Submitted by jsdubois015 on Fri, 03/19/2010 - 13:26
Following up from my previous post, the remaining question to be answered is, "What is music theory?" At the time that I had written my paper, this was a rather intriguing question. It was a chance to voice my opinion of what I believed to be the most important factors of what music theory is. In part, music theory is exactly what I described in my response to the question of why we need it. It is the conceptual knowledge that makes up a piece of music and it's equally applicable on both sides of the fence. It's the conceptual knowledge that goes into the composition of a piece of music and it's the conceptual knowledge in the perception of it.
However, after thinking about this question again, I was struck with something I had not thought of before. How is it possible to justify a field of study that asks the question of itself, "What is this?" I remember we shared some of our responses to this question in class and everyone had, to a greater or lessor degree, a different answer to what music theory is. But think about this: a chemist does not ask, "What is chemistry?" A psychologist does not ask, "What is psychology?" Now, one could say, "Well, chemistry is the study of matter. Psychology is the study of the mind. Music theory is the study of music." (More correctly, musicology is the study of music.) That's only part of the answer. Implicit in the question of "What is music theory?" is the definition of it's boundaries. Meaning, it's equally as important to define what music theory is not. This is a question, I believe, that was for a long time taken for granted, and as a result, does not have now a definite answer.
After thinking this over, I'm still in the process of answering for myself this dual question, "What is music theory and what is it not?" To take it even one step further, it is further implied in the initial question to ask, "What rationale justifies music theory?" If music theory is to carry any weight, it must have a basis in reality, i.e, a rational basis. Now, I've seen a lot of answers to the first question of "What is or is not music theory?" but I have yet to see an answer to the question, "What is its rational basis?" And this is the most important part.
The Second Question: "What is Music Theory?"
Submitted by jsdubois015 on Fri, 03/19/2010 - 13:26
Following up from my previous post, the remaining question to be answered is, "What is music theory?" At the time that I had written my paper, this was a rather intriguing question. It was a chance to voice my opinion of what I believed to be the most important factors of what music theory is. In part, music theory is exactly what I described in my response to the question of why we need it. It is the conceptual knowledge that makes up a piece of music and it's equally applicable on both sides of the fence. It's the conceptual knowledge that goes into the composition of a piece of music and it's the conceptual knowledge in the perception of it.
However, after thinking about this question again, I was struck with something I had not thought of before. How is it possible to justify a field of study that asks the question of itself, "What is this?" I remember we shared some of our responses to this question in class and everyone had, to a greater or lessor degree, a different answer to what music theory is. But think about this: a chemist does not ask, "What is chemistry?" A psychologist does not ask, "What is psychology?" Now, one could say, "Well, chemistry is the study of matter. Psychology is the study of the mind. Music theory is the study of music." (More correctly, musicology is the study of music.) That's only part of the answer. Implicit in the question of "What is music theory?" is the definition of it's boundaries. Meaning, it's equally as important to define what music theory is not. This is a question, I believe, that was for a long time taken for granted, and as a result, does not have now a definite answer.
After thinking this over, I'm still in the process of answering for myself this dual question, "What is music theory and what is it not?" To take it even one step further, it is further implied in the initial question to ask, "What rationale justifies music theory?" If music theory is to carry any weight, it must have a basis in reality, i.e, a rational basis. Now, I've seen a lot of answers to the first question of "What is or is not music theory?" but I have yet to see an answer to the question, "What is its rational basis?" And this is the most important part.