Music Theory and Culture

octatonic · September 2020

monquixote said:
A lot of musicians I know can be intimidated by "classically trained" musicians because they are "proper musicians". Once you play with them you realise a lot of them are actually very limited in what they can do. They might play in a pretty good orchestra, but they can't transcribe, improvise and their time and sense of rhythm is quite poor.

I prefer the term 'specialised' rather than limited.
To get very good at a classical repertoire requires total dedication to the task.
It doesn't really allow for huge amounts of divergence into other areas.

Jazz requires a similar dedication, but to other areas- improvisation, transcription for example.

I've played with several classical musicians who had zero ability to improvise or play very much at all without the notes on a page in front of them. I remember having a conversation with the piano player in a band I played in years ago. She couldn't grasp that I was literally making it up as I went along when I was soloing over a chord progression.
"How do you know what to do in each moment?" she asked.
"I don't know... I just sort of do it", I replied.

At that point in my playing were she to put some sheet music in front of me you'd have not heard me over the crickets chirping.
I can read music now, but not a note back then- she could read anything and play it immediately.
That looked like voodoo to me at the time.
She taught herself to improvise in the 3 years I was in that band- started by writing variations of whatever we were doing down on the staff, then slowly she used the score less and less. Her home base is still, I understand it, the written form of music and mine is still very much improv but you can develop away from your specialisation if you put in the work.

Essentially, you get good at what you practice and what you maintain.

Cranky · September 2020

jpfamps said:

monquixote said:

I think given that neither of us have been through the formal music education system in America it's hard to judge how relevant it is.

When I was at university in the late 90's I shared a house with someone who was doing a music degree and had no idea who the Beatles were. Essentially he'd never heard any music that wasn't classical so at least in that example it suggests that my university didn't see other forms of music worthy of study.

I think the question of if music theory is universal like maths or exists within a cultural context is an interesting question and he does make some interesting points on that subject.

The intervals used in Western music are all integer ratios in frequency, eg octave is 1:2, fifth 2:3, forth 3:4 etc.

This would suggest there is a fundamental mechanism at work here, ie this was waiting to be discovered rather than it was completely invented.

There are also data about use of these intervals in nature, eg birdsong. In fact there are data suggesting that the accuracy of interval production in birdsong confers social status.

Music theory essentially is an exercise in reverse engineering why something works; you certainly do not need to understand music theory to make music, and theory alone won't direct you to write a great piece of music.

A huge body of music theory is common across all genres of Western music; eg the intervals used in chords, and resolution.

In contrast, there is a trend in certain circles of academic thought that generation of knowledge is always culturally situated, and employed to exert power, which seems to be the underlying implication of the video above.

All knowledge is culturally situated. That's an inevitability by virtue of what "knowledge" and "culture" both are. Just part of being human. But the next level of this is when one set of culture-knowledge claims superiority over another, or even over all others. The latter is just kinda how it was for a while (ca. 1700-1940+) in America and Western Europe. (Eurocentrism is okay when you're in Europe. But the world's a much smaller place now, we're too connected for some of these old ideas to really work.) "Superior culture-knowledge" is not even the underlying implication of this video, it's explicitly detailed over the course of it.

Already having a background in the history of culture-knowledge, I wasn't surprised to learn any of this. What I find more interesting is how the American academy seems to have stagnated and dwelt on this particular "cult" of music theory whilst other parts of The West have moved on. Perhaps it goes to show how niche and insular this corner of academia is.

monquixote · September 2020

jpfamps said:

The intervals used in Western music are all integer ratios in frequency, eg octave is 1:2, fifth 2:3, forth 3:4 etc.

This would suggest there is a fundamental mechanism at work here, ie this was waiting to be discovered rather than it was completely invented.

There are also data about use of these intervals in nature, eg birdsong. In fact there are data suggesting that the accuracy of interval production in birdsong confers social status.

Music theory essentially is an exercise in reverse engineering why something works; you certainly do not need to understand music theory to make music, and theory alone won't direct you to write a great piece of music.

A huge body of music theory is common across all genres of Western music; eg the intervals used in chords, and resolution.

In contrast, there is a trend in certain circles of academic thought that generation of knowledge is always culturally situated, and employed to exert power, which seems to be the underlying implication of the video above.

Music does relate to physics and our physiology, but I don't think music theory is that much rooted in maths as it is in the conventions of our culture.

Equal temperament is a choice, the frequency of a C is a choice.

Analysis of music using figured bass is a choice.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the definition of a octave is a cultural phenomenon.

Danny1969 · September 2020

To be fair it's not clear whether we invented maths or whether it was there to be discovered.

monquixote · September 2020

Danny1969 said:

To be fair it's not clear whether we invented maths or whether it was there to be discovered.

Maths is a fundamental property of the universe.

jpfamps · September 2020

monquixote said:

jpfamps said:

The intervals used in Western music are all integer ratios in frequency, eg octave is 1:2, fifth 2:3, forth 3:4 etc.

This would suggest there is a fundamental mechanism at work here, ie this was waiting to be discovered rather than it was completely invented.

There are also data about use of these intervals in nature, eg birdsong. In fact there are data suggesting that the accuracy of interval production in birdsong confers social status.

Music theory essentially is an exercise in reverse engineering why something works; you certainly do not need to understand music theory to make music, and theory alone won't direct you to write a great piece of music.

A huge body of music theory is common across all genres of Western music; eg the intervals used in chords, and resolution.

In contrast, there is a trend in certain circles of academic thought that generation of knowledge is always culturally situated, and employed to exert power, which seems to be the underlying implication of the video above.

Music does relate to physics and our physiology, but I don't think music theory is that much rooted in maths as it is in the conventions of our culture.

Equal temperament is a choice, the frequency of a C is a choice.

Analysis of music using figured bass is a choice.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the definition of a octave is a cultural phenomenon.

Equal temperament is actually a comprise that came about through the problems with reconcilling the Pythagorian intervals. Other tuning have been tried, eg mean tone.

Actually several instruments don't employ equal temperament, eg the piano where the tuning is stretched, so that the bass end is flatter and the treble end is sharper than equal temperament.

I would agree that the frequency of C seems an arbitrary choice (and has and does vary, for example many European orchestras tune to A 443), and there are people who believe that choosing A440 was conspiracy!

https://jakubmarian.com/the-432-hz-vs-440-hz-conspiracy-theory/

I do think there are people who would argue that an octave is a cultural phenomenon; I don't agree with them.

octatonic · September 2020

monquixote said:

Danny1969 said:

To be fair it's not clear whether we invented maths or whether it was there to be discovered.

Maths is a fundamental property of the universe.

We are straying into philosophy here, I guess.
You're right but without a brain to understand it does it have any meaning?
A lion can't understand maths- it doesn't even know that it is a lion.

Cranky · September 2020

jpfamps said:

monquixote said:

jpfamps said:

The intervals used in Western music are all integer ratios in frequency, eg octave is 1:2, fifth 2:3, forth 3:4 etc.

This would suggest there is a fundamental mechanism at work here, ie this was waiting to be discovered rather than it was completely invented.

There are also data about use of these intervals in nature, eg birdsong. In fact there are data suggesting that the accuracy of interval production in birdsong confers social status.

Music theory essentially is an exercise in reverse engineering why something works; you certainly do not need to understand music theory to make music, and theory alone won't direct you to write a great piece of music.

A huge body of music theory is common across all genres of Western music; eg the intervals used in chords, and resolution.

In contrast, there is a trend in certain circles of academic thought that generation of knowledge is always culturally situated, and employed to exert power, which seems to be the underlying implication of the video above.

Music does relate to physics and our physiology, but I don't think music theory is that much rooted in maths as it is in the conventions of our culture.

Equal temperament is a choice, the frequency of a C is a choice.

Analysis of music using figured bass is a choice.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the definition of a octave is a cultural phenomenon.

Equal temperament is actually a comprise that came about through the problems with reconcilling the Pythagorian intervals. Other tuning have been tried, eg mean tone.

Actually several instruments don't employ equal temperament, eg the piano where the tuning is stretched, so that the bass end is flatter and the treble end is sharper than equal temperament.

I would agree that the frequency of C seems an arbitrary choice (and has and does vary, for example many European orchestras tune to A 443), and there are people who believe that choosing A440 was conspiracy!

https://jakubmarian.com/the-432-hz-vs-440-hz-conspiracy-theory/

I do think there are people who would argue that an octave is a cultural phenomenon; I don't agree with them.

The octave itself isn't a cultural phenomenon. But the ways we describe how one can get from one octave to the next is a cultural phenomenon.

Anytime human reasoning and language get involved, it's cultural. We sometimes have a knack, though, for kidding ourselves into thinking our ideas are of nature.

jpfamps · September 2020

Cranky said:

jpfamps said:

All knowledge is culturally situated. That's an inevitability by virtue of what "knowledge" and "culture" both are. Just part of being human. But the next level of this is when one set of culture-knowledge claims superiority over another, or even over all others. The latter is just kinda how it was for a while (ca. 1700-1940+) in America and Western Europe. (Eurocentrism is okay when you're in Europe. But the world's a much smaller place now, we're too connected for some of these old ideas to really work.) "Superior culture-knowledge" is not even the underlying implication of this video, it's explicitly detailed over the course of it.

Already having a background in the history of culture-knowledge, I wasn't surprised to learn any of this. What I find more interesting is how the American academy seems to have stagnated and dwelt on this particular "cult" of music theory whilst other parts of The West have moved on. Perhaps it goes to show how niche and insular this corner of academia is.

Whilst some knowledge is culturally situated, I do not believe all knowledge is culturally situated (and yes we would go down a thesaurus argument rabbit-hole of what we mean by "culture" and "knowledge").

And clearly some knowledge is superior to other knowledge; for example the heliocentric view of the solar system is superior to the geocentric view.

Also by stating "but the next level of this is when one set of culture-knowledge claims superiority over another, or even over all others," are you advocating cultural relativism? I think that is a very slippery slope down which to go, for example if a culture thinks it's acceptable to persecute homosexuals is this OK?

When describing the video attitude towards "Superior culture-knowledge" I was trying to be measured in my words rather taking for inflammatory position.

monquixote · September 2020

octatonic said:

monquixote said:

Danny1969 said:

To be fair it's not clear whether we invented maths or whether it was there to be discovered.

Maths is a fundamental property of the universe.

We are straying into philosophy here, I guess.
You're right but without a brain to understand it does it have any meaning?
A lion can't understand maths- it doesn't even know that it is a lion.

If you wiped out humanity and all human knowledge and another sentient species evolved it would develop maths and it would be the same.

octatonic · September 2020

monquixote said:

octatonic said:

monquixote said:

Danny1969 said:

To be fair it's not clear whether we invented maths or whether it was there to be discovered.

Maths is a fundamental property of the universe.

We are straying into philosophy here, I guess.
You're right but without a brain to understand it does it have any meaning?
A lion can't understand maths- it doesn't even know that it is a lion.

If you wiped out humanity and all human knowledge and another sentient species evolved it would develop maths and it would be the same.

I'm not you can say that without knowing how many orders of sentience exist.
If sentience develops in the same way that ours does then sure.
Our current understanding of maths isn't a fixed thing- it is just how we understand it right now.

We are massively off topic now though.

Cranky · September 2020

jpfamps said:

Also by stating "but the next level of this is when one set of culture-knowledge claims superiority over another, or even over all others," are you advocating cultural relativism? I think that is a very slippery slope down which to go, for example if a culture thinks it's acceptable to persecute homosexuals is this OK?

No, that's not what I'd say. It's not my take on "cultural relativism" either. I just mean that the human process of symbolic communication is always going to produce culturally-specific knowledge, classification schemes, etc. In many cases, the differences are irrelevant. Like being geocentric, for example, doesn't really affect daily life at all. And the notion that being heliocentric makes a culture superior to another is kinda silly.

I think something I could have been more clear on is, in the video and in the modern era more generally, the words "culture" and "race" were used practically interchangeably. That's really the problem. Because historically that logic was used to the point where some groups were described as being completely devoid of culture altogether, aka "one with nature". Whereas nowadays we know that one's race plays no determining role in what culture they grow up in.

Every culture has its own way of uplifting and degrading "types of" people, too. To that I'd say that no one form of degradation is worse than another, and no one form of uplift better than another. So, no, persecuting anybody isn't acceptable. I think Amin Malouf's In the Name of Identity covers this pretty well.

jpfamps · September 2020

A lion can't understand maths- it doesn't even know that it is a lion.

How do we know that?

viz · September 2020

jpfamps said:

A lion can't understand maths- it doesn't even know that it is a lion.

How do we know that?

Anyway sometimes it’s standing up

octatonic · September 2020

jpfamps said:

A lion can't understand maths- it doesn't even know that it is a lion.

How do we know that?

Now we are going to go really off topic.
The question of animal consciousness has been hotly debated for years- centuries really.
The notion of animals having consciousness was rejected for centuries because it was thought that allowing for any consideration that they may have would impact the field of religious thought- the closer animals get to humans the more it questions the idea that God made the Earth for man to live on.

A lot of research has been done on animal consciousness since then though- there are a number of challenges in doing the work though, mostly because it is hard to prove a negative.
Let me adjust what I said above.
A lion probably can't understand maths- and it probably doesn't even know that it is a lion.
I suggest we leave it there unless anyone really wants to talk about the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness and the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

WiresDreamDisasters · September 2020

What did Johnny Cage from Mortal Kombat say? Talking about music is like getting kicked in the dick by Liu Kang on a Friday night out down Yates's.

Something like that.

At the end of the day, we're all going to put our own subjective perceptions onto music, regardless of any given set of rules or structure. The map is not the territory, and music theory is not music. It's the observation of music, and historically was written down to avoid the inherent problems with human memory.

The crux of this topic seems to me to be "X culture teaches music this way... I want to use that as a way to demonize said culture" ... when all cultures will teach all sorts of things in a specific way. Vedic mathematics is an approach to mathematics that is different to traditional "Western" approaches. Doesn't make it inferior as a standalone fact. You still need to figure out how accurate a methodology it is.

jpfamps · September 2020

octatonic said:

jpfamps said:

A lion can't understand maths- it doesn't even know that it is a lion.

How do we know that?

Now we are going to go really off topic.
The question of animal consciousness has been hotly debated for years- centuries really.
The notion of animals having consciousness was rejected for centuries because it was thought that allowing for any consideration that they may have would impact the field of religious thought- the closer animals get to humans the more it questions the idea that God made the Earth for man to live on.

A lot of research has been done on animal consciousness since then though- there are a number of challenges in doing the work though, mostly because it is hard to prove a negative.
Let me adjust what I said above.
A lion probably can't understand maths- and it probably doesn't even know that it is a lion.
I suggest we leave it there unless anyone really wants to talk about the 2012 Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness and the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Sorry I was joking!

jpfamps · September 2020

Cranky said:

Like being geocentric, for example, doesn't really affect daily life at all. And the notion that being heliocentric makes a culture superior to another is kinda silly.

That's the Sherlock Holmes attitude to the issue:

"What the deuce is it to me?" Holmes interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”

Regardless, I was not making a cultural judgement about geocentricity or heliocentricity, I was trying to point out that certain knowledge is empirically superior to other knowledge.

Cranky · September 2020

jpfamps said:

Cranky said:

Like being geocentric, for example, doesn't really affect daily life at all. And the notion that being heliocentric makes a culture superior to another is kinda silly.

That's the Sherlock Holmes attitude to the issue:

"What the deuce is it to me?" Holmes interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”

Regardless, I was not making a cultural judgement about geocentricity or heliocentricity, I was trying to point out that certain knowledge is empirically superior to other knowledge.

Yeah yeah, I get that, sorry I'm just bantering about culture and what it is, it's kinda my thing. I don't think anyone's being judgey. That's a good Holmes reference, kinda sums up how I feel about a lot of things we fill our heads with. Makes me think of that Gang of Four song: "He fills his head with culture
He gives himself an ulcer".

GuyBoden · September 2020

I mostly agree with Adam Neely. IMHO, the continued dominance of 18th Century European Classical Music Theory can stifle musical creativity, but you have to have a reasonably good understanding of music theory to even realise this.

Personally, I think that Adam Neely's youtube channel is on the whole a very educational channel, but he does embrace a bit of controversy and conflict to attract more viewers, but that seems to be the aim for a lot of Youtuber's.

Interestingly in another video, Adam Neely says that one of the books that most Influenced him was "Twentieth-Century Harmony: Creative Aspects and Practice by Vincent Persichetti" published in 1961, which covers some more modern compositional techniques.

https://www.questia.com/read/3652325/twentieth-century-harmony-creative-aspects-and-practice

WiresDreamDisasters · September 2020

Whitesplainin' to Herbie Hancock.

thing · October 2020

I think there can be an element of reverse snobbery at work in musical circles too. In a lot of conversations with modern musos there's an undercurrent of 'Classically trained musicians=snobs, narrow minded' Not in all cases but it's certainly there.

Most of the classically trained musicians I meet (I work with about 80 of them) are brill, open to any types of music and willing to learn from 'contemporary' musicians like me, just as I am from them. They are all invariably fabulous players/arrangers in their own right too.

@ WireDreamDisasters

My understanding of how music is made in the modern world is pretty limited too! I leave that to people who know what they are doing.

WiresDreamDisasters · October 2020

thing said:

I think there can be an element of reverse snobbery at work in musical circles too. In a lot of conversations with modern musos there's an undercurrent of 'Classically trained musicians=snobs, narrow minded' Not in all cases but it's certainly there.

Most of the classically trained musicians I meet (I work with about 80 of them) are brill, open to any types of music and willing to learn from 'contemporary' musicians like me, just as I am from them. They are all invariably fabulous players/arrangers in their own right too.

@ WireDreamDisasters

My understanding of how music is made in the modern world is pretty limited too! I leave that to people who know what they are doing.

Actually this is all true too, seen it a lot myself.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Music Theory and Culture

Comments