source file: mills2.txt Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 22:17:37 -0800 Subject: Re: Tail Wagging the Dog? From: Brian Belet On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:47:25 -0800 Johnny Reinhard said: >Since an instrumentalist, all the way through teaching theory, I have >considered "music theory" as an abstraction, a scaffold built from music >proper. Theorists were "after-the-fact" people that gave explanations for >why things are the way they are. > This is why traditional music 'theory' should be renamed music systems, as there is really no theory at work at all. >Significantly, this list indicates that this may no longer be so. With >"microtonal" theory, composers are eager to follow the findings of >theorists (some of whom may also be composers). Instrumentalists will >put in the neccessary sweat to find fingerings, but first the music's >theory must be adequately laid out. > Right! Music theory, now in its liberated (& real) definition, is alive and well, as it should always be. As composer/performer/theorists, we propose a theory (involving tuning, structure, purpose, etc.) that then demands music be composed in an attempt to work out the ramificaitons of the theory. We then must perform this new music in a test of the theory's validity in practice. Then we refine the theory based on this test, and try the cycle once again, and again, and ........ Now, if we can just get this idea across to the many traditional music program curriculum suits....! -- Brian B. Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 07:30 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA20241; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 07:29:58 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA20244 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id WAA28552; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 22:27:10 -0800 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 22:27:10 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu