Music theory - what is it?

[Dave2002]

I have wondered sometimes what music theory is. Just knowing about notation and instruments doesn't seem like theory to me. Theory is when one can use some knowledge (facts) + some process (the theory) to predict something else. Theories which seems to work are Newton's theory of gravitation - which appears to work under most conditions - but fails when objects are moving at very high relative speeds, and Einstein's theories - which seem to extend Newton's theories to other objects, including light and sub atomic particles.

There are also theories about other subjects, such as theories of vision - how do we process what we call images and how do we interpret them. Earlier "models" based on the optics of an eye, and the realisation that the eye has effectively a lens, and the lens projects a splay of light onto a screen (retina) don't really explain much, because when we say we understand that model we don't really have a clue about what goes on in our eyes and brains so that we feel confident about the world. There are many aspects of theories of vision which are gradually being understood, but it has taken time. We are only just getting a grip on colour vision.

Music theory might be some form of perceptual theory - arguably with some similarities to theories of vision, though with different hardware - ears - cochlea, hair cells etc. However, having an understanding of hearing is not the same as having an understanding of music, so I revert back to title of this post - "Music theory - what is it?". What are the inputs, and what are the predicted outputs or responses? Is "music theory" a theory at all?

[Joseph K]

First thing I think of when 'Music Theory' is mentioned is common practice tonal music, and that there is theory and practice, the former seeking the formal organisational aspects of the latter to extrapolate general tendencies with varying degrees of specificity, some of which could be considered to be rules, some not...

Thing is, there are lots of music theories rather than one overarching one. Some might be predicated on knowledge of others, or might borrow concepts, though.

[Richard Barrett]

There isn’t A music theory, there’s the subject matter of music theory, as opposed to music practice. It’s a pretty simple concept to get your head round I would have thought.

[teamsaint]

There isn’t A music theory, there’s the subject matter of music theory, as opposed to music practice. It’s a pretty simple concept to get your head round I would have thought.

On a tangental subject,confusion reigns , as we are assured by some that music isn’t a universal language, yet today I distinctly heard Sun Ra say that it is.

And if anybody knows about the universe, it’s him........

[cloughie]

It is what should be obeyed or ignored depending on your point of view.

[Roslynmuse]

Much of what Dave is describing in the OP comes under the umbrella term 'music psychology' although I'm sceptical about what can usefully be measured. The universality of music is (I think) highly exaggerated; commonality of perception relies largely on commonality of experience (this was touched on a few weeks ago IIRC when the question of a relationship between language, linguistics and music came up.)

[Dave2002]

I think there are issues about terminology. We don't normally discusss plumbing "theory" - but there are rules about what pipes to connect and how to do that etc., and also what legal constraints have to be applied. Similarly for electrical wiring. There are theories about electricity and electromagnetism, but electric wiring is subject to rules - safety, and rules and practice - eg. IEE Wiring regulations in the UK and equivalent ones in other countries.

Some of these systems are merely "facts" - such as what are the standard colour wiring codes in different countries, or what are the screw threads for joints etc., but that's hardly the same use of the word "theory" as in gravity.

[ardcarp]

I think there are issues about terminology.

Quite so. Music 'Theory' is what you need to know if, for instance, you want to be an orchestral player. It's basically the nuts and bolts (e.g. time sigs, key sigs, notation, terms of expression, etc) so maybe it shouldn't be elevated to 'a theory'. The great thing about it is that it is a universally accepted body of knowledge which is common to all nations and languages...in the world of 'classical' music anyway. Imagine you are a triangle player parachuted into the Czech Philharmonic. You may not understand a word anyone is saying, but you can count your bars and 'ting' in the right place. Probably one of the scariest jobs in the symphony orchestra!

[Dave2002]

Quite so. Music 'Theory' is what you need to know if, for instance, you want to be an orchestral player. It's basically the nuts and bolts (e.g. time sigs, key sigs, notation, terms of expression, etc) so maybe it shouldn't be elevated to 'a theory'. The great thing about it is that it is a universally accepted body of knowledge which is common to all nations and languages...in the world of 'classical' music anyway. Imagine you are a triangle player parachuted into the Czech Philharmonic. You may not understand a word anyone is saying, but you can count your bars and 'ting' in the right place. Probably one of the scariest jobs in the symphony orchestra!

I agree with this. Should really be called something like standards for music performers etc. Really about a common language for discourse. An odd thing is that one book - the Language of Music really did start to address some issues of perception and emotional responses, IIRC.

[Joseph K]

Quite so. Music 'Theory' is what you need to know if, for instance, you want to be an orchestral player. It's basically the nuts and bolts (e.g. time sigs, key sigs, notation, terms of expression, etc) so maybe it shouldn't be elevated to 'a theory'. The great thing about it is that it is a universally accepted body of knowledge which is common to all nations and languages...in the world of 'classical' music anyway. Imagine you are a triangle player parachuted into the Czech Philharmonic. You may not understand a word anyone is saying, but you can count your bars and 'ting' in the right place. Probably one of the scariest jobs in the symphony orchestra!

Looks like you're confusing music notation with music theory.

[Dave2002]

Looks like you're confusing music notation with music theory.

I don't think so. Or rather - "yes, I do". The problem arises I think because in the past various bodies have published books and exercises and administered exams and tests on "music theory", which as you have identified are often really about music notation and also performance practices.

https://www.rcmusic.com/learning/music-theory-studies-with-the-royal-conservatory

https://gb.abrsm.org/en/our-exams/music-theory-exams/

[rauschwerk]

Compositional theory seems to me to work a bit like this:-

Composers write music. Theorticians spring up, analyse their work and write rule books stating how music ought to be written. Then some composers of the next generation write music which sometimes violates these rules, often for expressive purposes. Theoreticians, and also other composers, complain about violations of the rules but gradually many listeners accept them. Thus the acceptable expressive boundaries of music are widened.

It has often interested me that both Ravel and Stravinsky complained about Berlioz's 'faulty' basses. A passage in the song L'Absence is a case in point. I felt it was 'wrong' when I first heard it, though without being able to explain why. Charles Rosen (in The Romantic Generation) is very illuminating on this point. It is 'wrong' according to the rule book but emotionally it's right.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Unless things have changed since I did Piano exams (my children did the same forty years later ) music theory is really used to cover all the aspects of music needed to play an instrument from the notes on the page . It expands (after grade 5) to include very basic harmonisation/ cadences etc. So early on you might have to identify a time signature from the notes in a bar or put the sharps in melody in d major say. It’s not the same , though it covers some of the same ground as music GCSE, A level which includes composition. If you look at the ABRSM syllabus I think it gives an idea of what’s required . I think you still have to have grade 5 theory to take a Grade 8 instrumental exam. I’m not saying the theory side is essential to playing an instrument but it really really helps in reading music if you understand scales , chords , keys , time signatures . And it is absolutely vital for sight reading to any standard.

[french frank]

Unless things have changed since I did Piano exams (my children did the same forty years later ) music theory is really used to cover all the aspects of music needed to play an instrument from the notes on the page

I suspect any confusion stems from two slightly different meanings of the word 'theory'. In the most common use of the term 'music theory' - teaching - as ardcarp and Heldenleben have said it's the nuts and bolts of key signatures, notation etc as distinct from the practice aspects such as technique, interpretation. I don't think 'music theory' normally refers to things like ideas, concepts, approaches - unless that's what is important to the speaker.

[Dave2002]

If you look at the ABRSM syllabus I think it gives an idea of what’s required . I think you still have to have grade 5 theory to take a Grade 8 instrumental exam. I’m not saying the theory side is essential to playing an instrument but it really really helps in reading music if you understand scales , chords , keys , time signatures . And it is absolutely vital for sight reading to any standard.

I think one issue is that the word theory is not used, or has not been used, in the same way as in other disciplines. I agree that understanding notation, and being able to sight read quickly are useful skills, but that’s not really theory as it is known elsewhere. However there can be theory about emotional responses, though they may be more on the level of conjectures rather than theories. Making a statement like - sounding two tones a semi tone apart is dissonant and unpleasant - doesn’t allow for the possibility that some people may like that. Similarly trying to associate music with other emotions - not everyone is going to agree on the associations, though some may be cultural and learned.