Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
RE: Music Theory: Why?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login | |
|
Kevin
Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
|
RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to Bliblablub)
|
|
|
quote:
Doing something by intuition or practical knowledge is not called theory though. That is only your wishful thinking. Especially basic cognition is not what theory is. Theory goes beyond that. Says who? I suggest you read Lawrence Zbikowski, Thomas Ward (Conceptual Structures), Michael Tenzer, and Marc Perlman. Especially informative is Zbikowski who cites a study on children's theorizing of Mary Had A Little Lamb. Basic cognition is not theory, it is used to arrive at theory. EVERY musician has a theory. The point is to attempt to align the theory of Common practice music with the practice and theory of flamenco...AGAIN, it is something the guitarists and musicians I listed are already doing although not in culturally sensitive nor even completely practical ways. quote:
This is a great theory and a great starting point for all guitarists. Exactly. A great theory. There are many others. Before I went to grad school I thought I knew alot about music. In grad school I realized that I didn't really know as much as I thought. On a practical level, the theory I knew was adequate to analyze classical guitar music and make decisions about phrasing, timbre choices, etc. I learned that there is not one theory. There are many and they have to be understood in their social/cultural/historical contexts. Everyone speaks as if there is THEORY. Basically we have inherited Rameau's and Riemann's theory modified over time. We also use Schenker. The texts we study in American institutions are Aldwell-Schacter or Kostka-Payne. These differ on some very important details. For example, AS use capital Roman numerals for all chords. Kostka and Payne use miniscule for minor/dimished chords, and mayuscule for major/aug chords. In graduate school things are much more complex. NO ONE believes anymore (at least in American Institutions) that modality led to tonality. There were actually many coexisting modal practices, some of which evolved into tonal practices so that many modalities and tonalities were coexisting. Even in Bach there are still traces of modal practices. It is amazing how many people still believe this on internet forums. quote:
Theory would be the piece of written text or oral LANGUAGE that describes what a machine is or how it works. Nope. Please cite some authors to defend your position. Text or language that describes what a machine is the cultural/physical manifestation of theory that begins at the individual theoretical level. Work in neuroscience and anthropology demonstrates this. See Bergen Louder Than Words for a start. quote:
How much time did you take, and was understanding it your goal ? Haha.
_____________________________
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 29 2015 18:29:04
|
|
guitarbuddha
Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
|
RE: Music Theory: Why? (in reply to Mark2)
|
|
|
Good point Mark. For flamenco you can build a lot of flesh around a two chord 'skeleton'. F ..FMaj7,Fmaj7+11,B7,B9,Fm,Dm,Bm7b5,etc E.... ,E7,E7b9,CMaj7(Vicente likes this), then you could add a third chord say G........ ,G7,G7b9,G9,G6,D7m-G7,Db7,Db7b5,Dm7,Bm7b5 Ok this is all theory. So therefore Moraito didn know this ??????? Yeah right. If you believe that then you need to do A LOT more listening. D. (if any of this seems pointed it is not pointed at Mark).
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 29 2015 19:29:10
|
|
guitarbuddha
Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
|
RE: Whatever happened with the tab f... (in reply to Bliblablub)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bliblablub Brain activity that is used to generate theory is just brain activity, not the theory in itself. That is, again, a wishful thinking by you and your neuro-philosophists, who are falsely confusing the actions and thoughts someone does or has with their neural representation in the brain. guitarbudda, I thought your example was kinda off. We were discussing theory and your post didn't even have theory as an object. You don't need citings to generate thoughts (both correct and false ones). You also can't dismiss someones thoughts because he is not citing. That is theoretically poor. Citing means reproducing what someone else has said. That doesn't generate new thoughts and there even may not be anyone that has exactly thought the thought I had (let alone the amount of work searching for someone with the exact thought lol). Unfortunately even if someone else has already had your thought, or a million people had it already, that doesn't mean it is correct. Hi Bliblablub. this was a more measured post than my glib rebuttal deserved, thank you. I actually cited three examples in the post you replied to. Application is THE MACHINE, the living subroutines in the brain of a competent practitioner. Theory is THE BLUEPRINT. The third, involving my father was meant to illustrate the gap between the assertion unconsciousness of a practitioner and the implicit theory which was there the whole time whether it was articulated or not. In my last post (above)I hope my idea of theory is expanded a little as is pertains directly to flamenco. I understand the axe you have to grind with the semantics of cognitive science but I do not find the postition that you arrived at helpful at the moment. D.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 29 2015 19:34:37
|
|
Kevin
Posts: 294
Joined: Sep. 7 2008
|
RE: Whatever happened with the tab f... (in reply to Bliblablub)
|
|
|
quote:
Brain activity that is used to generate theory is just brain activity, not the theory in itself. That is, again, a wishful thinking by you and your neuro-philosophists, who are falsely confusing the actions and thoughts someone does or has with their neural representation in the brain. So you didn't read the Zbikowski? The point isn't that neural activity and theory are the same, they are not. The point is that all humans (healthy) possess the same cognitivestructure (a mind and a body, yes we also think with our bodies according to some work in cognition) and therefore they all generate theories whether it is about what the best way to get home in 5:00 pm traffic, or why the pitch class set Bb-G#-D-F-C sounds good moving to A-C#-E, C-E-G or even sometimes F-A-C. quote:
You also can't dismiss someones thoughts because he is not citing. That is theoretically poor. Hmmm. So you dismissed what I said EVEN though I defended it with citations but are now arguing that I can't defend my original point which you tried to refute without any citations? And calling that theoretically poor? Not sure what you mean by that but I am too dumbfounded to even proceed. I do agree that the argumentam ad populum is a problem logically speaking. But I have to go with published musicologists, cognitive scientists on this one. Sorry. At Sr. Martins quote:
To me, credentials are what stupid people usually look for. When lacking arguments or a train of thought, nothing better than "my teacher said". Needless to say that a lot of teachers are also idiots who need to take lessons, not give them. Ouch. So you are saying that Joe Shmoe can teach physics better than Neil deGrasse Tyson? So smart people do not also look for credentials? If a genius is looking for credentials because someone else might have an informative perspective does s/he become stupid by default? There are great players that are horrible teachers. Does that make them dumb by default? Is it possible that someone could be relatively experienced in flamenco performance but very experienced in the musical analysis of many world musics and therefore have something to offer about the analyses of those musics? I get your point but citations are usually used the bolster a particular aspect of a larger ORIGINAL argument. Even non-literate culture appeal to "credentialed" people. "The elders used to say...,""Ask Grandfather," etc.
_____________________________
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 29 2015 19:46:32
|
|
New Messages |
No New Messages |
Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
Locked w/ New Messages |
Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.09375 secs.
|