Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for musicians, students, and enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
There are many questions here concerning theory. Hardly surprising given the site's title!
What I'm trying to establish is where theory starts and possibly ends. For example, is just knowing a major scale part of theory; a start of theory?
Does history of performing artists come into theory - one exam board in UK thinks so, and includes questions about it in exams.
Is there a nice simple formulation of what constitutes music theory?
Music Theory, as opposed to Music Practice as a whole, is an abstraction. Music theory is applied in order to practice music.
Music theory, as a term, is similar to "mathematics". One applies mathematics to accomplish tasks, whereas the concepts behind it aren't related to the problem.
So, where does theory start, and where does it stop?
Theory starts with the theory of acoustics and physics, in my opinion. It begins with vibrations, definitions of frequency, ratios, and the like as related to the physical production of sound. Throughout history, civilizations have taken these concepts and turned them into art, creating some of our most basic units of music theory, ie. major scales, intervals, polyphony, and rhythms, and eventually progressing through time.
Theory, defined, ends when it gets into physical execution of that which it describes. The limits of theory are also limited by the latest developments in theory itself, but in general theory is defined against practice, and extends to conceptuallisations of sonic perception.
I'd suggest that music "theory" relates to identifying how various combinations of sound are likely to be perceived by a typical listener, and based upon that how one might arrange sounds so listeners perceive them in some desired fashion (pleasant or unpleasant, happy or sad, tense or relaxed, etc.) The study of how various composers have arranged sounds and how those composers' works are perceived is a key part of music theory, since it helps to identify what characteristics affect a listener's perceptions in various ways. What is most important to bear in mind about theory, however, is that it doesn't really classify things as "right" or "wrong". Instead, when theory suggests that a composer "should" do something, what that means is that violating such advice is likely to result in a piece of music being perceived as unpleasant. Such advice isn't infallible, however. Sometimes a piece of work will be perceived as pleasant even when music theory would predict the opposite.
What I'm trying to establish is where theory starts and possibly ends.
I'd say that music theory begins with Rhythm, Melody, and Harmony, which are the three basic components for every song that is composed. When a person starts to learn music theory, that's where they start. Even if someone starts playing an instrument (without learning theory), this is where they start as well! They learn theory into practice without even knowing it.
It ends .... nowhere. Basically people "invent new music" everyday, especially nowadays with all the technology they can use. So, there can be theory that explains that music.
So, learning the C major is scale I'd say is part of music theory; one of the very basics you'd need to know, but still part of it.
Does history of performing artists come into theory
I'd say yes and no. I find it important to know the history of the music, so that you can understand where the composers/performers came from. Why did Bach compose the way he did? Why was Stravinsky the way he was? etc.
The historical background of these composers played an important role on the way they composed and performed.
Is there a nice simple formulation of what constitutes music theory?
Simply, music theory is the way of explaining music; the way to understand music; the possibilities, the practices and generally what is going on on a song. Basically the grammatical rules of the written language of music. It explains what is going on when we listen to music.
Wikipedia provides a nice explanation from the The Oxford Companion to Music
The first is what is otherwise called 'rudiments', currently taught as the elements of notation, of key signatures, of time signatures, of rhythmic notation, and so on. [...] The second is the study of writings about music from ancient times onwards. [...] The third is an area of current musicological study that seeks to define processes and general principles in music — a sphere of research that can be distinguished from analysis in that it takes as its starting-point not the individual work or performance but the fundamental materials from which it is built.
The Oxford Companion to Music
OK, we know that 'theory' is used to describe everything from basic rudiments to Schenkerian analysis. So that's the question answered.
What SHOULD 'theory' mean?
I think we can usefully seperate it from rudiments, a knowledge of the language of music. It's hard to start on theory until you know the language...
I like the scientific definition of 'theory'. We observe, codify, make predictions - and when the predictions consistently work we've got a useful theory. But a basic scientific principle is that you don't fall in love with a theory. When there's the chance to look at something from a different angle - Einstein rather than Newton - we rejoice! If we want a satnav in our car, that needs Einstein. But Newton's still great on the football field. Can we mix the two? Sure. Sometimes. Where appropriate. And that's where 'art' takes over from 'theory' in music.
Thank you for listening. No-one really thought there'd be '...a nice simple formulation of what constitutes music theory?' that was any use, did they?
I reckon when people talk about music theory they are generally talking about these three things:
Patterns and Practices - style-specific guidelines along the lines of "if you want to sound like this, follow these rules". (This may be where the history of performing artists, as mentioned in your question, has some relevance).
Notation and Terminology that help us communicate with others (at least, others who know the same notation and terminology!). The example in your question - knowing that a major scale is called a 'major scale' - is an example of this.
'Scientific stuff' - the areas of acoustics and psychology that help us understand why we percieve sound in certain ways.
Apart from the third element, I've always thought that music theory isn't really very 'theoretical' when compared with what passes for 'theory' in other fields! Music theory teaching often starts with areas of knowledge that are very closely related to playing an instrument; you often have to persist with your study a while before you get on to the more fundamental stuff. Another side effect of this is that a lot of what people learn early on in their theory education is somewhat specific to the music of a particular culture; often when people talk about 'music theory' they have Western music theory foremost in their thoughts.
You should notice the distiction made by Guido Adler between systematic and historical music theory: Systematic music theory is concerned with the laws that governs music for all people at all times. Historical music theory is concerned with the laws that govern the music for a given historical period and within a given historical context.
