Talk:Music theory/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Geographical Imbalance

I added the geographical imbalance template because this page is written almost exclusively from the perspective of western classical music from the common practice period. Music theory encompasses all sorts of other things, for example, jazz theory, theory of chinese music, Indian classical music, middle eastern music, modern 20th century classical music, and western music before the common practice period, etc. All of these things depart rather far from the material on this page; a lot of the statements here are vague, the sort of thing you might encounter in an introductory music theory course, and which apply only to a very narrow subset of western music. I think this page needs extensive work before the geographical imbalance template is removed. Cazort (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to basically be an entry page to a series of other separate articles. What specific topics are being ommited? You did not provide the name of any Chinese music theory which is missing from this article. The editor adding a template has the burden of justifying it. You have the onus of stating at least one specific theoretical concept in Chinese music, Indian, jazz etc, which is not included in this article to suggest a geographic bias. Without stating what is missing, there is no justification for for the template. What you have provided is not enough to convince me of a bias. You simply said "Music theory encompasses all sorts of other things," What are those other things? "Jazz theory" is not another thing. It is merely the label for a specific subset of "music theory" that is especially relevant to jazz. There is nothing in what you have stated to convince me that this article doesn't include all of those things. Likewise, as far as you know, "Chinese music" is simply a genre of music that fits in the general framework of music included in this theoretical model. I don't know anything about Chinese music but if you know of the specific bias, you must also know what is specifically missing from this article, in a way to refer to it more precisely than "other things". As it stands it seems like you are merely assuming this article doesn't cover any other kind of music and you've rattled off a list of kinds of music rather than rattling off a list of specific theoretical concepts which are geographically distinct to those kinds of music and missing from this article. The template has not been justified. I'm not saying the article is biased or not. I'm just saying without specific proof of bias we have no choice but to assume that the editors who filled this article with factually verifiable information made an acceptably unbiased representation of the subject. TheDarknessVisible (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Name "any Chinese music theory which is" included in this article. Hyacinth (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what Cazort says is that not all music use the western temperaments and scales, Arabic Music or Indian classical music for example. So the western theory doesn't apply to them, or at least not fully - you can't construct harmonies the same way in an entirely different kind of scale with 1/4 notes and all. As for jazz, it is western, so it is based on what's written here, and though there are some extensions, I don't think they need to be mentioned. Karom (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps qualifying this article with the fact that "Music Theory" as in the scope of the article is born out of the tradition of Western Music, then demonstrating that as time went on (perhaps starting with Debussy) that Western Music Theory began to incorporate elements of Music from non-Western cultures. It should also be noted that there is a juncture between Music Theory and Ethnomusicology...A history of Music Theory section (written by someone with real music history chops) would perhaps soothe and abate any divisive discussion on the issue. Comments?

SteppAN (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the article should be either written with a more international scope, or it should be presented explicitly as Western music theory. 

As it stands now, the article is clearly Western with such topics as Bach four part writing, set theory, and a list of theorists (Schoenberg,

Schenker, Lewin etc.), not one of which which is non-Western.  The lead section could at least link readers to other major areas of the world such 

as Indian, Arabic, Japanese, and Chinese music theory.  --Baumgaertner (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  

I can't speak to Chinese music, but I can think of three types of music which have theory behind them, but those theories have nothing to do with Western Music Theory. Indonesian Gamelan is rich, complex, and an adequate background can't be given here, but as an example of its uniqueness, composers generally start with the last note of the piece and work towards the first. The theoretical basis of Australian Aboriginal songlines is the shape of the land and how to navigate it, combined with a rich spiritual belief system. Inuit throat-singing is an entertaining breathing game based on sounds from the environment. You could classify these as genres of music, and you might be able to notate the end product using Western Music Theory, but in each case you would be completely missing what is really going on. 70.75.16.99 (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't confuse theory with practice. While it is true that "Western music theory" as commonly understood (the theory of tonality, for example) has little to offer in explaining the musical traditions you name, it is also true that there is little or no tradition of music theory in those cultures. In fact, what music-theoretical explanation there is for most of this repertory comes from ethnomusicologists, only a few of whom actually come from the cultures being described—in fact, from Western ethnomusicologists. This of course poses a real problem, in that these musicologists may well bring a theoretical bias to their investigations, but the "theory" to which you refer remains an exterior description in most cases.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying these cultures aren't capable of explaining their own music? 70.75.16.99 (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Musical parameters in infobox

I'm not sure of the best place to ask this, but I've started a discussion over at Template_talk:Infobox_song, which essentially asks whether tempo and key should have their own parameters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.114 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Intro

So I recently changed the intro paragraph to: "Music theory is a term for ways to think about music. In its broadest sense theory ranges from highly technical theories to the most basic assumptions such as which music is 'good.'"Hyacinth

This was an improvement over the previous: "Music theory is a way to think about music," since there are many music theories.

Camembert change my sentence to: "Music theory is the body of theory concerning music, as opposed to its performance. In its broadest sense theory ranges from the highly technical to the most basic assumptions such as what constitutes a 'note,'" since, "i'd not say deciding whether something is "good" is basic at all."

then to: "Music theory is the body of theory concerning music, as opposed to its performance. In its broadest sense theory ranges from the highly technical to apparently basic assumptions such as what constitutes a 'note,'" since, "maybe even that's not straightforward."

Camembert- I agree with taking out "good" but I don't think that your final sentence is otherwise an improvement. I think there are many music theories (as the above discussion recognizes). Traditional music theory actually is concerned with performance, in addition to the culture music is created in. Currently the latest version of the sentence excludes these topics. Also, both of us have been saying, "Music theory is theory about music," which is not the ideal first sentence. I leave the article as is (with your changes intact) until I have a better sentence to propose. Hyacinth

to explain...the split here is that some music theory has these very complex technical constructs, but these are all answers to simple questions compared to the most important questions, "Is it good?" "What makes it good?" These are handled mostly in the popular realm with very simple vernacular, not complex technical language. I wanted to touch on this breadth and depth in my revision of the intro.Hyacinth

Well, I just quickly edited the page to remove a "refers to" in the first sentence (it's a pet hate some people have, and I thought I'd change it before somebody else did) and to get rid of the implication that deciding whether music was good or not was a "basic assumption" - I agree that the end result isn't very beautiful, feel free to hack it about. For now, I'll remove the bit about theory being opposed to performance (I just meant to say that... well, it's theoretical rather than practical, but maybe it's superfluous to spell that out), and fiddle with the rest a bit, but really, it's hard to say anything very constructive about the subject, I think, because it's just too broad, and different people mean different things by the term. This page just seems to be serving as a gateway to some others. Of course, if you can do anything more interesting with it, feel free :) --Camembert

Hayacinth, I think it should be pointed out that weather or not music is "good" is firstly in the eye of the beholder and secondly, has NOTHING to do woth music theory. Music theory only pertains to the technical knowledge required to read, play and create music. Music theory does not relate to emotive interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzlgrant (talk • contribs) 01:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Music Theory is about how music works? I don't know that any of us know how music works. We know how to do it, and we can infer generalities, from past examples; but we have no more inkling of why this chord progression in Debussy elicits this type of reaction, while the same progression evokes yawn in other writers. I would say that music theory is the framework, based upon the standard practices of past masters, from which all music today has branched off from. Music Theory is the 'rules of the game'. And you can't break the rules if you don't know what they are.MusicMinus1Take5 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

When I taught music theory in college, I always told the students that music theory was a language for describing what happens in music. Even "rules" for counterpoint or chord progressions are not really prescriptive, but descriptions of patterns typical to music of a certain period. Mozart and Stamitz used the same tools, but one produced works of genius and the other snoozers; music theory doesn't explain why (for the most part), but it gives you a vocabulary you can use in trying to make that explanation. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

To do

• I'm just starting to develop an interest in music, so I'm absolutely unknowledgeable in the language and vocabulary of the subject - basically the 'average wikipedia reader'. As such, this page is, and I'm not exaggerating, illegible to me. I can't learn anything new from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.189.48.2 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Some clarification needs to be made between different schools of terminology. For instance, there needs to be a page explaining the difference between Classical, East Coast/Berklee Jazz and West Coast/Commercial pop nomenclature, particularly on the chord page which currently betrays a definite Berklee bias, because that's how I think. I'm currently trying to draft someone that I know would be capable of doing it, but if someone else feels up to the task, please do so.
• The tuning page is a night mare. It needs some sort of major overhaul, and the task is so large that no one has yet been willing to take it on.
• There are a number of sub articles, such as chord, scale, and counterpoint which rightfully belong as sub headings of Harmony. How exactly to go about this, I'm not quite sure.
• The pages are currently quite weak on History. There has been some effort to add entries on individual composers, and those efforts are to be applauded, but as far as an actual overview of Music History goes, we are currently very lacking.
• Finally, and most dauntingly, many of the pages as they now exist are still rife with error, and many pages need large re-writes. This only adds to the incoherence on this topic which is introduced due to inconsistent use of terminology. The terminology issue is something that we need to get out in the open, and there needs to be established a definite default nomenclature for theoretical matters. I think that the traditional classical music approach should probably be deferred to, with treatment within that with differences in terminology. For instance, when dealing with chords, the lower case roman numerals should always be used for minor chords.

These are just some thoughts, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. I'm new to Wikipedia myself, but I've already become quite taken with concept. Unfortunately, I think there are really only a few of us at this point who have the background to properly address the topic. To that end, I think that we should all make the effort to try to recruit more people to the cause so that this resource can become as complete and usefull as I know it can. JFQ

I agree. We're lacking a lot in this area, and a big clean-up is needed. We may as well use this talk page as our base of operations.

• Tuning Page: I'll start moving text from the tuning articles back in.

You are braver than I.JFQ

done. it's still a mess, but we can see at a glance what we're dealing with. -- t.

• Terminology: How about we create a Music Terminology page? Bring in the debates on "tone" and "note" and "pitch" from other pages -- they'll be useful too for definitions of the concepts. -- Tarquin

Excellent Idea. I'll get on that. JFQ

I'd like to say that, as a reader who understands enough to grasp much of the music topic but not enough to contribute in any real way, that it's pretty confusing and disjointed, overall. How to solve it is not so easy to say, but tightening up some of the articles would help. A good, clear navigation page would work miracles. As it is you need to depend on whether there is a link or not to get more, and often the link you might want is wrong or missing. Chords and chord progressions is a good example - the info is so spread out and disjointed that it is difficult to get it unless you already know it. I know much of it, but a lot of it assumes knowlege, where maybe some basics would help for newcomers wanting to learn from scratch. Any good music book does a better job of describing the relationships between scales and chords more clearly than is here. Unfortunately, again, I'm not knowlegeable enough to edit this - I'm looking from a reader's view. Jjdon (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a background in music theory. I want to address a few of the above concerns. One of the reasons the article seems so disjointed is that there is no real standard way to "organize" the fundamentals of music like, say you might for some area of study objective in nature, such as Chemistry. I suggest generally following the sequence used in published theory books such as "Tonal Harmony" by Kostka and Payne. Essentially, our article here does not flow an overall logical pattern. Right now it looks like a puzzle that has some pieces in place, some scattered on the side and some not there at all. "Music Theory" is a very, very large subject it describes the subjective interpretation of art, it's a science but it's closer to studying anthropology or psychology, than chemistry or physics, so it is very difficult to pin down "the rules". Another consideration is that the article really needs to distinguish between Western traditional common practice, 20th Century practice, and different practices from around the world. I will try to do some editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnibus progression (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the real problem with this disjointed, confusing article is that Music Theory (i.e., traditional European) is itself disjointed and confusing. After all, the basis was laid down centuries ago, before Arabic numerals and the number "zero" were known in Europe. To clean up this article is to clean up Music Theory, an enterprise which most classically trained musicians will not support because it is not in their economic interest to do so. The engineers who designed the MIDI standard for electronic communications between synthesizers got it right by concentrating on how music actually works, not theories or tradition. If you want to make sense of Music Theory, start with the realization that it doesn't. 70.75.16.99 (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

As people change and contribute to the first paragraph of this article, please keep something in mind: Students actually come to this page to learn from it. Using unnecessarily complicated words for simple ideas isn't helpful. Adding that in "broad terms" saying that you like a song is music theory is silly. Stop that. I am a teacher, and you are confusing the kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferfer72 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding Confusing Language

While they shouldn't be doing it, my music theory students come here to read about music theory. Recently, someone changed the first paragraph of the article using language so confusing that *I* had to read it three times to figure out what he/she was saying--only to find that the actual content was inaccurate.

Please keep in mind that this page isn't for well-read college-level students. Also: Saying that "broadly" you can say "I like this song" and it's music theory is confusing to students. Please stop adding that.

Ferfer72 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)ferfer72

• "Broadly, music theory may include any statement, belief, or conception of or about music" (Boretz 1995).

Presumably you are referring to the above statement. Hyacinth (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Music Theory – Main Article - Suggested major revision

Based on excellent suggestions above, some dating from years ago, and obvious problems with this article, I'd like to revise it from the ground up. I imagine the best way to go about this is in a sandbox and once we have consensus, post the new version. Although I've made numerous revisions in the existing article, it’ll continue to be a bit of hodge-podge until it’s re-thought, re-organized, and re-written. I suggest the following guides for revision.

1. Avoid unnecessary focus on Western theory and include more info on other cultures’ efforts, referring to separate articles when they exist. I’ve already removed many parochial statements and included more international references, but more needs to be done.
2. Most readers are likely trying to get a grip on the nature of music theory in a general sense and so, avoid specialist language and refer to specialized articles for in-depth discussions -- especially when issues are complex or there is on-going debate. It seems this often fearful subject should be made as simple as it really is and inspire confidence that it can be understood without a Phd.
3. It's the concepts that matter most here. Remove unnecessary detail and refer to specialized articles.
4. Create a concise History section focusing on why and how music theory became a discipline, major theorists from around the world, and refer to appropriate articles.
5. Layout sections in a more logical order (suggested TOC below).
6. Create a section on Other Topics that briefly introduces other concerns of music theory and refer to articles.
7. Increase audio-visual aids.
8. Double check for conflicts with other articles and resolve.

Suggested TOC (numbering shows existing order). Each topic should be supported by an in-depth article.

• Introduction - What is music theory: principal subjects, tools.
• History - Sumeria and up, around the world, why and how, emphasis on major contributors to the field.
• (rename) 1 Fundamentals of music (Fundamental Topics)
• (add) Brief discussion of music theory's inquiry into the topics: why, what, how.
• 1.1 Pitch
• 1.4 Rhythm
• 1.6 Melody
• 1.2 Scales and modes
• (add) Counterpoint
• 3.1 Notation
• 1.7 Harmony
• 1.5 Chords
• 1.8 Texture
• 1.9 Timbre
• (rename) 1.10 Expressive qualities (Expression)
• 1.10.1 Dynamics
• 1.10.2 Articulation
• 1.11 Form
• 1.12 Performance and Style
• (add) Aesthetics
• (remove) 2 Theories of harmonization (topic will be covered by ref to specialized articles)
• Other Topics
• (rename) 3.3 Analysis (Methods of Music Analysis)
• 2.3 Serial composition and set theory (revise to focus on its theoretical basis, i.e. search for expression beyond CPE).
• (remove) 2.1 Four-part writing (Refer in Texture)
• (rename) 2.2 Music perception and cognition (Perception of Music)
• (rename) 2.4 Musical semiotics (Meaning in Music)
• (remove) 3 Music subjects (don't know what that means here)
• (remove) 3.2 Mathematics (cover briefly in history and refer)
• (remove) 3.4 Ear training (seems an educational rather than theoretical topic)
• 4 See also
• 5 Notes
• 6 Sources
• 7 Further reading
• 8 External links

Jacques Bailhé - 070814--Jbailhe 19:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea, Jacques, and a formidable proposal for a formidable task! I have put a notice over on the Wikiproject music theory Talk page, just in case any members of that project have not already noticed the discussion here. I see you are not yet a member of that project. You might consider joining.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then without further ado, I'll get started. Joined the music theory project. Jacques --Jbailhe 21:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbailhe (talk • contribs)

Major theorists

JBailhe, your addition of names of music theorists certainly is a good move, but it raises questions about the very definition of Music theory itself.

First of all, it probably needs stressing that some cultures did produce bodies of music theory, and that others did not, without that this could allow a value judgment. I am not sure of the production of Mesopotamia or Egypt, nor of Japan or Africa. China may deserve a special mention as the earliest musical culture with a theory – at least, that is what sinologues claim – as do Near-Oriental countries such as Persia and, of course, what is often described today as 'Oriental' or 'Arabic' music.

Second, there is the problem of authorship. Chinese theory, about which I don't know much, probably often remained anonymous or, what results to the same, was attributed to political authorities (e.g. the emperor). In Greece, Pythagoras is but a mythical figure of whom nothing is directly preserved and of whom it is not even entirely certain that he existed. There are other attribution to "Pseudo" figures (e.g. Odo of Cluny), though, so we may admit that these people are no more today than "figures in our heads", as Wilkinson once said of Machaut.

Third, while most of the names you cite are those of theorists properly speaking, i.e. of people who produced novel written theories, others were theorists only in this specifically American sense, teachers of theoretical matters. This is particularly the case of Nadia Boulanger who, so far as I know, and her pedagogical merits notwithstanding, never produced a line of what Wikipedia would name 'original research'; the theory that she taught was, I think, fully dependent on that of the Paris Conservatoire (only her pedagogy was not). The same could be said, albeit to a lesser extent, of Felix Salzer, who acted mainly as a pedagogue of Schenkerian theory and did not create much theoretical content of his own.

This, in turn, raises the question of what the Americans call a 'music theorist' today, as opposed (or not?) to what a music theorist (those that you cite) may have been in former times. Most members of the American Society for Music Theory (SMT) are teachers of music theory, but do not by themselves produce any novel theory, while people like Zarlino or Rameau or even Fux are known today for their original theories, more than for their teaching of existing ones. This, in other words, represents a recent redefinition of the discipline, one which probably should be adressed in the article. In Europe, several similar Societies (for instance in the UK) call themselves Societies for Music Analysis. In any case, be it Music Theory or Music Analysis, the discipline probably defines itself today in contrast to Musicology, i.e. historical musicology.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hucbald – These are all very helpful thoughts and I thank you. You are, of course, raising exactly the right question: what is music theory -- and I would add, how did it come to be. These are currently gaping holes in the article I’ll be trying to address by including a short history section. As others weigh in, I hope we might be able to reach a consensus. To respond to specifically:

Discussion of which countries and cultures may have produced music theory is 1) something I think best left open so as NOT to suggest, as you say, a “value judgment,” and 2) a question we are very certainly not capable of answering. We do have good reason to be assured that most cultures did and do make music and, accordingly, however naïve or unscholarly their thinking may be, making music unavoidably makes theory. The simple act of humming a tune inherently requires consideration of aspects of music theory: aesthetics, manipulation of pitch, dynamics, harmony, melody, etc. If we were to conceive of music theory as only that which is written, academic, or otherwise “theoretical,” I think we’d be neglecting the very origins and fundamentals of the subject. I try to make that clear, as simply as possible, in the article’s opening sentences: “Music Theory is the study of actual practices and the possibilities of music…. may also refer to a description, concept, or belief related to music.” The word “study” does imply scholarship and that is certainly one form of the discipline, but “study” can, of course, be the simple act of observing or thinking about a thing in a concerted way. As an example, the cuneiform music notation from Ugarit is apparently a song. There is no “theory” presented, and yet, of course there inherently is and must have been before the creation of the tablet: consideration and development of a system of notation, form, aesthetics, scale and interval, and no doubt other aspects (that might be clear if I could read cuneiform!). The other countries you mention are all very rich in music theory, as you'll see if you click the links in the article.

RE: “authorship,” music history demonstrates that although “who” is certainly an interesting question, it isn’t essential to regarding a development as a contribution to music theory (or any other subject, for that matter). "Alia musica" is credited to Anonymous. Put rhetorically, who invented counterpoint?

RE: Pythagoras and Nadia Boulanger. Many “historical facts” about Pythagoras are certainly myths, but as far as I know, he wasn’t, and the contributions to theory credited to him are well established. Boulanger wrote many articles for Le Monde Musical and other publications, mostly criticism as far as I know, but again, publication, in my view, isn’t the only criteria. As far as we know, there isn’t a single document on any subject verifiably written by Pythagoras. Boulanger's influence on major composers, performers, and pedagogues of the 20th century cannot be over-stated and played a significant role in shaping the music of the era—influence which continues today. Whether teaching methods and results constitute a contribution to the field is a fair question, but in her particular case, I think the answer must be yes. Apparently, I'm not the only one (See Wikipedia’s List of music theorists). She was probably the most renowned music educator of the 20th century and, as you mention, devised original teaching methods that were passed along in the venerable oral tradition, but have also been written about extensively. Guido d'Arezzo's "Micrologus" and other contributions were also largely pedagogic, especially if we consider that horizontal lines suggesting pitch appeared in neumatic notation long before. But there's another aspect to including her name when so many others would do. She wasn't a feminist, but I admit that I am, and most regrettably, she's the only female on that Wikipedia list--and in the article.

RE: “original” contribution--I’m not sure that’s a criteria either. It is certainly a great distinction, but for example, Boethius drew heavily on Aristotle. How much? Hard to say, but how can we draw a line? Was d'Arezzo's notation original or developmental? I think the criteria is acknowledged influence, not necessarily original. Schenker and others did indeed make “original” contributions, but are we to leave those who had significant influence but made no “original” contributions off the list of major figures in the field? My own view is that would serve no beneficial purpose. Just as you title this thread, the subject isn't "original" theorists, but "Major" theorists. Bear in mind the list isn't intended to be definitive of anything and is not yet complete. There are some named Chinese and Indian theorists I have yet to include. My primary goal is to enable a reader to get some historical background and understand that music theory developed and has been practiced all over the world for a very long time.

I sincerely hope none of this sounds argumentative. Discussing these questions will no doubt help us have confidence in our conclusions. Jacques BailhéJbailhe 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

David Fallows, in The Oxford Companion to Music (online) defines three areas of 'music theory':

– Rudiments (elementary notions of notation, etc., all what is "preliminary to the study of harmony, counterpoint, and form");

– The study of writings about music;

– The abstract study of musical systems (e.g. of the system of tonal music by Schenker, or of atonal music by set theory).

I would tend to conflate the 2d and 3d of these areas in one, as the writings about music to which music theory is interested in any case are about its system(s) (and not its history), and also because theorists in the 3d area tend after some time to become objects for the 2d area. This leaves us with two types of theory, one that is mainly pedagogical and elementary, the other one that is speculative and scholarly. I think that a first step to take might be to divide the article along these lines, with a descriptive part of the rudiments of music on the one hand (roughly what it does now), and a more historical/geographical approach to the other part on the other hand.

The first part of this article needs not confine itself to elementary notions, and should probably also include considerations of modality, tonality, harmony, counterpoint, form, etc., and their pedagogy. It will then appear that Nadia Boulanger, for instance, fares high among theorists of this first type, while Pythagoras and the others belong to the second area.

As to this second area, it certainly concerns written theory. You are right that any music necessarily rests on a (possibly implicit) body of theory, but by this you probably mean theory in the 1st sense. Theory in the 2d sense, 'scholar theory' (if I may shortly define it as such) by definition is written. Cultures that produced that kind of written theory have at times been defined as 'high cultures', a term that may sound inacceptable, but that does cover a reality – among others, it does provide a means to distinguish 'learned' music from 'popular' one. Again, I am perfectly aware that such terms should be criticized, but I think that the categories that they establish should not be abandonned alltogether.

Claude Palisca's article "Theory, theorists" in the New Grove writes that "The Western art music tradition is remarkable for the quantity and scope of its theory. The Byzantine, Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese and Indian traditions are also notable in possessing significant bodies of theoretical literature. Recently there has also been some theoretical treatment of jazz and other genres of popular music." These statements may lead us in the construction of the second part of the article (or in adding a second part to the existing article).

This suggests a TOC that does not exactly match the one proposed above by Jerome Kohl: we may therefore first want to further discuss this (also with other participants in the music theory project) before starting to work.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A small correction: Jacques is the author of the proposed TOC, not me. I made a small comment after he posted it, and the formatting may suggest the unfortunate misattribution.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oups, sorry! Even so, your opinion about the whole would be welcome. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you ask, I have a few random observations.

• About ancient authors: As far as I am aware, there are no surviving music-theoretical documents from Ancient Egypt, though there are some (anonymous) fragments from Babylon/Sumeria. These are certainly worth mentioning as being amongst the earliest surviving examples, though a discussion of their actual content would not likely be appropriate here. If the purpose is just to create a vanity list of theorists's names, then clearly anonymous writings are of no use at all. On the other hand, where there are important though anonymous historical documents, surely they should not be ignored. Assignment of ideas to a traditional author, such as Pythagoras, has certainly not been a problem in the print media. Why should it suddenly become troublesome here? On the other hand, there are a number of important known authors from ancient Greece, but how many and which to name in a survey article like this one may require some pondering. Similar observations apply to early Arabic theorists, of course.
• I wonder what is the point you are trying to make, Hucbald, when you say "Most members of the American Society for Music Theory (SMT) are teachers of music theory, but do not by themselves produce any novel theory"? Certainly this is true, but the SMT also publishes a journal, Spectrum, in which such "novel theories" are published on a regular basis, mostly by members of the Society. I'm sure that you know this.
• I am struck by the fact that the "three areas of music theory" cited from David Fallows do not include analysis (a term which you have mentioned, Hucbald, as a UK alternative to "music theory", and certainly a very important component of the discipline as understood in the US). This is an odd omission on Fallows's part, which I don't think we need to fret about too much, but on the other hand we do need to establish what the component parts of "music theory" are. Fallows's first category (teaching rudiments) is one rather old-fashioned way of limiting the definition of theory, and one still firmly in the minds of many administrators of schools of music (and their performance faculties!). However, I find more interesting his second category, "The study of writings about music". I am accustomed to calling this the "history of theory", when those writings are theoretical ones, but an aspect of "historical musicology" when dealing with, say, descriptions of performance practice found in medieval poetry. This seems too vague and inclusive to be useful for our purposes here. Fallows's third area (the "abstract study of musical systems"), on the other hand, is an important one to keep in mind, and has recently been tended to (provisionally, at least) in the opening sentence of our article here. Theory is not and probably never has been exclusively concerned with describing music that already exists, and of course large swathes of historical treatises are concerned with abstractions such as tuning systems and rules of counterpoint, rather than examination of actual pieces of music. But Fallows seems to stop short of including speculative theory, either in the ancient/medieval or modern contexts, and where do theories of musical aesthetics fall? Are these part of music theory, or are they in a separate field such as philosophy of music? (And do we have "reliable sources" that say so?) Similarly, do we exclude perception studies from the model of music theory? Perhaps this is strictly the province of psycho-acousticians, who are in no way to be thought of as "music theorists".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that many of these points be covered in a new section in the article covering History of music theory, as indicated in the suggested TOC. The Lead, on the other hand, should give readers an overall picture of the discipline's general aspects: interests, practices, basic elements, and brief reference to its history and origin. I have been making changes to the current Lead based on those ideas to hopefully improve the article for the time being, but as I mentioned in the new idea for the TOC, I think the entire article needs to be re-written from the ground up so it focuses on theory, rather than simply describing basic elements of music (which of course it must do in a basic way). As I work out a draft with those ideas in mind, and especially add a History section, I'll be searching here for ideas. Once I get something into presentable shape, I'll circulate by sandbox or directly here.

I think we might agree that musicology, philosophy, and theory (speculative and practical) unavoidably commingle in many areas. The trick, as I see it, will be to recognize that, but not lose focus on the primary subject by getting mired in complexities better handled in specialized articles. This is, after all, not a textbook, but an overview article. I do think the Oxford Companion's three main categories are a helpful way of ordering many of those concerns, but can be improved by addressing Jerome's thoughts.

I don't see that a theory must be written to be a theory. Am I missing something? In my view, writing is only one way an idea may be preserved and transmitted. If it's an essential aspect of theory, what are we to make of the long and venerable history of concerted theoretical thinking which is typically the direct origin of written theory? That history is not without record. It's in old instruments, old forms, and old melodies, many of which were appropriated and eventually written down to form the Western corpus from which Western theory is derived. Isn't that why Luther purportedly asked, "Why does the devil have all the good melodies?" Put another way, were the people who neatly cut the harmonically spaced finger holes in all those Paleolithic flutes guided by intelligent theory or just lucky?

Hucbald, I re-read Salzer last night and agree with you. I've removed his name and replaced it with "Schoenberg" which of course, should have been forefront in my mind.

Let me try to answer several of these points.

• First of all, it must be stressed that "music" is not the same everywhere in the world, nor is its theory. Several of the sections of the article, beginning with that on "pitch", may not apply to several types of non-Western music. Music theory is not universal and it should somehow be made clear, therefore, that the main topic of the article is Western music theory.

• This also concerns the mention of "ancient authors": they were theorists of various kinds and dealing with widely different types of theory. Considering that there exists a List of music theorists, which can be extended without limitation, I see no reason to mention any of them here: the choice will always be criticable. A link to the list should be sufficient.

• I have no problem with the inclusion of Pythagoras, nor of Nadia Boulanger, in a list of theorists. I merely wanted to stress that their actual status may be diverging (but Pythagoras probably wasn't a very good case in point). Once again, I'd mention none of them here (unless in references later in the text).

• The point I wanted to make about the SMT is that the double nature of theory (say, "pedagogical" on the one hand, "scholarly" – or, better perhaps, "speculative" – on the other hand) is somehow recognized even by the SMT. Some of its members are active in both areas, as is the Society itself. Yet I keep thinking that the WP article will remain confronting difficult problems if this double nature is not recogized from the start.

• The case of music analysis indeed should be mentioned early in the text, perhaps already in the lead. There exists an article on Music analysis, though, and it would seem impractical to merge the two.

• The case of "speculative" music theory cannot be treated merely in a section on "history of theory", again because the fate of theory may be different in different areas of the world and we should not think, nor give the impression, that all these theories are ancient history of our own – or else we would judge everything from a Western yardstick (the problem arises with the difficult question of modes, which I'll comment separately below).

• Whether theory is about describing existing music, or about music to come, is a difficult question. The fact is that history has judged theories on their success: theories of what music might have become, but didn't, often are forgotten and, after a while, theories of what music should be become ones of what music has been... This question is particularly crucial, in my opinion, for Schenker and Schoenberg: Schoenberg is probably not remembered today as an important theorist of tonal music (his Harmonielehre and Structural functions notwithstanding) because he wrote after the time of tonal music (or was it?); Schenker on the other hand would more readily be considered a theorist of tonal music, even although his theories explicitly concerned dead composers. The question, therefore, may not be one of existing vs future music.

• History, unless I am mistaken, is very much dependent on writing. I think to have been taught (but that was long ago) that History began with writing and that all what comes before is Prehistory. In the same way, I think that we have to acknowledge that any "unwritten theory" is in fact pre-theoric.

• There is an interesting article in the Grove Dictionary of American Music, where David Carson Berry writes: "in the in the United States, music theory refers to an academic discipline with a dual focus on research and pedagogy". This, I think, is what I am trying to convey here.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• If the main topic of the article is, as you suggest Western music theory, then it should be named as such. However, I don’t see that was or is the intent. Music theory, Western or otherwise, covers basic phenomena and has been developed and considered the world over. Where necessary, significant cultural differences may be explained.
• The names of influential theorists accomplish some important things: the internationalism of music theory is made clear; the links provide an easy way to get a feel for topics in music theory; and of course, shows this has been an effort across many cultures and ages and so, indicates the history and development. Having said that, in the future revision of the article which will include a History section, these names will likely be moved there, but until that reorganization is completed, I recommend they stay in the Lead.
• I agree with you that pedagogy is a topic we’ll have to devise a way to address. Certainly important. You may have noticed that in the proposal for new TOC and re-write, I suggest deleting the currently included section on ear-training as being too specialized. The pedagogy discussion might better focus, in a more general way, on theoretical issues in music teaching.
• RE: analysis--Formal analysis is an important tool of theory, but it is only one way of analyzing music. The word “study” conveys formal analysis and, importantly, also informal consideration. For the Lead and elsewhere, I suggest that is sufficient. Somewhere in the revised article, I agree that formal analysis must be briefly discussed, but for the most part, refer the reader to the specialized article on the subject.
• RE: speculative theory, interesting points. At the moment, IDK. Have to give it more thought.
• RE: “Whether theory is about describing existing music, or about music to come, is a difficult question.” History shows it is and always has been both. I see no difficulty. Am I missing something? The other points you make about this are interesting, but I think don’t need to be addressed in an overview trying to explain what music theory is and how it came to be. As an aside, I would disagree that “Schoenberg is probably not remembered today as an important theorist of tonal music.” Perhaps his greatest theoretical contribution was specifically about tonal music: that it had run its course--emancipation of the dissonance. Schenker’s examples may have been from existing past composers, but I don’t see that his theories were not also meant to be used on future music. Anecdotally, I'm surprised how often I use it on my own compositions to help me regain perspective.
• RE history – are oral histories not history? Is history not present in objects other than writing? We have any number of disciplines that study history through means other than writing. Archaeologists may write about the history they find, but the history is in the object and simply being recorded in writing. Put the other way around, the lack of writing would not mean no history exists. We do rather reflexively think of history as existing in books, but I suggest that’s an entrained, arbitrary point of view and mistakenly limits consideration of the subject.
• RE: Grove quote, I like the phrase “dual focus on research and pedagogy,” but must theory be only an “academic discipline”?
• As always your comments are thought-provoking and very helpful. Thanks.--21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Jbailhe

Jacques, for the sake of clarity, I'll answer all your points in turn and in the same order.

• The main topic of the article may be theory in general, but its core should be Western theory, because while it is clear that all musical cultures know a theory of some sort (be it "pre-theory"), it is not at all sure that the points that the article addresses are points of theory in all cultures. One case in point is "Pitch": I know for sure that in the music of Aka Pygmees (Central Africa), for instance, pitch is not an important category, as Simha Arom evidenced. And while this case is rather well known, there are too many that we do not know at all. This is a matter of admitting Universals or not. My own conviction is that nothing in this world (and I know nothing about other worlds) is universal. This, to me, is not even open to debate – I'd sooner abandon the idea of participating to the project.
• Leave the name of theorists for the time being, I don't mind.
• It is not so much that pedagogy is important, but that a pedagogical (or didactical) approach to theory is: "Pitch", for instance, must be discussed in the article because it is an important pedagogical/didactical aspect of (Western) theory, but otherwise its discussion belongs to articles on acoustics or physics. "Pitch", today, is not a topic for research in music theory, that I know, at least. It may be important for cognitive sciences, but these have little if anything to do with music theory.
• Did I ever mention "formal analysis"? The question here, I think, is that "Analysis" often is used as a synonym for "Theory", especially when discussing disciplines (academic or not). The Americans have a Society for Music Theory, while the British (who share the same language!) have a Society for Music Analysis. The Europeans are engaged in the organization of their 8th Music Analysis Conference (http://www.euromac2014.eu/): this is because the first such Conference was French, where "theory" is called "analysis"; of the seven participating European societies, three are "for theory", three for "analysis" and one for "theory and analysis". These are facts that our article must acknowledge, unless it wants to remain exclusively American.
• Speculative theory: I do not quite see clearly about this either, take your time.
• Theories about the past or the future of music: This is not really important, but I think that theories often were prospective (rather than retrospective) and that that is part of their definition as "theory". I tried to draw a history of theories for my students and I came to the conclusion that a true theory of tonal music, for instance, would stop when tonal music became obsolete and when tonal theory became merely retrospective (and it struck me that Schoenberg was retrospective, Schenker prospective). I was wrong, probably.
• Indeed, oral histories in a sense are not histories properly speaking, because history by definition is written. That preserved objects may reflect an implicit theory is possible, but highly questionable. The article as it stands states in its Lead that "For example, a 35,000 year-old flute made of bone from a vulture found in Germany has four finger holes which produce harmonic tones, thereby indicating consideration of intervals, scale, aesthetics and other aspects of music theory", with a reference to the New York Times (you may be responsible for this: excuse me) (see Paleolithic flutes and the references cited there). This merely is unbelievable. I cannot figure out what "harmonic tones" could be in this context, nor how they could indicate considerations of intervals, scales, or aesthetics. The idea that four finger holes in a pipe are meant to be opened (or closed) in the order 1 2 3 4 is, to say the best, an Occidental misconception. I even strongly doubt whether this "flute" could be 350 centuries old. We should not believe all what is said in newspapers, and certainly not reproduce it in an article which we would hope better than ordinary journalism.
• No, theory must not necessarily be considered an academic discipline (on the contrary, if you prefer ;-)); but the fact remains that it is also academic... And our article, once again, should not be mere journalism.

I hope none of the above sounds (too) aggressive or argumentative. I think the article deserves our best efforts. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hucabld—I am learning a lot and thoroughly enjoying our discussion and want to assure you that I do understand that sometimes points must be expressed forcefully. I don’t take offense and certainly hope that none of my wording ever offends you. I hope that we always keep in mind that we’re both trying to think and accomplish the same goal, and whatever the apparent tone of a comment, all are always intended to be helpful. Now…on to the fun.
• ”it is not at all sure that the points that the article addresses are points of theory in all cultures.” Agreed. And without tripping over ourselves, we’ll need to find a way to make that clear. That is part of what I hope to do in the History section to be added and I look forward to your help with that. When I have a draft, I’ll post it for comments before it goes up publicly. Related to this, I’m not making any more edits in the existing article because so many of the misleading or poorly phrased parts will be disappear in the proposed new article.
• Pedagogy. Again, I agree, and you touch on what I think is an important issue overall and that is that the article should not be a recap of definitions and discussions better pursued in specialized articles, but should make clear the theoretical interest of the topics. This will, for instance, take us right into cultural differences. You may have noticed I added some attempts at this in the existing article, but I need to think and research more, as discussed some of these problems will be nullified by a better order and new sections in the proposed re-write.
• "Analysis" often is used as a synonym for "Theory": Yes, this is something we’ll have to find a way to deal with.
• ”Theories about the past or the future of music”: In my view, you’re on the right road. Doing some reading on “theory” in and of itself, to get my bearings, I am reminded we have an array of specialized definitions of the word: prescriptive, descriptive, and philosophical, to name but a few. Some look forward, some look back, some simply categorize or describe. I don’t think the article is the place to dive into such a discussion, but we seem to be thinking on similar roads, and that should help us focus and weed out the unnecessary.
• ”oral histories in a sense are not histories properly speaking, because history by definition is written.” I can’t find an authoritative reference that agrees. The WP article on history:Traditionally, historians have recorded events of the past, either in writing or by passing on an oral tradition, and have attempted to answer historical questions through the study of written documents and oral accounts. From the beginning, historians have also used such sources as monuments, inscriptions, and pictures. In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved, and historians often consult all three.[18]" I am indeed responsible for the German flute discussion. Regarding its implication of theory and “harmonic tones,” there has been considerable research into these Paleolithic flutes, and later bell-like devises and so on from China, that has looked at what tones are produced, establishing that they aren’t arbitray, but were carefully thought out and are in relationships that are harmonic, that is in ratios that are mathematically related and rather surprisingly, that we would recognize as harmonically related as opposed to whacky dissonance. As far as I know, no one (including myself) has inferred that “finger holes in a pipe are meant to be opened (or closed) in the order 1 2 3 4,” in fact the inferences are to the contrary: that they are opened and closed in sequences that produced melodies. The dating of this flute is as well-established as most Paleolithic artifacts (i.e. within an acceptable margin of error), but in light of the ever-increasing number of these very ancient instruments discovered from roughly between 40,000 and 3,000 years ago, the accuracy of the dating seems inconsequential to the main point. And that is that these very ancient instruments show sophisticated thinking about a quite a number of musical factors. RE: references for all this, there are many besides the NYT (chosen because of its easy access for readers), but I also cite an article by two of the more important researchers on all this, Turk and Drago, from Origins of Music, MIT Press. Among many others, there is also a fine article in Nature about this, by Nicholas J. Conrad, Univ Tubingen, Germany, but since this is inaccessible to most readers, I didn’t reference it. I chose this particular flute to mention because of the curiosity of its extreme age, apparently the oldest example yet found.--20:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Jbailhe

Tone, pitch, and note

There is often controversy about the words “tone,” “pitch,” and “note.” I’m not at all sure this will be a particular problem in the revision of the Music theory article, but I would like to hear views and, if possible, collect some references distinguishing them. As I understand it:

Tone, pitch, and note are often used synonymously, but may be used with distinct meanings in music theory.

Tone: a single musical sound distinguishable by qualities called pitch, attack, release, duration, loudness, and timbre.

Pitch: the frequency of sound waves that determine a sound's apparent highness or lowness (rather poorly worded, but “lowness”/”highness” are often used).

Note: a graphic symbol representing the pitch and duration of a tone.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be well to remember that there is also a difference in usage of some of these words between UK and US English. For example, in America we speak of "twelve-tone technique", whereas in the UK it is "twelve-note technique". I believe there is agreement in this case on the distinction of meanings between "tone" and "note", but a dispute about which sense is actually intended by the Schoenberg school.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• About tone/note: "The word tone in English is extremely ambiguous" (Ellis, in a footnote in his translation of Helmholtz, Sensations of Tone). Ellis himself uses it to denote a musical sound, that is a sound of more or less constant pitch (he does mention the case of tones with inharmonic partials, i.e. that would be only approximately periodical), but refuses to follow Helmholtz who suggested to restrict the use of the German Ton to pure (sinusoidal) sounds (and to prefer Klang for complex musical sounds). Schoenberg, in Stil und Gedanke, described dodecaphonism as a technique of composition mit zwölf nur aufeinander bezogenen Tönen. In WP, 'Tone' unexpectedly redirects to Timbre.

A note indeed is first of all a graphic symbol, but it also stands for what it symbolizes, that is a musical sound considered only from the point of vue of its distinctive character: an F, for instance, in that it can be considered an F (and neither an E, nor an F#) independently of its actual pitch. It is a matter of disctinctiveness within a system of notes – that is, within a semiotic system.

These may seem farfetched subtleties, but they may help decide whether to use 'tone' or 'note' in cases of doubt.

• About pitch: there are quite a few interesting papers (in French) by Marie-Elisabeth Duchez on the growth of the concept. The Greek had an odd couple, barus/oxus, translated in Latin as gravis/acutus (and in French as grave/aigu), where barus/gravis refers to the weigth (as in 'gravity'), while oxus/acutus indicates an acute, piercing quality – both refering to qualities that apparently were not exclusively pitch. The couple low/high only came later, at some point in the Middle Ages, perhaps first in English (i.e. at some point between the 8th and the 11th century); at first it also did not refer to pitch exclusively: it also denoted levels of loudness, apparently at a time when the categories of pitch and loudness were not yet clearly differentiated. On piano keyboards, 'low' is at the left, 'high' at the right... Obviously, the concept of pitch by no means is universal, as I already stressed several times.

I think that such considerations belong to the specific articles on 'Tone', 'Note' and 'Pitch', and that the 'Theory' should give only very general descriptions and link to these. But, of course, we should ensure some coordination: all these articles must be developed together. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the above comments.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Jerome - RE: lead for Def. of Music, the article seemed rather sad without a proper lead. Hopefully over the next days, whatever problems may exist with what I wrote can be weeded out.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

We should probably be discussing this on Talk:Definition of music, but I agree with you in principle. I have some reservations about what you wrote there, but am refraining from making any complaints for now, given that it is so much better than what was there before. The main issue is that the lede section is supposed to summarize the article's contents, whereas this new lede is presenting argumentation not represented anywhere in the article itself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I read the article as primarily concerned with the various ways music has been defined and so thought the most helpful lead would be to dive right into describing the problem and the lack of a universally accepted definition--which then frames the rest. No? As a summary, I wrote the opening lines, "An accurate and concise definition of music is fundamental to being able to discuss, categorize, and otherwise consider the phenomenon of what we understand as being music. Many have been suggested, but defining music turns out to be more difficult than might first be imagined. As this article will demonstrate, there is on-going controversy about how to define music."Jacques Bailhé (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I also need some guidance on citations. In the Def. of Music I have twice restored my numbered references and they get reverted to only inline references (e.g. Dodd 2013). Although I realize this is a common convention (regrettable as that may be!), I think the numbered references with full citation are extremely helpful, especially in this particular article. In the case of Dodd, the numbered citation pointed to a Tedx Talk by him that's absolutely on point (although I totally disagree with him!). In other cases, the refs are to books. Is there a WP policy against including full citations? What's the dang deal?Jacques Bailhé (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Went to the Def. of music talk page and, as you'll see, asked this question--and more to the point since the full citations do get listed under References, but the ease for the reader of "clic" to reference and return to place in the article is not part of that citation method as used on WP.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Each time I removed those footnotes I pointed in my edit summary to the article on parenthetical referencing and to the relevant guideline at WP:CITEVAR. You evidently understand the former well enough, but I beseech you to read the latter now. It will save us both a lot of time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thanks. As a suggestion, maybe it would be helpful to enable "click" to reference and return to place for parenthetical ref's as works with numbered citations. Just a matter of usability.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The "return to place" is the tricky part, whenever there are multiple citations to the same page in the same source (single citations are easy). Whether with footnotes or parenthetical references, it is necessary to know which of the multiple citations you have just left, in order to click on the correct letter in the chain to return. Implementing this with Harvard citations is possible, though the editing syntax is a bit complicated. For an example, take a look at Klang (Stockhausen).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)