What is meant by this?

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Andyrondack

Italuke has studied ethnomusicology and I thought it might be interesting if he could share some of his insights of how a musical syntax or grammar , (because I don't know what else to call it,) develops in small non complex communities, I mean everyone wherever they are has some culturally formed idea of what music is 'supposed' to sound like so music must follow some rules otherwise it's just not going to sound musical at least within the culture that produces it.

Absolutely!
But obviously we have to wait for Italuke, to hear his insights!

Originally Posted by Andyrondack

I have not 'studied'music theory for more than a few hours and have frequently found it very useful indeed.
Just one example someone taught me some scales once and I went away and messed around to see what music I might come up with and it didn't take long to realise that when I fooled around with a minor pentatonic scale copying the rhythms I got from Hollywood westerns I could create the sounds that conjured up images of the injuns last party before they all got killed by John Wayne.

Right.
For me it was mostly the other way round, E.g., I learned to play a blues riff. I knew the record it came from, but a friend showed me how to play it. Many years later, I learned it was a "pentatonic scale".
And when it comes to "western sounding music", I learned that by copying Shadows records! I had no idea of the theoretical terms for what they were doing - that all came later.

I did study theory now and then, out of curiosity. I do remember learning some weird scales from a book of scales, which were fun to play with, but they didn't relate to the music I was playing in the bands I was in, so it was a very peripheral thing. (It was pretty much all classical theory of course, and I wasn't interested in classical music aside from some classical guitar pieces; and funnily enough the theory didn't help with that. Just learning to play them was enough. I also wrote my own classical pastiches, which I'm sure would have been improved it I had properly studied the theory; but I didn't care enough to do that.)

Essentially I learned everything from music itself - learning songs by reading songbooks, or picking things up by ear. Theory was always a separate thing, a fascinating subject in its own right: I read a lot. It did sometimes clarify some things I already knew - and it helped when my ear couldn't quite decide between a few options which all sounded kind of OK. IOW, it was a little like being short-sighted and putting on glasses: "oh, so that's what it is!"

Originally Posted by Andyrondack

Few years later I'm in a Sami museum in Lapland talking to a guide about Sami music and she puts on an LP of Sami yoiking which is what they call their traditional chants, it sounded to me very similar to the Hollywood interpretation of what Native American songs are supposed to sound like , and really it wasn't pleasant to my ears at all but I thought I got to find something polite to say about this so I just said "that sounds like a pentatonic scale". Well maybe I just got lucky but she turned the record sleeve around and read out a learned description of Yoiking which confirmed that these chants were based on a 5 note scale.

Right. So theory enabled you to give a name to a sound that you recognised. That's really what it's for - no more, no less.
But I don't understand why Italuke might interpret those chants as using a 'different theory' or needing to be reconciled with other forms of music? Perhaps as Brent Hahn posted he just meant 'musical dialect or language' which is how I think of it , but then why would another cultures musical language need to be reconciled with anything?

But maybe he will elaborate, I would find that interesting.[/QUOTE]

[Italuke]

Hi there. Contrary to popular opinion, as soon as we get beyond the very basics (circle of fifths, triads, 7th chords, traditional root movement, voice leading, etc.) there is NO ONE WAY to describe music theory.

I was responding to another's comment about how terrible it is that Beato "is lazy" about how he presents theory and is "confusing the masses" or whatever.

I spent enough time in seminars with preeminent music theorists, and writing my own papers, to learn that, for example, any one book or approach to teaching theory is just that. ONE approach.

For me it was the study of jazz theory and how it differs greatly from common practice classical theory, which also differs from shall we say..."folk" or vernacular theory, which opened my eyes and got me OUT of my academic "there is only ONE right way" tunnel vision.

The other poster seemed to imply that there really is only one way to teach theory and that Beato wasn't adhering to that hallowed method.

I disagree.

[Andyrondack]

Originally Posted by Italuke

I spent enough time in seminars with preeminent music theorists, and writing my own papers, to learn that, for example, any one book or approach to teaching theory is just that. ONE approach.

For me it was the study of jazz theory and how it differs greatly from common practice classical theory, which also differs from shall we say..."folk" or vernacular theory, which opened my eyes and got me OUT of my academic "there is only ONE right way" tunnel vision.
.

Thanks for clarifying that Italuke . I may be a bit slow here but I still don't get the meaning of your statement.
Surely jazz music sounds different to classical music sounds different to folk music because those genres employ harmony ,rhythm and melody in different ways but if that's what you mean isn't that obvious ? I mean it's got to be a tautology, they sound different because there are differences.
To me and to JohnPR (as far as I can see) music theory is just a description the 'software' that underlies music. So everyone would agree with you that jazz musicians and folk and classical musicians whilst all originating from a common base developed in different directions , is that what you mean when you write that there are "different theories" ? If so I don't think most people would put it that way.

This is a quote from an interview with guitarist Gretchen Menn which defines what music theory is to me.
"Music theory is not prescriptive; it is descriptive. It doesn't't tell us we have to do something or that we can't do something else—it isn't creative dogma. It simply gives us the vocabulary and tools to conceptualize music in a way that allows us to communicate most freely with other musicians and benefit from the tremendous amount of educational materials available by allowing for a common vocabulary."

As you have studied ethnomusicology it would be very interesting to learn something of how non western cultures go about creating music? How they perceive the process of making music but also it's function, what's it for? .I would be especially interested to learn if any clues have emerged from studying the music of small tribal communities that might give an indication of the function and production of music in prehistoric societies?
Thanks again.

[The Bard Rocks]

Theory helps us to understand what works and what doesn't. If you have never studied it, but have been playing for a while, you probably know much more theory than you think.

[Italuke]

Oops, deleting, already replied.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Italuke

Hi there. Contrary to popular opinion, as soon as we get beyond the very basics (circle of fifths, triads, 7th chords, traditional root movement, voice leading, etc.) there is NO ONE WAY to describe music theory.

I'm getting pedantic here, but I think you mean music theory has many ways of describing music. We adapt the terminology according to the music we are describing.

After all, there is arguably just one way to describe the discipline of "music theory" itself: "the grammar of musical language". (I mean, that's an analogy, of course, and there are others. But That doesn't mean the grammar itself isn't adapted to take account of the various dialects of that language.

IOW, if you are describing and analyzing any kind of music, in any way that might be appropriate, you are doing "music theory".

Originally Posted by Italuke

I was responding to another's comment about how terrible it is that Beato "is lazy" about how he presents theory and is "confusing the masses" or whatever.

I guess that was mine? I mean, that's more or less how I feel about his videos.

Originally Posted by Italuke

I spent enough time in seminars with preeminent music theorists, and writing my own papers, to learn that, for example, any one book or approach to teaching theory is just that. ONE approach.

Sure, no argument there.

Originally Posted by Italuke

For me it was the study of jazz theory and how it differs greatly from common practice classical theory, which also differs from shall we say..."folk" or vernacular theory, which opened my eyes and got me OUT of my academic "there is only ONE right way" tunnel vision.

Again, agreed.

Originally Posted by Italuke

The other poster seemed to imply that there really is only one way to teach theory and that Beato wasn't adhering to that hallowed method.

OK, well that wasn't me then. Or, if it was, you misunderstood my point.

My objection to Beato (at least to the theory videos of his that I've seen) is that his method (such as it is...) is inefficient. It's not that he teaches in a different way, or that he is teaching about a specific genre. It's that he is just a bad teacher. His presentations are disorganised, ill thought out.

The only reason I expressed such an opinion anyway (why should I care?) is that I've seen so many people posting to other sites who are confused after seeing one of his videos. He's almost notorious in that respect. We get used to seeing someone mention Beato, and there's a kind of collective groan - here we go again; what's he said this time?

In fact, to be fair, there's not a whole slew of things he gets wrong. He knows his stuff, for sure. He's just not great at putting it across.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by rllink

…But theory does not create, it is a way of trying to understand.

Hi rllink
I think theory is a very creative tool.

It can be a tool of explanation, or exploration.

[Italuke]

Originally Posted by JonPR

He knows his stuff, for sure. He's just not great at putting it across.

Exactly. My point, as your point is also valid, is that that train done left the station. The internet is full of folks doing the same thing, confusing the uninitiated, presenting information poorly. For my own sanity I gave up worrying about it. It is what it is, as the saying goes.

And of course these kinds of trivial back and forths are always better in person over a couple of pints.

[DCCougar]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

it's piano theory....

Never heard that before. That certainly explains why learning theory on piano is a lot easier (or at least more direct) than on guitar.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Italuke

Exactly. My point, as your point is also valid, is that that train done left the station. The internet is full of folks doing the same thing, confusing the uninitiated, presenting information poorly. For my own sanity I gave up worrying about it. It is what it is, as the saying goes.

And of course these kinds of trivial back and forths are always better in person over a couple of pints.

True enough. My only problem is hanging around music theory sites too much, where the fallout from Beato's videos is more evident!

As a teacher myself, I'm well acquainted with the glassy-eyed look every time I step a little too far into theory territory, so I'm not at all surprised that someone making teaching videos - with no immediate feedback (especially the blank kind) from a room full of students - gets a little carried away with his theme and takes some details for granted. It's one reason I never make theory videos myself.

The other reason is that are some extremely well done ones; the competition is too good. Adam Neely is a case in point. He's drawn to the more esoteric end of theory, of course, but his videos are always very professionally put together. He's not just pressing record and talking; he knows how to script, edit and present. Likewise 12tone. David Bennett is pretty good too, especially for such a young guy. (I just wish he wouldn't wave his hands around so much...)

[Andyrondack]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

You're getting at an important point here, actually--

What we refer to as music theory is a pretty "young" invention. And it's specifically Western, it's piano theory.

So when you have music created by cultures long before the piano or the concept of Western music existed...

No defined scales and modes which are the beginning of music theory in Western and Oriental music go back to ancient Greece and that's just as early as we know about.
There's no such thing as 'piano theory'.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Greek_Music/
This site provides some interesting deffinitions of what 'music theory' actually means and how any definition has to expand to encompass whatever we consider music to be .
https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Music+theory

An extract from the above to counter those who believe music theory is only relevant to certain genres of Western music...
"Prehistory
Main article: Prehistoric music
Preserved prehistoric instruments, artifacts, and later depictions of performance in artworks can give clues to the structure of pitch systems in prehistoric cultures. See for instance Paleolithic flutes, Gǔdí, and Anasazi flute.

Antiquity
Mesopotamia
See also: Music of Mesopotamia
Several surviving Sumerian and Akkadian clay tablets include musical information of a theoretical nature, mainly lists of intervals and tunings.[7] The scholar Sam Mirelman reports that the earliest of these texts dates from before 1500 BCE, a millennium earlier than surviving evidence from any other culture of comparable musical thought. Further, "All the Mesopotamian texts [about music] are united by the use of a terminology for music that, according to the approximate dating of the texts, was in use for over 1,000 years."[8]

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by Andyrondack

No defined scales and modes which are the beginning of music theory in Western and Oriental music go back to ancient Greece and that's just as early as we know about.
There's no such thing as 'piano theory'.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Greek_Music/
This site provides some interesting deffinitions of what 'music theory' actually means and how any definition has to expand to encompass whatever we consider music to be .
https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Music+theory

An extract from the above to counter those who believe music theory is only relevant to certain genres of Western music...
"Prehistory
Main article: Prehistoric music
Preserved prehistoric instruments, artifacts, and later depictions of performance in artworks can give clues to the structure of pitch systems in prehistoric cultures. See for instance Paleolithic flutes, Gǔdí, and Anasazi flute.

Antiquity
Mesopotamia
See also: Music of Mesopotamia
Several surviving Sumerian and Akkadian clay tablets include musical information of a theoretical nature, mainly lists of intervals and tunings.[7] The scholar Sam Mirelman reports that the earliest of these texts dates from before 1500 BCE, a millennium earlier than surviving evidence from any other culture of comparable musical thought. Further, "All the Mesopotamian texts [about music] are united by the use of a terminology for music that, according to the approximate dating of the texts, was in use for over 1,000 years."[8]

Yes, but all of what is in theory books today regarding harmony and Western Music in practice is "piano theory." That's what is taught in schools in classes called "music theory."

And there is a plethora of music from Africa and Asia that has nothing to do with it. That was my point.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Yes, but all of what is in theory books today regarding harmony and Western Music in practice is "piano theory." That's what is taught in schools in classes called "music theory."

Well, it applies to all western music, of course, certainly to any instrument playing western music.

The point about the piano - which I think you're making - is that is the traditional central instrument at the heart of western music. It's intimately connected with the archaic tradition (at least 1000 years old) of seven standard notes with five alterations, and thus with staff notation too. Black keys representing those weird alterations of the standard seven, that took centuries to arrive at the full set of five.

In that sense, it actually dates back before the "major-minor key system" (12 of each) on which conventional music theory is based - back to the medieval modal era.

But it keeps its place as the "workbench" for music theory for three reasons: (1) its straightforward connection with staff notation; (2) its full complement of 88 notes (only some church organs exceed that range); (3) the fact that no piano technique is required to use it to study theory. (You just need to know which note is which.)

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

And there is a plethora of music from Africa and Asia that has nothing to do with it. That was my point.

Absolutely!

[marciero]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Every kind of music shares some factors, and differs in other ways.

"Music theory" is simply a system for identifying and naming the various common practices in each style or genre. The "grammar of the language", if you like. Classical and jazz - as Brent says - are like two dialects of the same language (the language of "harmony", essentially, chords and so on, which is a peculiarly western thing).

The classical "dialect" is a rather old-fashioned way of speaking, considered "correct" in some academic circles. As with some English grammarians, some people get very fastidious about the "right" way to do things, which is mainy concerned with honouring tradition. In the language analogy, it's like believing that the most "proper" kind of English is the English as spoken by the upper classes between the periods of Shakespeare and Queen Victoria. (The language obviously evolved during that period, but the stuffiest grammarians would say it;s gone downhill ever since.)

In comparison, jazz is an American urban street slang. It's still a form of "English", of course, so obeys a lot of the same rules as "Victorian" English. I'm guessing this is what Italuke meant about "reconciling" the two. If any foreigner wanted to learn how American jazz musicians speak, a standard English text book (even one published 100-200 years ago) would do pretty well. But of course, some "jazz speak" would be hard to understand from that old vocabulary and grammar.

...

In the Venn diagram of "music theory", the classical and jazz circles overlap quite a lot. But each one has areas quite distinct from the other - and those areas are all the factors by which we identify a piece of music as "jazz" or "classical".

...

So, when it comes to discussing things like keys, chords and chord sequences, then "jazz theory" differs little if at all from "classical theory". The problem with that is it can lead to sidelining what is important about jazz. It can encourage the view that classical music is superior - because its harmonic and formal practices are so much more complex.

This is actually a very common bias, especially when people compare rock and R&B with classical music. People will claim that classical music is "obviously" better than rock music, because they are using formal and harmonic complexity as their criteria. And they happen to like formal and harmonic complexity - to them it's automatically a "good thing", and the most important aspect of music.

That's fine as a personal opinion, but it's nothing to do with music theory. Music theory can't be used to justify value judgments about any form of music. Music theory itself has no bias. It's just a discipline of observation and description of musical behaviour. As such, it's rather like a natural science. Zoologists don't have arguments about which animal is "best!" Even when they talk about evolution, they don't tend to talk in terms of "progress", as if today's animals are "better" than the ones they evolved from. "Success" is measured in terms adaptation to environment, which changes all the time.

Great points. I agree with most of this.
No matter what the discipline or field, a "theory" is simply a framework for understanding and communicating something. What is usually referred to as "music theory" is only one of many possible frameworks, which, for whatever reasons became hyperdominant and we dont have music "theories". I think that particular framework has worked well for a lot of styles, including jazz. The downside- the bias you mention above- is in marginalizing or disparaging music that does not fit neatly within it-as if the music is deficient. In fact it speaks to the limitations of the framework not being able to capture everything about all music, as if any one framework could.

One part of your post I might push back on is that I think that calling jazz "urban street slang" is an example of this very bias. It is urban street slang only if viewed through that one narrow framework.

Youtuber Adam Neely has a great video on this, starting with the idea that you can effectively replace the term "music theory" in most common usages with the phrase "the harmonic styles of 18th century Europeans".

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by marciero

One part of your post I might push back on is that I think that calling jazz "urban street slang" is an example of this very bias. It is urban street slang only if viewed through that one narrow framework.

Perhaps you're assuming "urban street slang" is a put-down.
That wasn't my intention. Street slang is as sophisticated as any "academic" version of English.
The parallel with jazz is that it's learned largely by ear, it's essentially spoken (not written), and much of it can't be written down anyway - at least not using the kind of writing developed for European classical music. And in many ways it's deliberately confrontational, and expressive of life as it is lived now.

Originally Posted by marciero

Youtuber Adam Neely has a great video on this, starting with the idea that you can effectively replace the term "music theory" in most common usages with the phrase "the harmonic styles of 18th century Europeans".

Absolutely!

If you don't know Philip Tagg, you should check him out. (Pretty sure Neely knows all about him.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Tagg (His writing gets pretty deep into the minutiae, but he's an entertaining speaker - check him out on youtube.)

Also see if you can find the original presentation by Philip Ewell which kicked off the whole "white racial frame" debate. (It used to be on YouTube, but I think you can still find the text. E.g., here: https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.20.26....6.2.ewell.html)

Tagg's main interest is the biased and imprecise terminology that "Euroclassical" music theory has unhelpfully bequeathed to us (with particular reference to popular music), where Ewell (of course) digs up its racist past (largely Schenker) and the hangover from that that is still giving us a headache.