User talk:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Music theory

Overall comments

I think the main issue here is that this page is just too detailed. There are many sections which should just be one-paragraph summaries of the linked articles, with a {{main article}} link at the top (which many have already), but many of which have three or four paragraphs. The details and disputes can then be pushed onto the corresponding pages for evaluation. Pitch, mode, key, timbre, articulation, and genre are certainly candidates for substantial thinning.

Also, why is "notation" off in a separate corner by itself and everything else lumped into "Fundamentals of music"? —Wahoofive (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe whoever decided not to include "notation" in the "fundamentals" thought that pitch, mode, key, timbre, etc., were features of music itself, while notation somehow was peripheric to it. An idea that, at least, needs qualification, I think. Once again, there exist musical works that have never been played.

On the other hand, I don't think that Music theory may be reduced to links to the various individual articles. What we need here, indeed, are descriptions of the theories of pitch, mode, key, etc. On the one hand, such theories may not (have to) be discussed in the individual articles; on the other hand, they might be grouped here otherwise than a mere list of musical parameters might suggest.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Western Theory

I opened a new page, User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Western_music_theory. Have a look there and, please, do participate. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments in answer to Jacques Bailhé

Jacques, you wrote:

As general note, when I first circulated a draft of the History of Music section on the Talk page of the Music Theory article, I asked for suggestions and help. Instead, I was mostly accused of dishonesty, lying, and generally berated.

Your draft (7 August 2014) and the subsequent discussion are preserved in Talk:Music_theory/Archive_6 and did not go exactly as you say. I first answered:

Jacques' suggestion sounds sensible to me, but I'm afraid it would entail reviewing the specialized articles (pitch, notation, scale and so on) as well. [...] I won't begin making changes before we discussed this some more; also, I may be a trifle to busy with other things just now. (5 December 2014)

We soon turned to discussing the article itself as it was, rather than your suggested draft, because, as Jerome said,

One thing that worries me a little is that this article is beginning to grow beyond its natural size. Although music theory is a very large subject, I don't think this is the place to put every detail about every aspect of music theory. It should summarize the main issues (rather like a collection of the lead paragraphs of all the offspring articles), and then direct the reader to article where more ample discussion may be found. (5 December 2014)

This, you will note, also was a suggestion for a rewritten article, to be considered then more as a disambiguation article, pointing to many more specialized ones. But you objected

remarks like "Citation needed|date=December 2014 !--Who says any of this demonstrates anything at all about theory?" seem argumentative and rudely condescending. I don't think they're helpful--besides which, in that particular case, it is widely accepted that artifacts of all kinds tell us a great deal about the history of music theory. Many of these remarks are causing the article to include detail and references that are probably unnecessary and lead to the "Overly detailed|date=December 2014|section=yes" flag that now appears. The section needs to cover a lot of ground to make clear the world-wide history of the development of music theory. (9 December 2014)

This summarizes the main problem we are facing now: you claim that "it is widely accepted that artifacts of all kinds tell us a great deal about the history of music theory", and we (mainly Jerome and myself) that this is not true, that it rests on a false idea of what "history" and "theory" mean. If the article is to "include detail and references that are probably unnecessary", it is certainly not because of our reservations about the whole matter (which, on the contrary, would lead to removing a lot of unnecessary detail), but because you want to make your point against the evidence. And, so doing, you (or someone else, I don't want to attack anyone personally) quote references that cannot sustain the claims they are supposed to support. Here are a few cases in point:

• The article writes "As such, [theory] is often concerned with abstract musical aspects such as tuning and tonal systems, scales, consonance and dissonance, and rhythmic relationships, but there is also a body of theory concerning such practical aspects as the creation or the performance of music, orchestration, ornamentation, improvisation, and electronic sound production." A footnote refers to Palisca in the New Grove. But checking the New Grove allows me to write: "Palisca and Bent more precisely write: "Theory is now understood as principally the study of the structure of music. This can be divided into melody, rhythm, counterpoint, harmony and form, but these elements are difficult to distinguish from each other and to separate from their contexts. At a more fundamental level theory includes considerations of tonal systems, scales, tuning, intervals, consonance, dissonance, durational proportions and the acoustics of pitch systems. A body of theory exists also about other aspects of music, such as composition, performance, orchestration, ornamentation, improvisation and electronic sound production." But you object, against the reference originally quoted, that "principally the study of the structure of music" overemphasizes structure in relation to other aspects like melody and rhythm. "'...music theory' is an act of contemplation of music....'" is more accurate." If you want; but then the reference to Palisca [and Bent] should be removed.

“Contemplation” or (and I think best) “consideration” are better words than “study” because they are broader. Music criticism, for one example, is not always “study,” but may be opinion. I suggest the Palisca reference is appropriate because it describes aspects of music theory like melody, tuning, intervals, etc. --Jacques Bailhé 20:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• The claim that "ancient instruments from Mesopotamia, China,[3] and prehistoric sites around the world reveal details about the music they produced and, potentially, something of the musical theory that might have been used by their makers" is supported by note [3], which merely refers to The Oxford Companion to music (without reference to a specific article, which makes it impossible to verify in the online version) or the mention "see History of music and Musical instrument", neither of which deals with theory [the word "theory" appears only once, in History of music, refering to the Music theory article!).

If you click on reference Number 3 in the lead, you will see that it does include page numbers: “ Latham 2002, 15–17.” I do notice that if you click on that to go to the full citation, no page numbers are shown there. The article is “aesthetics of music” which I suppose may appear on different page numbers in different editions, but maybe this should be fixed?

• About the claim that "the deep and long roots of music theory are clearly visible in instruments, oral traditions, and current music making", you now refer to Taruskin's Oxford History of Western Music. I happen to have it in my electronic library, and looked in vain to any such claim in his book. On the contrary, Taruskin begins with the earliest notations – written music! I looked for mentions of oral music and found this:

"Something over a thousand years ago music in the West stopped being (with negligible exceptions) an exclusively oral tradition and became a partly literate one. This was, from our perspective, an enormously important change. The beginning of music writing gives us access through actual musical documents to the repertories of the past and suddenly raises the curtain, so to speak, on developments that had been going on for centuries. All at once we are witnesses of a sort, able to trace the evolution of music with our own eyes and ears. The development of musical literacy also made possible all kinds of new ideas about music." [Chapter 1, "The Curtain Goes Up"; my electronic version is not paginated]

Taruskin, in this, at most recognizes that the developments of music had been going on for centuries (as is well known); "centuries" before "something over a thousand years ago" probably still concerns the Christian era. Taruskin speaks exclusively of Western music.

Taruskin’s book is, as the title proclaims, a history of Western Music and makes no attempt to discuss that larger world. You seem to overlook that his introduction takes pains to explain why he chose to work from notation while recognizing the long history of music before notation was invented in the West. Various forms of notation were, however, invented in ancient cultures long preceding the West (e.g. China, Egypt, Mesopotamia), as is well-established. Seems to me that to fulfill Wikipedia’s goals of internationalism, the article on Music Theory must necessarily take a far wider view than Taruskin’s book. --Jacques Bailhé 20:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That is to say that all musicological references in the lead are questionable. I don't even want to go on with the references in other sections, I have done enough in the text to which this talk page is attached. Once again, this is not meant against you, Jacques, but against the (anonymous) article as it is. I don't want to make use of the argument of authority, but let me say, once for all, that I am a professional historian of theory and I don't accept that my profession be mistreated as it is in the article. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You write, “…all musicological references in the lead are questionable.” The lead's only specific mention of musicology reads, “Music theory is a subfield of musicology, which is itself a subfield within the overarching field of the arts and humanities.” How is that statement not correct and well-established? Many of your comments are specifically about me and impugn my character -- not OK. Back-pedalling does not erase them. You write that you “don't want to make use of the argument of authority, but let me say, once for all, that I am a professional historian of theory and I don't accept that my profession be mistreated as it is in the article.” How does the article mistreat or otherwise insult the profession of music theorist? Please provide a specific example. I don't see how your career as a “professional historian of theory” confers infallibility or allows you “argument of authority.” We are all fallible. That's why we invented editors. Whatever the qualifications of contributors, statements must, of course, be supported by references other than personal opinion or "original research," right? --Jacques Bailhé 20:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments, 12 October 2015

Jacques, I think that if we want to discuss, it should happen here rather than in the page itself, where our comments would be difficult to identify. Here follow a few short answers to some of your comments of today, but let me stress first that there is not need to view all this as a kind of personal dispute. My main point – even if at times my own frustration surfaces, I apologize for that – is to collect ideas for an improved article.

• About the theory/practice duality, you (incompletely) mention an article by Leon Crickmore in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies. Do you really think that such an article on a very specific point provides a possible answer to such a general question?

Yes Jacques Bailhé 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• You think that "digressing into the Quadrivium v. the Trivium, the changing role of theory in universities, etc., is, however fascinating, unnecessary detail in an overview of the worldwide history of music theory"; and you think that mentioning Boethius is sufficient. Well, I think (1) that the mention of Boethius has nothing to do to with the question (I agree that there might be matter of discussion on this point); (2) that the teaching of music theory as part of the quadrivium throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance may be relevant to an article about music theory. Note that the inclusion of music in the quadrivium never concerned musical practice, only music theory.

Again, Boethius is mentioned because of his significance in the development of music theory, notably, collecting and making more readily available, ancient Greek theory. That seems appropriate. --Jacques Bailhé 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Arts and Humanities contains the field of Musicology which contains Music Theory--right?" No, certainly not, and particularly not in American parlance. "Musicology" is concerned with music history, while "Music theory" is concerned with ... music theory. You may be thinking of Musikwissenschaft (a term, by the way, that only appears in the 19th century), which may be said to include both musicology and music theory. But this certainly needs a comment in the article.

Musicology “may cover a wide range of activities: acoustics, sociology, perception, ethnology, linguistics, logic, philosophy, and many other activities alongside the more traditional musicological study cultivated for much of the 20th century in English-speaking countries—primarily music history, source studies, criticism, and musical analysis.” (The Oxford Companion to Music, ed. Alison Latham, Oxford University Press, 2002, p.817) The Oxford Dictionary of Music agrees: “Among the divisions of musicology are….rhythm and metrics,; modes and scales; the principles and developments of intrs.; orchestration; form; theories of harmony….” (The Oxford Dictionary of Music, ed. Michael Kennedy, Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 491 in my edition) Although the WP sentence on musicology and the discussion that follows under the Subdiscipline section may need better references, etc. the gist of it accurately communicates that music theory is indeed a subdiscipline of musicology. Does that satisfy you? --Jacques Bailhé 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The History section in the Music Theory article provides a number references that refer to what is commonly understood to be the process by which "orality" naturally precedes written documentation." That orality precedes written documentation is obvious and has never been questioned. The point is about the possible existence of a prehistoric oral theory. Taruskin never speaks of a possible oral theory in Western music. "Orality in written form" is one thing, but you seem to claim for the existene of a "(written) theory in oral form", which is exactly the reverse. Musical knowledge is not musical theory. I never heard of unwritten musical notation and this seems to include a contradiction in the terms. I do not deny the importance of orality, I merely wonder whether we can describe a possible "oral theory". You later quote Taruskin again: "Taruskin writes, '…the early chapters are dominated by the interplay of literate and preliterate modes of thinking and transmission….' Modes of thinking = theory." Well, if you seriously think that "Modes of thinking = theory", we might as well stop here. My whole point (and Jerome's, I think) in all this is that music theory should be taken seriously, not merely as a "mode of thinking".

See above comment regarding Taruskin's book and copious references to theory being inherent in instrument manufacture and many other artefacts. Jacques Bailhé 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• "My point is that Palisca/Bent open their definition of music theory with a statement that I think is unsupportable and unintentionally misleading". Well, let me stress that the first point I wanted to make about this had been that the reference to Palisca/Bent in the article did not support the claim it was supposed to support. You utterly confirm this. Why don't you merely remove the reference to their article? But we will need some reference, and if you think that the New Grove cannot be trusted, this may become problematic.

See comment on the value of the Palisca reference above. Jacques Bailhé 20:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yours, Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments, 14 October 2015

Jacques, I really begin to be upset by all this. May I ask you

• (1) to make you comments here, not in the main page where it becomes almost impossible to find them back.
• (2) to quote your references in a way that may allow to check them (i.e. name and year of publication).
• (3) to avoid using as proofs of research the websites of self-appointed "researchers".
• (4) to realize that the proof of a practice, at any early stage, is not a proof of its being backed up by a theory.
• (5) to sign your comments as requested in WP: it suffices to add four ~.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments, 17 October 2015

Jacques, may I once again request that your comments be made here, not on the page itself? You write:

• "WP's article on musicology (linked in the sentence in question) reads "Musicology also has two central, practically oriented subdisciplines with no parent discipline: performance practice and research (sometimes viewed as a form of artistic research), and the theory, analysis and composition of music." This statement is in no way supported, no reference is given. And to view theory as "a practically oriented subdiscipline with no parent discipline" is highly questionable. The same article contains other extremely strange affirmations, for instance "Historical musicology, ethnomusicology, and systematic musicology are approximately equal in size", with the even stranger footnote: "The numbers of active participants at international conferences suggests that the subdisciplines are equal in size." This certainly is not true, as anyone regularly participating in international conferences easily can ascertain. There are rather few conferences on systematic musicology and they certainly do not gather the same size of audience as the conferences of the American Musicological Society and of the Society for Music Theory, not to mention those of the International Musicological Society, or of the group of European Societies of Analysis (EuroMAC). The New Grove does not even mention systematic musicology as one of the disciplines of musicology. It does mention, on equal footing among the "Disciplines of Musicology" (not "subdisciplines"!) the "Historical method", the "Theoretical and analytical method", etc. To view music theory as a method raises problems which might have to be addressed in the Music Theory article. In the US, so far as I know, "Musicology" is the name used for historical musicology (e.g. in the American Musicological Society) and no single American theorist that I know would accept to consider her or his field as a "subdiscipline" of (historical) musicology. The New Grove also makes clear that while the historical method developed mainly from the 18th century onwards, the theoretical method "possesses an extensive and varied literature that extends virtually without interruption back to the ancient Greeks".

Musicology “may cover a wide range of activities: acoustics, sociology, perception, ethnology, linguistics, logic, philosophy, and many other activities alongside the more traditional musicological study cultivated for much of the 20th century in English-speaking countries—primarily music history, source studies, criticism, and musical analysis.” (The Oxford Companion to Music, ed. Alison Latham, Oxford University Press, 2002, p.817) The Oxford Dictionary of Music agrees: “Among the divisions of musicology are….rhythm and metrics,; modes and scales; the principles and developments of intrs.; orchestration; form; theories of harmony….” (The Oxford Dictionary of Music, ed. Michael Kennedy, Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 491 in my edition) Although the WP sentence on musicology and the discussion that follows under the Subdiscipline section may need better references, etc. the gist of it accurately communicates that music theory is indeed a subdiscipline of musicology. Does the above references satisfy you? --Jacques Bailhé 18:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Jacques, you must realize that I am neither American, nor living in the US. I have been active in countries where "musicology" (French musicologie, Italian musicologia, German Musikwissenschaft, Dutch Muziekwetenschap, etc.), are overarching terms – that is that, in their general meaning and their literal sense, they would better be translated as "musical knowledge", or "knowledge of music". Everybody here would accept that theory is one of the disciplines of musicology, but nobody would ever consider music theory as a subdiscipline of another discipline called "musicology". And I think to know that, in the United States, the situation is even more drastic because "musicology" usually is taken to denote the historical approach to musical knowledge. None of the references that you quote describe music theory as a whole as a subdiscipline of musicology. The Oxford Companion to Music lists various "activities" as covered by musicology, but does not mention music theory among them: theory is not merely one of these activities. The Oxford Dictionary of Music quotes various "divisions of musicology', but again does not mention music theory among them (at most, "theories of harmony", but that is not exactly the same). To sum up, no, I don't believe that any of your references "accurately communicates that music theory is a subdiscipline of musicology" – you are actually projecting your own conception here. But I'll leave American theorists to further comment this, as they are primarily concerned. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"….rhythm and metrics,; modes and scales; the principles and developments of intrs.; orchestration; form; theories of harmony….” (The Oxford Dictionary of Music, ed. Michael Kennedy, Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 491 in my edition)" are not theory? "...criticism, and musical analysis" (The Oxford Companion to Music, ed. Alison Latham, Oxford University Press, 2002, p.817) are not theory? Neither reference is American, but European. RE: American theorists, The Harvard Brief Dictionary of Music writes, "Theory of Music. Originally, the philosophical, speculative, and scientific explanation of musical phenomena such as acoustics, scales, intervals, etc....(and goes on to remark about contemporary usage more restricted to academic study of basic elements)" (Apel & Daniel, Heineman Educational Books, Ltd. 1960, (Britain 1961), p.300) What then is the difference between European and American usage? I don't understand your argument. Again, it seems to be your personal opinion. Please provide a reference that says music theory is not a subdiscipline within the field of musicology.. --Jacques Bailhé 20:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, rhythm and metrics, modes and scales, orchestration, form, etc., in my opinion are no theories before one theorizes about them. Criticism in itself is not a theory (but see below), while one may theorize about criticism. The question of the relation between theory and analysis remains an open one: see for instance the discussion between Edward Cone and David Lewin in Perspectives of New Music, vols 6 and 7. Theory is, to quote you (and the Harvard Brief Dictionary) "the philosophical, speculative and scientific explanation of musical phenomena"; the phenomena in themselve (acoustics, scales, intervals, etc.), are no theory. This is the core of our discussion and if you cannot accept to discuss it, we should better stop here. The difference between continental European and American usages is linked to institutional usage: the distinction between history and theory is less marked here than in the US. Yet, most of our countries have separate scholarly societies, in France for instance the Société de musicologie, which is mainly busy with history of music, and the Société d'Analyse musicale, mainly busy with theory and analysis. Some French researchers are members of both, but they remain a minority. [I am not French myself.] Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The quote, “Tonal analysis of the flutes revealed that the seven holes correspond to a tone scale remarkably similar to the Western eight-note scale” comes from a news release posted by Brookhaven National Laboratory". Well, it would perhaps have been better to quote this reference from the start. The full quotation from the Internet page to which you now refer reads: "Tonal analysis of the flutes revealed that the seven holes correspond to a tone scale remarkably similar to the Western eight-note scale that begins 'do, re, mi.' This carefully-selected tone scale suggested to the researchers that the Neolithic musician of the seventh millennium BC could play not just single notes, but perhaps even music." I have my doubts about people speaking of "the Western eight-note scale", I merely don't know what that means, but never mind. But what seems hard to swallow is that you deduce from an instrument which "could play perhaps even music" that these Neolithic musicians certainly had a theory of music. You may be right, Jacques, but there is no way of being sure, and your certainly cannot pretend that the reference in question backs up your claim.

[Jacques, you should not add your comments in the middle of a signed section, because that results in the signature disappearing. Write your answer with numbered points, if you want, but not in the middle of a comment. What precedes was written by me, Hucbald.SaintAmand, on 17 October 2015.]]

The references in the few sentences in the History section on the Jiahu flutes describe pitch relationships, precise manufacturing, and many other details that are unquestionably aspects of music theory. I can’t understand why you continue to doubt these authoritative references. You write, “But what seems hard to swallow is that you deduce from an instrument which 'could play perhaps even music' that these Neolithic musicians certainly had a theory of music. You may be right, Jacques, but there is no way of being sure, and your certainly cannot pretend that the reference in question backs up your claim.” I haven’t deduced anything. I relay what these authoritative sources say. It is well-established that ancient instruments can provide insight into the theory used by their makers, as I have copiously referenced and as is plainly discussed in detail in those references. You may have a different opinion, but that is, of course, merely your personal opinion and as such, not germane. If you can provide a reference that contradicts anything I wrote about the Jiahu flutes, please do.--Jacques Bailhé 18:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Jacques, can we agree that Jiahu flutes in themselves cannot be "authoritative references"? They are not what usually is understood by the word "reference"; they might be described as "sources", "evidence", but not as "references". This, by the way, may also be the case with "theory" itself, and a major cause of our misunderstandings: theory, for me, is the result of a consideration of something else; the existence of pitch relationships, of scales, etc, are no theory by themselves, because theory would imply a distanced consideration of these. In the same vein, it is not because a Jiahu flute could play "a Western scale" that we can ascertain that it did, while the very references that you quote are not even sure that they played music. What you claim is not said by your references. You repeat that "is well-established that ancient instruments can provide insight into the theory used by their makers", but you cannot even quote one single reference establishing that making an instrument involves a knowledge of theory. I know modern flute makers who have no idea at all of the theoretical aspects of the tuning that they practice for their flutes – they do tune their flutes, there is no doubt about that; but they do not have a theory of tuning. It is not to me to provide "references contradicting what you wrote", Jacques, it is up to you to present references that do support your claims, while I think they don't. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You write "I know modern flute makers who have no idea at all of the theoretical aspects of the tuning that they practice for their flutes – they do tune their flutes, there is no doubt about that; but they do not have a theory of tuning." If a maker adjusts pitches so they are "harmonious," or for any number of other reasons he thinks is appropriate, is that not theory? If a maker builds an instrument to produce certain pitches rather than others, does that not involve theory? I've provided any number of references about these flutes and their implications of theory. When do you get around to citing a reference that explicitly says the makers of these flutes had no theory? --Jacques Bailhé 23:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, once again, if a maker adjusts pitches (usually not so that they are "harmonious", neither he nor I know what that is), this is no proof that he in any way produces a theory about them. You claim that Prehistoric flute makers had a theory about pitches, it is up to you to reference your claim. I merely say that there exists not and cannot exist the slightest proof about this: how can I reference a lack of proof? Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• About the Chinese Zheng bells, in reference to the mention in the article that these bells "sound five complete seven note octaves in the key of C Major", you now quote the web page of Martin Braun who writes that the Chinese scale is a hexachord, based on F, etc.: one is far from C major! I cannot easily accept this jumping to conclusions which, in addition, change whenever you add a new reference. You add "Making conclusions about them before reading the relevant research is counterproductive." I think on the contrary that recognizing, after having read the relevant research, that no conclusion can be made is the only reasonable solution – more reasonable, at any rate, than claiming that these bells play in C major, a "conclusion" supported by none of the available research.

The reference cited reads ““Analysis of the measured tone data [of the Zheng Bells] shows that the 33 melody bells in the middle tier repeat the six-tone scale D-E-F-G-A-C eight times.” ““(1) a norm tone of F4 ~ 345 Hz (ca. F4-20 Cent, re modern A4 = 440 Hz) “ (Martin Braun, “Bell tuning in ancient China: a six-tone scale in a 12-tone system based on fifths and thirds” 2003 http://www.neuroscience-of-music.se/Zengbells.htm). A440 is commonly used today as the tuning pitch of instruments, regardless of the key they may play in. A particular pitch for tuning purposes does not determine key. You write, “…claiming that these bells play in C major, a "conclusion" supported by none of the available research.” The references clearly show the bells can play in C major and that is the primary arrangement of the intervals in the melody bells, although there are also bells tuned to accidentals that allow playing in other keys. Again, if you know any reference that contradicts, please let me know. --Jacques Bailhé 18:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Jacques, throughout the Western Middle Ages, the diatonic scale was the main one in use, and nobody played in "C major". There is here an important confusion between these two aspects. The Zheng bells appear to have been tuned in some sort or diatonic tuning, especially for six of their notes forming an hexachord. Why does no one claim that they could play in the first Gregorian mode? (or, for that matter, in any other medieval mode)? Where does this "C major" come from? Why not D major, or E flat major? Are the Western note names inscribed on the bells? Martin Braun describes the hexachord as C D E F G A, but what he really means is ut re mi fa sol la, which is not at all the same. None of your references mentions "C major" and, if they did, they would only evidence a poor understanding of the matter. You will of course argue that I pretend to know better. Yet, Braun makes it clear that, at the pitch-standard he chooses (A=440), the bells play almost a quarter tone lower than the note names he gives. Should we not better say that these bells play in "C half-flat major"? Or if we thought in terms or the modern so-called "baroque" pitch standard of A=415, that they play in "B half-sharp major"? What your reference shows is that the bells could play a diatonic scale roughly a quarter tone lower than normal. You deduce that they could play "in C major", which none of your references says. What can I add? What is a key, what is a mode?Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• About the use of the word "theory" in the references, I never said that an ancient book dealing with theory should use that word. I merely meant, and I repeat, that a modern book in English, if used as a confirmation that an ancient book dealt with theory, should at least include the word "theory". For instance, I never argued whether Fux had to use "theory", or its equivalent in Latin (he does, actually, contrarily to the statement in a comment by Wahoofive); but I don't think any book in English could be quoted to argue that Fux was a theorist if it (the modern book in English) does not even make use of that word. (Or else, it would be of the kind of Perec's A void...). More specifically, among the references quoted in the article about early Chinese theory (notes 33 to 37 in the text hereby), (1) Alan Thrasher, Chinese Musical Instruments, does not discuss their theoretical value and never uses the word "theory"; (2) a mention of the Harvard Dictionaly of Music as a whole does not allow to verify any claim made about the Chinese tuning system; (3) I have been unable to verify the reference about "C major"; I merely note that both the author's name and the editor's name include faults (Liu Liancheng, not Lu, and Sarah Allen, not Allan), which makes me doubt whether this book has really been seen, and I dont think an archeologist can be trusted about such music-technical matters; (4) as for the Harvard Dictonary of Music, a reference to the Concise Garland Encyclopedia of World Music as a whole is useless; (5) the general reference to Confucius' Analects does not really support the claim that this book is "an example of early music criticism and consideration of aesthetics", nor whether this is relevant to theory. That is to say that none of these references resists scrutiny – and you may not be surprised that, as a result, I am wondering about the purpose in suggesting them in the firt place. [Same remark as above. What precedes was written by me, Hucbald.SaintAmand, on 17 October 2015.]]

Your insistence on seeing the word “theory” within a reference to accept that it is discussing theory may be your personal criteria, but authoritative references do not agree. As copiously referenced previously, writings about ancient tuning tables, as well as non-written artifacts can tell us a great deal about the music theory used in their creation. You write that you “don't think any book in English could be quoted to argue that Fux was a theorist if it (the modern book in English) does not even make use of that word.” That may be your opinion, but again, references I’ve cited previously do not agree. As one example, you write, “(5) the general reference to Confucius' Analects does not really support the claim that this book is "an example of early music criticism and consideration of aesthetics", nor whether this is relevant to theory.” Criticism is a well-established aspect of music theory and Confucius' Analects is, in regard to music, criticism. See “The Philosophy of Music and Ritual in Pre-Han Confucian Thought,” Barry Dale Steben, Shanghai International Studies University http://www.academia.edu/1929545/The_Philosophy_of_Music_and_Ritual_in_Pre-Han_Confucian_Thought_Exalting_the_Power_of_Music_in_Human_Life -- or any of many discussions of Confucius’ music criticism elsewhere.

Jacques, thanks for this reference. But how can I believe that Barry Dale Steben's paper confirms that Confucius' philosophy of music is "criticsm", while it can easily be checked that the paper never uses the word "criticism"? You claim that "Confucius' Analects is, in regard to music, criticism"; but the reference that you quote in support of your claim utterly fails to actually support it, because it merely never speaks of criticism.Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised you dispute whether or not the Analects contain music criticism when this is so widely written about. Your criticism of Steben’s 2010 paper, “The Philosophy of Music and Ritual in Pre-Han Confucian Thought” http://www.academia.edu/1929545/The_Philosophy_of_Music_and_Ritual_in_Pre-Han_Confucian_Thought_Exalting_the_Power_of_Music_in_Human_Life) for not using the word “criticism” is as unsupportable as your insistence on the word “theory.” Lest we devolve into absurd arguments about the definition of “criticism,” In general, the word is defined as “The action of criticizing, or passing judgment on the qualities or merits of anything….” (The Philological Society, ed. The Oxford English Dictionary, Vol II C, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1970, p.1181). With regard to music specifically, “The Oxford Companion to Music” defines it, in specific regard to music, as: “…the intellectual activity of formulating judgments on the value and degree of excellence of individual works of music, or whole groups or genres.”(Latham, ed. Oxford University Press, 2002, p.324) Steben’s paper then clearly describes Confucius’ criticism. As another example, WP’s article on Yayue refers to Confucius’ writing: “The term yayue itself first appeared in the Analects,[2][3] where yayue was considered by Confucius to be the kind of music that is good and beneficial, in contrast to the popular music originated from the state of Zheng which he judged to be decadent and corrupting.[4][5] Yayue is therefore regarded in the Confucian system as the proper form of music that is refined, improving, and essential for self-cultivation, and one that can symbolize good and stable governance.[6][7] “ The Analects contain music criticism whether the word “criticism” appears or not. I think you may be the only person around who thinks otherwise. In the future, if you make assertions like, “You claim that "Confucius' Analects is, in regard to music, criticism"; but the reference. that you quote in support of your claim utterly fails to actually support it, because it merely never speaks of criticism,” please cite a reference to support your argument. Your continuing argument that a thing cannot be accepted as theoretical unless it specifically uses the word “theory” is similarly problematic because it is not supported anywhere that I can find. Throughout or discussion, I’ve pointed you to references that contradict your personal opinion. If you have a reference for your opinion, please cite. --Jacques Bailhé 21:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not dispute whether or not Confucius' Analects contain music criticism, I merely deny that Steben's paper is a valid reference to the claim that it does. As usual, you add a new "reference", the article Yayue, which indeed discusses Confucius' aesthetic and philosophic judgement on yayue music, but never says that this should be considered "criticism" (not "theory", for that matter). Fred Maus, in the New Grove Online, defines criticism as follows:

"Music criticism may be defined broadly or narrowly. Understood narrowly, it is a genre of professional writing, typically created for prompt publication, evaluating aspects of music and musical life. Musical commentary in newspapers and other periodical publications is criticism in this sense. More broadly, it is a kind of thought that can occur in professional critical writing but also appears in many other settings. In this broader sense, music criticism is a type of thought that evaluates music and formulates descriptions that are relevant to evaluation; such thought figures in music teaching, conversation about music, private reflection, and various genres of writing including music history, music theory and biography."

That is to say that "Criticism" in the broader sense includes... everything. You may argue that theory is part of criticism in a broad sense, but nothing allows you to revert the statement and say that criticism is theory. Besides, Maus adds that "music criticism as a distinct form of thought is geographically and historically specific", and claims that it is a European and North American occupation that started in the 18th century: one is far from Confucius. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Are you arguing that Yunus al-Katib is not recognized as a significant theorist in Arabic music and that we don't know something of what his book said?" Yes, exactly, at least for the second member of your phrase. Yunus al-Katib has been recognized as one of the very first writers on Arabic music, and several subsequent Arabic writers highly praised him. But we have no idea of the exact contents of his writings, which did not survive. The article claims that one can see in Yunus al-Katib's writings that Greek theories "became the basis of music theory in Middle Eastern [...} cultures during the Middle Ages" but, as a matter of fact, there may be reasons to believe that Greek theories were not taken in account in Arabic theory before the 9th century, i.e. after the time of Yunis al-Katib (who lived in the 8th century). This remains uncertain today and certainly is too specialized for inclusion in a WP general article on music theory.

Your objections to mention of Yunus al-Katib seem arbitrary, especially when you write, “Yunus al-Katib has been recognized as one of the very first writers on Arabic music….” In the History section his name appears as follows: “Around the time of Confucius, the ancient Greeks, notably Pythagoras (c. 530 BCE), Aristotle (c. 350 BCE),[38] Aristoxenus (c. 335 BCE),[39] and later Ptolemy (c. 120 CE),[40] speculated and experimented with ideas that became the basis of music theory in Middle Eastern and Western cultures during the Middle Ages as can be seen, for example, in the writing of Boethius in 5th century Rome[41]and Yunus al-Katib in 7th century Medina.[42]“ I don’t understand your objections to this, especially since any number of ancient writers’ works are lost and all we have are copies or references from later works. If we took that as a basis to conclude we don’t, or can’t know anything about what they thought, we would create quite a hole in history of all kinds. --Jacques Bailhé 18:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Jacques, if specialists of Arabic theory say that Greek theories may not have entered Arabic theory before the 9th century, while Yunis al-Katib lived in the 8th century, you may quote ad nauseam your own statement to the contrary without convincing me. It is not to me to justify what I say here, but to you. Not only are Yunus al-Katib's works lost, but no copy of them survive. And if I say so, it is because I know. I have no idea of what Yunus al-Katib said or thought, but I do believe reasonable to think that he did not sustain ideas that are known to have originated only one century after his time. It is not to me to prove that he did not, but to you that he did, because you are the one who makes the claim. If you don't understand this objection, it can only be because you don't want to understand.Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

An additional note about this: to justify its claim about Yunus al-Katib, the article (or you?) refers (note [42]) to Amnon Shiloah, Music in the World of Islam. p. 24, which I just checked. Shiloah writes this:

"One of these [poets, literati and musicians], the qualified musician Yūnus al-Kātib (d. ca 765) who was a highly esteemed poet, wrote the first book on music: Kitāb al-aghānī (Book of Melodies)."

And that is all. Shiloah, in other words, doesn't give the slightest support (nor there nor anywhere else in his book) to the claim made about Greek theory, nor even to the implicit idea that the Kitāb al-aghānī was a piece of theoretical writing. There might be other references that I don't know, but that is not the point: what is important is that the reference given does not support the claim made, and I cannot really refrain from thinking that the reference is there to make the uncautious reader believe that the claim is supported. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I am neither a fantaisist, Jacques, nor an amateur in these matters. You may argue against my way of expressing myself, and if at times I am too easily upset, I am willing to apologize. But I never make unsubstantiated claims about music theory. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As I’ve said before, I respect your keen knowledge of Western music and have never suggested you are an amateur in that regard. I do argue against your “way of expressing yourself,” because, as I’ve said any number of times, I think it’s discouraging to contributors, open-minded discussion, and otherwise inappropriate – never mind rude. Regarding never making “unsubstantiated claims about music theory,” I think my rebuttals to your mistaken statements above and elsewhere demonstrate that you, just like the rest of us, are not infallible. Errors, confusing wording, and the like are no reason to accuse contributors of being dishonest or the many other disparaging remarks you’ve made about my efforts. What we should be doing is helping contributors correct and improve what they offer – not vilifying them for typos, or other errors. We should presume their sincerity and encourage their efforts. I hope you’ll see the benefits of changing your attitude and contribute here in a collegial manner. Jacques Bailhé 18:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Three points:

(1) I don't want to make use here of the argument of authority. I won't therefore further argue about the extent of my knowledge.

(2) When I say that I make no unsubstantiated claims about music theory, however, I mean that I won't comment on aspects that I don't know; deduce from this what you want.

(3) I am very sorry that you think that I ever accused you of being dishonest. For me, WP articles are anonymous; I never tried to find out who wrote what, and I think that would be so to say impossible. On the other hand, I do believe that an article may be dishonest without that any of its authors ever were. In this case, particularly, I find it rather dishonest for the article itself to quote so many references that do not really support its claims. The author of the claims, whoever he was, may have been honest because he believed his references did support them; but it remains that the article is dishonest because its references ain't conclusive. The more you push me to discover that you made the claims, the more you compel me to think that maybe you ... but I don't want to think in these terms. If WP wants this all to remain anonymous, we shouldn't personalize any of it. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

-Glad you've decided your "argument of authority" is not appropriate. Sounded a bit imperious. One might argue that since music theorists try to understand how music works, whereas composers, the good ones at least, know how it works, authority is with composers.

-Your comment above, "I am very sorry that you think that I ever accused you of being dishonest," suggests that you didn't and that I misunderstood your comments. The archive from when discussion of the History section began, and any number of recent comments by you contain unmistakable accusations against me. You know full well I wrote the History of theory section and the lead (since changed by others) so when you refer to their author, or what those sections state, as being dishonest, you are well aware you are referring to me. "Dishonest," "lying" and so on are accusations that are really not OK -- if not slanderous. If you were apologizing, then I hope you would have the integrity to own up frankly and refrain from more equivocation and back-pedalling. Suggesting this is all due to my misapprehension is a slap in the face and a discredit to you.

-As your comments in the archive and elsewhere show, there is no doubt you have considerable knowledge of Western music theory and its development, but they also show a limited knowledge of music from other cultures and their histories. From the get-go, you have been reluctant, or directly refused to accept authoritative references on the music of non-Western cultures. In our first debates, now over a year ago, I supplied reference after reference to satisfy you. It's perplexing to me that you continue to debate not just the way in which these citations are referenced, but their substance. You seem generally unfamiliar with writings by Bruno Nettl and other pioneers in world music, or more recent work by Aniruddh Patel "The evolutionary neuroscience of musical beat perception: the Action Simulation for Auditory Prediction (ASAP) hypothesis" (http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00057/full), Iain Morley "Ritual and Music: Parallels and Practice, and the Palaeolithic" (https://www.icea.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/ICEA/ICEA_publication_pdfs/Morley_2009_Ritual_and_Music__proof_.pdf), Eric Hanson (http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/culture/oral-traditions.html) and others. You've long argued we can't know anything about the theory of Mesopotamia despite authoritative lists of intervals, tunings, and so on, that I've referenced. Same with the Marquis Yi of Zeng bells from China. Maybe this is why the international point of view of the history section, as well as the need for a broad definition of music theory itself is troubling you. In light of so much literature from so many disciplines describing these musics, their instruments, and other music-related artefacts, it seems to me way out of step to write a music theory article that relies on outdated and parochial ideas about what constitutes music theory and its origins. I don't think my effort was perfect and have encouraged correction of my errors since I first posted a draft (see archive covering July 2014), but overall, I think what's there is a good start on documenting the extremely ancient and worldwide development of music theory that is, in this day and age, appropriate and necessary. --Jacques Bailhé 20:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Jacques, I really cannot understand you. The main point of my criticism is that the section on the history of theory (consider it your section, if you want) is poorly (even badly) documented. You answer saying that I am "unfamiliar with writings by Bruno Nettl", but Nettl is nowhere quoted among the references of the article (while I happen to be very familiar with several of his writings). You mention Aniruddh Patel and Iain Morley, who are nowhere quoted among the references of the article; and Eric Hanson, quoted in the article, but not in its references. Once again, if this is your article, it is up to you to reference it. I keep thinking that if the references given in the article are there merely to make the ordinary reader believe that the claims made are referenced, while the references provided actually are irrelevant, this is dishonest. And flinging in my face ever new references, as irrelevant as the previous ones (irrelevant to prehistoric and/or oral theory of music, I mean), won't change my opinion. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I still can't find it, at least here, but it may be a translation issue; and I understand that your interest in the word "theory" is more about secondary references rather than primary sources. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

This indeed is a translation issue, Wahoofive, or even worse. The document that you refer to is by no means a translation, but at best a set of rules extracted, I think, mainly from the Second Book of Fux' Gradus. The Gradus ad Parnassum, as you certainly know, is written as a dialogue, and this fully disappears in your "translation"; I cursorily tried to find back where the examples came from: some are made up of different examples in the original, others I have been (up to now) unable to trace – but I admit that I didn't look very far. It is quite unfortunate that IMSLP presents this as the "Complete book"; the fact that the "translation" counts only 52 pages for a book of close to 300 pages in the Latin version already is an indication. The Liber primus of the Gradus is about the theory (in the strictest sense) needed to approach the practical counterpoint in the Liber secundus. It deals with the sound, numbers, proportions, harmonic and geometric divisions, intervals, etc., and concludes with a chapter [Chapter XXIII, numbered as Caput postremum, "Last Chapter"]] on "The musical system of today" (De hodierno Musicae Systematae), and concludes – these are the last words of the Liber primus:

Atque haec erant, quae ad Theoreticam Musicam, intimosque artis recessus pertinentia praesente Libro paucis declaranda duximus, nunc ad rem ipsam, partemque Operis secundam gradum promoveamus. (p. 42 of the 1725 edition.)

"And these were [the matters] pertinent to the theory of music and to the most intime recesses of the art, that we thought worth of shortly presenting; let us now proceed to the thing itself, and to the second part of the work."

(My underlinings.) Needless to say, this also concerns the the relation between theory and practice ("the thing itself"), as it could be conceived by one of the major theorists of the 18th century, and as I think the article in its present state does not do justice. Note in addition that Alfred Mann's translation under the title The Study of Counterpoint from Johann Joseph Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum (1943, ²1965) does not either translate the first book.

Yours, Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)