[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

Well, it's what it kinda tries to do... But as a field of study it's aware of its inherent limitations. It doesn't result in truly empirical measurement. And the piece you posted makes a lot of claims, many of them "true" enough, but none of it is truly empirical.

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.

Musical theory is not the same as scientific theory.

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.

It serves a different purpose. Like literary theory and legal theory. What it gathers is not "evidence" by the strictest definition of the term, but rather rhetorical, anecdotal support. The piece you posted gathers self-reported semantic evidence to support thesis statements. Not hard quantifiable data that can be statistically analyzed to show or support a causal link.

Partly true but again remember the theory is simply explain the underlying math of music. A G chord or key is what it is because that particular sound has a quantifiable and measurable frequency wave. What separates what we call a G from what we call an A is 100% measurable. Further the melodies, chord progressions, and scale patterns are also all based on the underlying math. Now of course most artists don't use theory to CREATE music, i have written at least a hundred songs and i never ONCE consulted theory. Instead what i use theory for is either to think about harmonic chords or scales when i am playing back up or lead guitar in a band with OTHER people's music OR when i am trying to accurately translates my own original music to share or jam with other musicians. Indeed in this regard music theory becomes a LANGUAGE

Also, that piece is quite poorly written. Give me a red pen and let me go balls out on that thing.

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

But let's be straight with our terminology here. Theory isn't fact. Theory is theory. You can't create an equation to show that Chick Berry invented reggae. You can make a convincing argument in favor of that thesis, and the reader could accept the premise... But you're still dealing with subjective values.

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.

There's no way to prove that everyone other than Chuck Berry didnt invent reggae. Can't prove a negative, semantically or scientifically.

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!