Originally Posted by dannyrug
I will end my argument with the term "Music Theory" A theory. Not written in stone, but a theory.
Actually a theory isn't necessarily what you think it is.
"Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic, such as a single or collection of fact, event, or phenomen. Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking."
Source: Wikipedia
Just in case you think that wikipedia is random people bullshit here's the Google definition
"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."
Source: Google
Webster got anything to say?
"an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events"
Source: Webster Dictionary
So before you say that it's just an idea, let me go head ahead and say that it's an idea by so many people that it pretty much is set in stone.
"In my opinion, the existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon." -Jon Osterman
Originally Posted by ysome
Actually a theory isn't necessarily what you think it is.
"Theory is a group of ideas meant to explain a certain topic, such as a single or collection of fact, event, or phenomen. Typically, a theory is developed through the use of contemplative and rational forms of abstract and generalized thinking."
Source: Wikipedia
Just in case you think that wikipedia is random people bullshit here's the Google definition
"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles"
Source: Google
Webster got anything to say?
"an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events"
Source: Webster Dictionary
A theory is not a fact, or something that is set in stone. And to believe that a theory is a fact or set in stone, is just plain ignorant. As your definitions stated, it is a idea or ideas intended to explain. Why should this so called theory explain what music is. No matter how many people you ask, you will never hear the same definition of music. Music can not be defined nor can it have a set of guidelines that dictates it. I understand that some music is garbage, and it does not appeal to your senses, but there are people out that that enjoy various forms of music. What you think is music and what someone else thinks are 2 completely different things.
A hasbeen like the rest
Originally Posted by ysome
So before you say that it's just an idea, let me go head ahead and say that it's an idea by so many people that it pretty much is set in stone.
Didn't know if you noticed that last part.
The Big Bang theory. Almost everyone believes it.
The universal law of gravitation is a theory now go ahead and tell me that's incorrect.
Newton's law of motion is a theory
Some theories can be pretty much set in stone.
Of course someone can come along and say it's incorrect and give evidence why, although that's highly unlikely.
There are some ludicrous theories, like conspiracy theories, although the difference is how many people believe in them. Pretty much every musician ever uses the music theory.
I also disagree that everyone you ask will give you a different definition of music due to the fact that schools do teach the music theory, therefore people who took music classes may give you the same definition. Give or take a couple words.
"In my opinion, the existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon." -Jon Osterman
I make no claims about which genres conform or do not conform to music theory. This is only a response to one particular argument.
If there does not exist an alternate theory which is equally valid, then that theory is the closest understanding we have of the truth, so it does not make sense to disregard it.
This argument does not work, has not worked, and will never work. If music cannot be defined objectively, then it is a meaningless label. If each individual's conception of "music" is different enough that their exact definitions do not agree, then it is meaningless to speak of "music", as the word "music" never refers to the same object when used by different people. "Music" would simply be a word with no objective meaning attached to it.
Shared similarities between different individual conceptions of music can be incorporated into a theory of music. If you deny that this is possible, then you are denying the objective existence of the concept of music.
Originally Posted by dannyrug
A theory is not a fact, or something that is set in stone. And to believe that a theory is a fact or set in stone, is just plain ignorant. As your definitions stated, it is a idea or ideas intended to explain. Why should this so called theory explain what music is.
If there does not exist an alternate theory which is equally valid, then that theory is the closest understanding we have of the truth, so it does not make sense to disregard it.
Originally Posted by dannyrug
No matter how many people you ask, you will never hear the same definition of music. Music can not be defined nor can it have a set of guidelines that dictates it.
This argument does not work, has not worked, and will never work. If music cannot be defined objectively, then it is a meaningless label. If each individual's conception of "music" is different enough that their exact definitions do not agree, then it is meaningless to speak of "music", as the word "music" never refers to the same object when used by different people. "Music" would simply be a word with no objective meaning attached to it.
Originally Posted by dannyrug
What you think is music and what someone else thinks are 2 completely different things.
Shared similarities between different individual conceptions of music can be incorporated into a theory of music. If you deny that this is possible, then you are denying the objective existence of the concept of music.
Here are the definitions you get when you look for music:
vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.
the written or printed signs representing vocal or instrumental sound
Are these definitions correct? I believe that music can not be defined because it is a form of expression. People perceive music differently, much like art. http://nuffer.name/albums/March-trip...n_painting.jpg
This whole argument started over whether new music such as rap and dubstep are considered music. If you go off of the first definition, or even the music theory for that matter, then rap and dubstep are considered music.
vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.
the written or printed signs representing vocal or instrumental sound
Are these definitions correct? I believe that music can not be defined because it is a form of expression. People perceive music differently, much like art. http://nuffer.name/albums/March-trip...n_painting.jpg
This whole argument started over whether new music such as rap and dubstep are considered music. If you go off of the first definition, or even the music theory for that matter, then rap and dubstep are considered music.
A hasbeen like the rest
