I'm just waiting for quantum music

 

Nah! That music would be too Bohr-ing!

 

if you buy the idea that matter is energy at a particular state of resonance....you know, Feynman's "sum-over-paths" sort of thing. Then consonance is resonance and resonance is stability. Dissonance is the destroyer of stability. It is like pure energy.

Hey, you wanted quantum, music....

 

Give me Pure Energy anyday.............

 

for the OP, you would probably enjoy reading Heinrich Schenker, if you haven't already. Not Schenkerian Analysis as a topic so much, but his books themselves.

A lot of them are not only translated to English, but they are available for a song on Amazon. Hell, "Harmony" is available used for less than a buck.

https://www.amazon.com/Harmony-Heinrich-Schenker/dp/0226737349/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477657228&sr=1-3&keywords=heinrich+schenker

 

and here, after 35 years of teaching that music is an art, not a science, along comes someone who counters that. Thanks a lot.:lol:

 

hey, but if we could get musicians graduating with a degree in science, they might be able to get better paying jobs. Maybe calculating the resonant frequency of a tall building or in medicine using really low notes to clear someone's blocked colon or something like that

 

The system of functional harmonic analysis surely has a quasi-scientific aura about it, and it is significant that, most of the time, two competent practitioners of the system will arrive at the same interpretations of the harmonic structure of a given musical passage. But the notion that this "invented language … describe what is happening in music" in a way comparable to how chemistry addresses physical phenomena is an illusion, and in the case of theorists like Schenker who fabricate their central concepts out of whole cloth, a delusion. The principal problem is that the quasi-scientific language of theory is hopelessly skewed toward a single parameter, its tonal-harmonic organization, making the aphorism "to one whose only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" particularly apt. There is good reason to believe that thematic organization, thematic processes, and so-called narrative design have played at least as big a role in musical structure for a couple of centuries as did tonal-harmonic factors, but because there is no quasi-scientific language at play in these domains, these areas have been understudied and undervalued. The scientific view of theory and its language has, according to a number of thinkers, been a significant impediment to a broad, work-centered music criticism and to efforts to figure out "what is happening in music." Joseph Kerman's Contemplating Music and "How We Got into Analysis and How We Can Get out of It", Janet Levy's "Covert and Casual Values in Recent Writings about Music," and Ruth Solie's "The Living Work: Organicism and Musical Analysis," among many others, critically examine the dubious assumption that harmonocentric music theory actually yields a comprehensive view of what is happening in music.

 

EdwardBast I agree with everything you said except

...theorists like Schenker who fabricate their central concepts out of whole cloth...

I have plenty of issues with Schenker and his overreaching arrogance but in fairness he saw his theory as an extrapolation from the overtone series, which he saw as the one true natural indicator of musical organization. I also have some issues with that assumption but to say "whole cloth" is to give him short shrift.

 

I thinks its just best to keep in mind what the first four letters of the word "analysis" actually are

 

Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws


Just because you can make repeatable analysis about a piece music does not turn that analysis into a science because there is no fundamental laws underpinning it, just the semi-random choices of the composer.

 

Acoustics, neurobiology, and psychology are sciences, because they analyze, describe, explain and predict natural processes according to natural laws. They are both involved in understanding music as a phenomenon. Music theory describes the art of composing according to chosen procedures, not natural laws, and so is not a science.

 

Acoustics, neurobiology, and psychology are sciences, because they analyze, describe, explain and predict natural processes according to natural laws.

I take considerable exception to describing psychology as a science in the same way that the others are. Maybe it will become one in the future but even the great Hari Seldon wouldn't dare to apply it to individuals.

 

It's rather misleading to say that music has nothing to do with mathematics or the science of acoustics, as if it were all "pure art" based on pure emotion.
That's like saying "Astronomy has nothing to do with telescopes."

 

There's nothing wrong with Schenker analysis, either. He was trying to reduce everything down to "the one note," which is what all music is based on. Ask Ravi Shankar, or Lamont Young.

 

that's actually not what he was doing at all. this is what a lot of people say, but they are wrong.

What his work is really about is the composing out of a fundamental structure. the German word is auskomponierung, the "exercise of composing out". What he shows is the different techniques used to "compose out" simple contrapuntal structures.

so composing out from simple framework to the complex foreground is a different animal than reducing down to one note, or even one fundamental line.

a lot of folks also think its about reducing everything to I-V-I, which again is missing the point

but seriously, most people I encounter learned Schenkerian Analysis at music school and didn't ever read any of Schenker's actual work directly. So if you had a bad teacher, then you probably were presented with the idea that this was about reducing everything to the ursatz, or some such similar nonsense.

if you can play, then his ideas actually make a lot of practical sense. If you are shaping your line, then you already are making decisions about how the foreground relates to a deeper structure, right? How else do you know which are the strong notes that should be brought out?

 

Let me ask all of you, whether music harmony is a science?

 

Not a science per se; but consonance and dissonance are expressed as ratios. This figures into harmony, as the "art" is based on resolving perceived dissonances.

Music is sound, and sound is physics, and the human ear perceives sound as ripples on the eardrum. These are inescapable facts. Whether or not you want to say it's science or art becomes irrelevant, once one delves into it.

 

hey million rainbows...I learned from that text book, was taught by Kevin Korsyn who studied with Alan Forte, the author of your book there. I have read Schenker's actual books in English and some parts even in the original German, too, so I pretty well know what he was after

I don't know what WIK is, but if it is Wikipedia, give me a break. all that means is that whoever posted that didn't understand either.

 

hey million rainbows...I learned from that text book, was taught by Kevin Korsyn who studied with Alan Forte, the author of your book there. I have read Schenker's actual books in English and some parts even in the original German, too, so I pretty well know what he was after

Then it is obvious that you have taken what I said about Schenker analysis way too literally, or have interpreted it wrongly, or are just wanting to engage in conflict.

I speak very generally, especially in forums like this. Plus, I have no idea who people really are, or what their agendas are.

I don't know what WIK is, but if it is Wikipedia, give me a break. all that means is that whoever posted that didn't understand either.

Yes, it is Wikepedia. Generally speaking, Schenker analysis is about tonality and hierarchies (you described as layers or foreground/background), so I see it as, ultimately an "ursatz" manifestation of tonic.

This is the way I think, and it is not my job to defend my position to you, or to explain things to your satisfaction.

 

Music Theory is not a science. But it could be.

The closest it gets to science at present is cognitive music theory. For example, in 'modelling tonal tension' (Lerdahl and Krumhansl) they propose a model for how tension works in music. They develop a method which predicts how 'tense' any given moment of music should be (out of previous work) and apply this method to several musical examples. They then play these musical examples to listeners and (using a few different techniques) get these listeners to similarly rate how tense each moment of the music is. The values generated by the method and the listeners largely match, providing evidence for the theory.

This is how science works. Sometimes traditional music theories are tested using cognitive techniques, but this doesn't happen as often as it should.

I don't think I'm misrepresenting the OP too much to translate it to the following syllogism:

Just like chemistry is an invented language we use to describe what is happening at the subatomic level, music theory is an invented language to describe what is happening in music.

1) Science is a language with a proper domain
2) Music theory is a language with a proper domain
3) Therefore music theory is a science

which is obviously false.

Without music theory creating specific hypotheses which are then subjected to scrutiny, it cannot be a science (as science is currently understood). I'm actually trying to develop scientific music theory at the moment (or at least should be ) so this is a subject close to my heart.

 

when I was in college and studying theory, I remember one semester working on an analytic system that really looked at the tones at the raw frequency with an eye toward defining the relative consonance and dissonance from one collection of tones to the next. there are other systems that do that, but I was not reducing everything to the same octave, so tones separated by an octave or more wouldn't be the same as a close voicing. this gets into the combination tones and that sort of stuff.

I think that if you are looking at music in terms frequency, then there is a good bit of science about it.

I've always said that an artist in these times needs to consider acoustics as a physics and perception as a psychology, and in those terms, music theory is a science.

but pronouncing that such and such progression is a ii-V-I in the key of G has a lot of arbitrary assumption built into it that it would be hard to defend that as science

 

It is possible to argue a music theory is science or not, but there are academies, conferences and the congresses are organized, dissertations are defended and so on. All as in science.

And now come the next European Music Analysis Conference
http://euromac2017.unistra.fr/en/home/

It would be interesting to find out, what is the Music Analysis in general, who needs it and why.
It would be interesting to find out, who need conference and what they give the music theory.
This orgasm is or asthma?

 

It is possible to argue a music theory is science or not, but there are academies, conferences and the congresses are organized, dissertations are defended and so on. All as in science.

These things happen in history, literature, philosophy etc. too. They are characteristics of an intellectual discipline, rather than specifically of a science.

 

Science always involves some element of empiricism, and usually in a fairly strict way (e.g. the scientific method).

That said, a number of fields that are called 'science' are not very scientific. I don't particularly want to derail by arguing specifics, but at the very least many scientific fields have an issue with reproducing their results:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

If I were to argue that music theory is a science, I would go about it by looking at the realities of most scientific disciplines. Music theory doesn't stray so far from these. The main issue is that many music theoretical principles are primarily intuitive rather than resting on empirical studies. That said, I would rather defend the strict definition of science for the self-serving reason that my PhD is largely based on applying it to music theory. Otherwise I would be wasting my time for three years

 

But a discipline doesn't always have to depend on empirical evidence or principles to be valid, illuminating, and valuable as a furtherance of knowledge in a particular field. Look what Durkheim did with sociology, by simply accepting as a given certain social 'realities.'

From WIK: As an epistemology of science, realism can be defined as a perspective that takes as its central point of departure the view that external social realities exist in the outer world and that these realities are independent of the individual's perception of them. This view opposes other predominant philosophical perspectives such as empiricism and positivism. Empiricists such asDavid Hume had argued that all realities in the outside world are products of human sense perception. According to empiricists, all realities are thus merely perceived: they do not exist independently of our perceptions, and have no causal power in themselves.Comte's positivism went a step further by claiming that scientific laws could be deduced from empirical observations. Going beyond this, Durkheim claimed that sociology would not only discover "apparent" laws, but would be able to discover the inherent nature of society.

 

I think there is the issue of definitions when talking about music theory as a "science". If you consider science in a strict sense as the pursuit of the "scientific method" where evidence is gathered and a hypthosis is developed and supported or not, then music theory as musical description is not very scientific. A lot of music theory as taught in school amounts to descriptive analysis. I think that music theory should really be more about functional analysis. That is, how do the structural and sonic components of a composition fit together and work together to produce a coherent, and ultimately a great, work of art. If music theory can do that then it is useful and relevant, regardless of whether it is scientific or not.

 

Music is connected to mathematics, and mathematical concepts have been applied to music.

If you want to talk about music as an "art," then that's a different area. This is a music theory forum, so it's appropriate to speak of music and mathematics.

Where did "science" come in to the purview of music? I don't really think that's the right term.

 

There is always a micro level and a macro level to art. On a micro level, when you analyse each chord progression, harmonic/key changes and dynamic structures, it could be a science. I am a chemistry major and what is going on at the molecular level, we can draw some (but not all) parallel with music and chemistry. The micro level is certainly technical in nature.

On a macro level, music is certainly an art, which is communication of ideas, emotional, experiences, mindset etc. I think most people look at music as an art because they view it at the macro level.

The science or technical level one can management will facilitate effectively the expression of the macro level of the art.