY mathematical, but am I correct to say that music
theory in and of itself is NOT mathematical?

Sure it uses numbers as labels for chords and notes, but it also uses
letters to label them, YET we don't misassociate it with language
studies.

Furthermore, music theory does NOT even use a single mathematical
operator (multiplication, division, addition or subtraction).

Comments and thoughts?

Greg's Music Theory:
www.gregjonesmusic.com/intro.htm

Music theory is a descriptive language and not really a mathematical or
scientific theory. Its equivilent to english grammar as it is a methodology
of describing something. But like just about everything else one can apply
mathematics to it. Mathematics is more about logic, analysis, and understand
rather than numbers. It just so happens that mathematics applies very easy
to numbers and one can make a lot of progress when using numbers. This is
why so many things are first converted to numbers when one wants to try to
undrestand it "mathematically". Its not necessary that just cause it has
numbers that its math but numbers are the most natural setting to use math.
(and you can call them by some other name or use different symbols as whats
important is the abstract relationship)

But when people say things like "Music theory is to mathematical" what they
are really saying is that music theory is useless or to complicated to be of
use. Most people do not like math or understand it and hence they are making
an obvious equivilence that really isn't true.

First, Music theory, like I said, isn't so much a theory as it is a
descriptive language. Its used so two people can easily communicate things
about music. This type of thinking happens in all subject matter who's
ultimate goal is to understand(usually because it requires people to work
together to accomplish something greater than any one person could do by
themselfs).

When people say they don't care about music theory they are simply saying
they don't care about communicating musical ideas in distinct and
precise(relatively) terms. Its really a cop out when people do this as
essentially they are saying thay are to lazy to learn it and don't think its
useful(which it might not be for them).

Another way to think of music theory is ideas that someone has thought of
are codified in some language for communication. i.e., the terms and
concepts, in an abstract sense, are something that people come up with
naturally as they become better at understanding music. e.g., a chord is
something just about anyone will figure out and so giving it a name helps
people communicate about that concept.

In any case, math(and here I do not mean meta math such as analysis and
logic) can be applied to music with varying degrees of success but most
people take it way to far. For example, there are 12 musical notes in
western music and because of this one would naturally make the relationship
between the musical alphabet and Z_12 which is a group. A group is like a
abstract version of the natural numbers. Now Z_12 has been extensively
analyzed and has many properties and one might then try to see how these
equivilent properties play out "musically". It may or may not make any
musical sense though but I suppose that is what the people doing this are
trying to determine. Sometimes it does help and farther make sense of music
but many times it doesn't.

My main point is that anything becomes mathematical when one truely wants to
understand it on an intellectual level. That is what math is about. Great
musicians are either somehow channeling the music they create or they are
great mathematicians(although they might not even be able to add well).
Chances are its a combination of both. Any time thinking involved it is
"mathematics"(although maybe its better called logic). The more you think
about something usually the more insight you get into it and understand it
better.

Now things can be complex for only two reasons. Either you do not understand
the popularized descriptive language or you do not understand the
intellectual concepts involved. Almost all of music theory has very simple
concepts(chords, scales, modes, etc...) but the terminology is somewhat
complex(secondary dominants, chromatic mediant relationship, neapolitian,
etc...). In reality these are are not complex but just tend to be
overwhelming to most people because they don't have the time or interest to
understand them. This is also true of mathematics. Almost everyone
understand mathematics up to the graduate level in some intuitive sense. The
issues tend to be the formality involved and the huge amount of terminology
and precise conceptual meanings one needs to be successful.

For example, integration and differentiation are very simple concepts that
I'm sure everyone has some innate understanding of but most people don't get
it when put in a mathematical context. Even advanced mathematics tends to
be very simple concepts but applied in complex ways or just happen to have a
lot of "overhead" that one has to spend years learning to get the total
picture.

In any case I gess its up for you to make your own mind up about it being
mathematical or not but hopefully I've provided something that will help ;)

Jon

Music theory is not descriptive. There are descriptive elements in an
analysis, but this is not the analysis. There is no analysis involved
in describing what is going on. Music theory is the taking of these
elements and putting them together in a meaningful way that shows how
or why things occur. This is the problem at a lot of levels of music
theory. There is a jazz magazine that is very interesting. I can't
remember the name at the moment. It comes out quarterly. (My copies
were all destroyed) In the articles there are some insights and some
good comments about the musician and the music. I was anxious to get
to the longer more detailed analysis of the pieces that is usually in
another section. As I started to read it it went on to the effect. "In
measure one there is a Dmin chord that goes to a G7-9 and then
proceeds to a Cmin on the upbeat of the last beat." and on and on like
this for pages. This is NOT analysis. In this case, it wasn't even
good preparation for analysis.

If you name the chords, you have description. If you then put them
into Functional Notation, then you have the lowest form of analysis.
You then take the Functional analysis and relate the key areas in a
meaningful way and show that the composer has used them here and here
to create a certain feeling to go along with the text, or that he
develops this in various ways that relates to a certain pattern and
this pattern creates tension or something that goes along with the
form, or that this was done because of the instruments available at
the time or anything that is not apparent by just looking at the score
or that needs further explination other than a pure description, THEN
you are getting into the theory of music. When you take maybe a dozen
examples of a composer's works and show how he is exploring a certain
idea and how it grows relative to his earlier works and talk about the
results of his efforts or how this is different from his peers that do
it this way, then you are getting into the music theory.

You can say that this too is a higher level of description, but there
is a difference. Description is not music theory. An analysis may have
descriptive elements, but music theory is relating these events into
something that has reason and purpose. Description is only the 'grunt'
work. (that's why professors have their assistants and students do
this for them lol)

LJS

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is music theory REALLY so mathematical?
    ... mathematics to it. ... numbers that its math but numbers are the most natural setting to use ... are really saying is that music theory is useless or to complicated to be ... sole purpose of communication. ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: Is music theory REALLY so mathematical?
    ... Music theory is a descriptive language and not really a mathematical or ... mathematics to it. ... numbers that its math but numbers are the most natural setting to use ... But when people say things like "Music theory is to mathematical" what ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: Theory Versus Composition Part One
    ... a group of arrogant intellectuals. ... if math is ... The mathematics would have to be flawed if your ... By the same token, if the music theory is not an aspect of the music, ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: Is music theory REALLY so mathematical?
    ... The presence of numbers in music theory, ... I know that Pythagorus applied a lot of mathematics in studying ... Music theory is a descriptive language and not really a mathematical or ... numbers that its math but numbers are the most natural setting to use math. ...
    (rec.music.theory)
  • Re: Math and music
    ... > "Music has remained in the dark, without geometric form, because ... If you want an analogy of music theory in science then the closest ... But no mathematics. ... you can dive into a harmony book and start playing around ...
    (sci.math)
Loading