2 ms·

I think your argument is conflating music theory rules with consistency and accessibility. I agree that the naming and accessibility could be significantly eas

by dagmx 5y ago

I think your argument is conflating music theory rules with consistency and accessibility. I agree that the naming and accessibility could be significantly easier. That's just the nature of language though, and music theory is a language. One that's a cumulation of many cultures. However the rules (in western theory) are very consistent and clear if you've learned your foundations. This is no different than programming too. If you know the circle of fifths, and the WWHWWWH series of modes, there's a very strong consistency. Now if we're arguing about why fifths, and why we name our modes after Greek groups rather than something numerical, that's valid. But it's just like the names of the days of the week. Once you know them, it's just an arbitrary term that you internalize. The rules I'm bemoaning in my post are things like sticking to a fixed time signature or scale, playing perfectly aligned notes. Versus things like polyrhythms and drunk drumming, exploring disharmony or using alternates to octaves.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
yes, I understood what you meant by rules. I just don't come across many people complaining about those "rules of practice". If you've listened to reasonable amount of music, you already know that those rules are made to be broken (once learned, maybe). The problem with the day of the week comparison is that, yes, they are arbitrary and you just learn them and be done with it, but with music the names are just the building blocks for a vocabulary/dialog about a creative process, and so you just don't throw down "play the 5th" the way you might say "it's Wednesday". Instead, that language is interacting with a conceptual process which the language doesn't mirror. If the four components of music are rhythm, timbre, melody and harmony, the last two are all about intervals, and almost none of the music terminology in the west reflects that.

by dagmx 5y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

yes, I understood what you meant by rules. I just don't come across many people complaining about those "rules of practice". If you've listened to reasonable amount of music, you already know that those rules are made to be broken (once learned, maybe). The problem with the day of the week comparison is that, yes, they are arbitrary and you just learn them and be done with it, but with music the names are just the building blocks for a vocabulary/dialog about a creative process, and so you just don't throw down "play the 5th" the way you might say "it's Wednesday". Instead, that language is interacting with a conceptual process which the language doesn't mirror. If the four components of music are rhythm, timbre, melody and harmony, the last two are all about intervals, and almost none of the music terminology in the west reflects that.