View Single Post
Old 02.05.2016, 07:07 PM   #322
Severian
invito al cielo
 
Severian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 11,741
Severian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's assesSeverian kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous
Yes it is empirical in the sense that there is measurable data. A chord is math based, it is quantifiable, we can measure it. Same with timing patterns, scales, etc. We can use this empirical data to mathematically examine OTHER musics and see if they incorporate the same math (eg chord progressions, timing structures, melody and scale patterns). Sure, its not going to be 100% definitive and there will ALWAYS be exceptions BUT once we have some measurable data we can look for more evidence. In this case, if we believe that one banf, say the Beatles, innovatived an entirely unique music theory, then our next step is to check if any other bands implemented the same theories. If yes then we now can begin to look for less quantifiable evidence as to if these second artists directly borrowed from the first artist or if it was purely serendipitous or coincidence.

MUSIC is mathematical, quantifiable, yes. Music theory, no. It becomes an inherently non-objective, non-empirical method of research when things like testimonial evidence are used to support theses. Empiricism involves objective observation. Interviews and sound bytes and opinions from writers and musicians are not part of the equation.

Yeah, music is hella mathematical, and thereby scientifically applicable. Sure. But opinions are inherently subjective.

Quote:
Actually it is because the parameters of all possible sounds are both definable, quantifiable, and measurable. Indeed the entire premise of theory is based on Pythagoras insights on the mathematical relationship between harmony and octaves.

Yeah, right. Ok. Still talking about notes, math, data points. None of this is true of testimony. That's why the burden of "proof" is really just a burden of being convincing in law. You still have to default to the decision of a jury, who may not have listened to a damn word of the trial either way. It's not science, it's humanities and rhetoric.


Quote:
Indeed in this regard music theory becomes a LANGUAGE

Then musicologists would be linguists. Which they are to some degree, and I suppose the effect of sound on neural activity could be used to turn this into a question of science. Linguistics is a field that utilizes cognitive neuroscience (wut!) to legitimize itself scientifically. But linguistic theory is HELLA complex, and way beyond what any of us are talking about here. If music theorists wanted to adopt the research methods of psycholinguists, then we'd have some shit to talk about.

Quote:
Yes it was but it delved into ACTUAL music theories in ways neither you or I even remotely discussed.

yep.

Quote:
When we extrapolate from theory to make inferences about other artists true it just theory. When we use theory to say "the chord is a G" or to say "the scale is an Aeolian Aminor" THAT isn't merely theory, that is a mathematical fact of reality of what music is! Music IS math.

You don't have to explain the model to me man, I'm a neuropsych grad school dropout!!!


Quote:
Yes we can by combining the empirical evidence of the actual theory with the testimonial evidence from the other artists. For example i said Chuck Berry invented reggae because (a) music theory shows us some of the chord progressions, scales, and time structures that Berry incorporated and in many respects innovatived and created which we ALSO then see mirrored in reggae music and then (b) ask those musicians who invented reggae what influencd them to incorporate those SAME theory based chords and patterns? Well when we do this we hear all the pioneers of reggae saying they invented reggae after spending years listening to Chuck Berry rock and roll on the radio stations from New Orleans and then formimv rock and roll bands which evolved into rock steady bands which evolved into ska bands which evolved into reggae. Further proof is in the pudding, i couldn't even remotely play reggae music for YEARS.. then i joined a blues band and learned to play some Chuck Berry covers. Using the up stroke, timings, and chords from these covers naturally developed my own playing so that almost arbitrarily one day i was just able to also play reggae!

I still think you have yourself a working thesis at best. Find a way to test and measure it blindly, and replicate the results with diverse populations, and we'll be on the same page.


This is SHIT man you just HATE THE BEATLES! Admit it!!

Talking to you is fun.
Severian is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|