All in all, I'm not sure there's much about scientific theory that
music theory can relevantly aspire to - beyond making sense -
as they are such different animals.  (Most of our traditional
music "theory" is mereiy the explication of nomenclature.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Wikipedia [says a theory] is "an explanation of reality that has been
> thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it."

agree?!

Shame on Wikipedia!  A theory is an *attempt* to explain, observant
enough and self-consistent enough to be regarded by the community
(e.g., scientists) as worthy, not of agreement, but of *consideration*.

how else could one explain the co-existence of competing theories!

(and if over time a theory proves also the most predictive, it "wins".)


Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Richard Dobson
>  wrote:
>> On 15/01/2011 11:33, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
>>> Hi Richard.
>>>
>>> Great explanation. I'd just defend myself a little by saying I wasn't
>>> conflating the two theories, but contrasting them. I am well aware
>>> that they don't go together, but they're two different ways of naming
>>> similar things. One of them makes perfect sense, and the other...
>>> diminished sense. What kind of "theory" says that adding two 5ths
>>> gives you a 9th?
>> Music theory, which like all theories is a systematic (and inevitably a
>> posteriori)  account of "best practice". In music theory, a "fifth" is five
>> scale steps (or the nominal 3/2 ratio), not 1/5!
> 
> Not all theories are this, not by a long shot! The first meaning
> mentioned by Wikipedia is "an explanation of reality that has been
> thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it". OK, it's only
> Wikipedia, but it's not like this is an archaic definition. That's
> what a theory *usually* means. That's the *default* meaning of theory.
> 
>> It is really just counting, where the last item becomes the new first:
>>
>> 12345
>>    12345
>> 123456789
> 
> I know. And I'm saying that this is counterintuitive and misleading.
> 
> 
>> In term of frequencies, when we "add" intervals, we are actually
>> ~multiplying~ ratios: so 3/2 * 3/2 become 9/4 - which is thus the ratio of a
>> "pure" ninth (2.25). But as we are in daily life relating notes to the
> 
> Like I said. But the terminology of "adding" is ubiquitous (and misleading).
> 
> 
>> five-line staff, or to the standard keyboard, we don't bother with endelss
>> discussion of rratios (which in any case will be wrong in terms of equal
>> temperament; the ET ninth is more like 2.45), we just count the steps, and
>> trust that everyone knows what we mean (which is why we learn music theory).
>> Simple!
> 
> So why not count starting at 0? It's just a slight shift. In the
> states, the ground floor is the 1st floor; in Europe, the ground floor
> is the ground floor and the next floor up is the 1st floor. If you
> walk up three flights of steps, you end up on the 3rd floor. I moved
> from the states to Europe and it's not like it was a major
> reorganization of my mind to adapt to the change. (Movable DO was
> harder to adjust to than this starting from 0.)
> 
> -Chuckk
> 


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
csound"




Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"