dustyData comments on 30 seconds in

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

I'm gonna straight up disagree here. All your points are mislead. There's math in music, but music isn't just math.

A quick example. If you listen to contemporary GenZ music, you'll notice a ton of extremely happy songs, that are in minor scales. This usually trips classically trained musicians because, well, major = happy, minor = sad, was the science for the past 400 years. However, this is not a natural imperative, it was a cultural quirk of western musical tradition. Contemporary pop, is doing away with it as younger composers and producers experiment with modal theory and unorthodox rhythmical structures and find wild commercial success with younger audiences.

Then you have some young bands like Angine de Poitrine (of recent viral fame), that just flips over your arguments by making microtonal polyrithmic music that is perfectly scientific and mathematically organized yet it sounds alien. Music is art, get over it. If people likes it, science has no power over it. Music theory is, precisely, just some relic of colonialism.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

There's math in music, but music isn't just math.

I didn't say it was just math. I said the art is in applying the science. And that holds through all of your arguments.

you'll notice a ton of extremely happy songs, that are in minor scales. This usually trips classically trained musicians because, well, major = happy, minor = sad, was the science for the past 400 years

No, the mood is in the application. That's part of the art. The science is in how many microtonals are between notes on a scale. In western musical systems thats 12-12-6 (whole step - whole step - half step). There are other musical systems, but the science is still underlying.

Contemporary pop, is doing away with it as younger composers and producers experiment with modal theory and unorthodox rhythmical structures and find wild commercial success with younger audiences.

Again, that experimentation is in the application. That's the art. The concepts they're experimenting with: modal theory and rhythmic structures (whether orthodox or unorthodox) are the science. They can be described numerically. All the qualia which result from their application are the art aspect, but the building blocks of those qualia are quantitative and precise.

that just flips over your arguments by making microtonal polyrithmic music that is perfectly scientific and mathematically organized yet it sounds alien

The "alien" sound is the qualia; that's an aspect of the application. In other words, the art. The microtonals and polyrhythmics are fundamentally mathematical, and thus a science.

There's a lot you can do with baking. Even unconventional. But to deny that baking is science at its core, and an art in its application, would be wildly ignorant.

Music is art, get over it.

I never said it fucking wasn't, but there is a science underlying it. Get over it.

If people likes it, science has no power over it. Music theory is, precisely, just some relic of colonialism.

Some people like flat earth theory and being unvaccinated, are you saying science has no power over that?

Yes, people can like unconventional music. I never said they can't. Convention itself is about application. Unconventional implies something about the art, or the application of the science. That doesn't change anything about the underlying science.

Music theory is, precisely, just some relic of colonialism.

That's a wildly ignorant statement, since many cultures have their own musical systems. Music theory isn't just western notation, and if that's how you're thinking of it then you're the one with the colonized mindset.

By quantitatively analyzing microtonals, rhythm, meter, and tempo, a musical work from any musical system can be understood by its fundamentals. This says nothing about the art or the expression or the qualia or people's preferences, because those are all aspects of the application of those fundamentals. But that doesn't change the fact that the fundamentals themselves are intrinsically mathematical and scientific.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

Wow, so many words to say so little. Jazzists forgot nothing, if anything they are usually the most classically trained musicians you can find. It bears nothing with your asinine tangent. Just like in art, avant garde jazz musicians and dadaist painters were usually the technical cream of the crop of their fields. If it is a matter of taste, leave it at that. But it has nothing to do with knowing music theory and prescriptivist notions of what music is or ought to be.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

Just because you didn't understand anything that I said doesn't mean I said little.

Jazzists forgot nothing, if anything they are usually the most classically trained musicians you can find.

I never claimed otherwise. But if you don't understand what avant-garde is, just say so. Because you're honestly embarrassing yourself at this point.

It bears nothing with your asinine tangent.

It's not a tangent, it cuts straight to the core of what this argument is about.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it asinine.

Just like in art, avant garde jazz musicians and dadaist painters were usually the cream of the crop of their fields. If it is a matter of taste, leave it at that.

I'm not arguing about taste. People can like avant-garde if they wish. They can like dadaism, sure. You can go see Yoko Ono live in concert, I'm not stopping you.

But what you don't seem to understand is that there is a philosophical movement underpinning both avant-garde and dadaism. That philosophy is the deconstructionism of post-modernism. And it made the claim that because western musical notation originated in the west, that it's associated with colonialism, and therefore an anti-colonialist movement should reject western-style music.

The error in that reasoning is, as I've pointed out multiple times, that "music theory" ≠ "western musical notation". And you can continue digging in your heels while trying to conflate the two, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.

But it has nothing to do with knowing music theory and prepcistivist notions of what music is or ought to be.

Dadaism and avant-garde were specifically about rejecting systematized conventions which were common in western styles of music. In order to reject something, you need to know what you're rejecting. So no, it doesn't "have nothing to do with knowing music theory." Knowing music theory is at the core of the argument we're having.

Also, music theory isn't prescriptive. Nowhere in music theory is there a claim that "this is what 'good music' is, and this is what 'bad music' is." That's a fucking caricature detached from reality. It's closer to musical critique.

Music theory is descriptive, and the fact that you don't understand that makes it abundantly clear that you don't know anything about it. You're literally pulling a dunning-kruger.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Since you are so adamant of quoting like a madman, let me show you how it is done.

But what you don’t seem to understand is that there is a philosophical movement underpinning both avant-garde and dadaism. That philosophy is the deconstructionism of post-modernism. And it made the claim that because western musical notation originated in the west, that it’s associated with colonialism, and therefore an anti-colonialist movement should reject western-style music.

Glad to see you agree with me that your original comment was out of place. Let's leave it at that. Also, extremely prejudiced of you to assume what I know or don't know. Peak internet bad faith arguing.

It isn’t eurocentric to believe harmonious and rhythmic music sounds better than music that isn’t.

But it is. You just said so yourself. That's the whole point of dadaism and avant garde, as you so eloquently exposed.

personally I think it sounds like crap.

It is a matter of taste, you don't like it, fine. Shut up and let's move on. It has nothing to do with following or not following musical science, whatever it is that you personally conceive as such. As you pointed out, musical theory is just describing what musicians, artists, are doing. Just because you don't like it doesn't demerit its value. Bunch of great painters have come up with marvelous, brown only, paintings. that are not inferior just because you feel like they don't know anything about color theory. I suspect there's someone else in this thread with worrying notions about what has value and what doesn't, and it ain't me.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Glad to see you agree with me that your original comment was out of place.

I don't agree with you, and it wasn't out of place. You're still distorting my arguments because you can't admit that you were wrong.

Also, extremely prejudiced of you to assume what I know or don't know. Peak internet bad faith arguing.

I'm not assuming anything. You made your ignorance clear with your statements.

It isn’t eurocentric to believe harmonious and rhythmic music sounds better than music that isn’t.

But it is. You just said so yourself. That's the whole point of dadaism and avant garde, as you so eloquently exposed.

No. Unless you're still trying to conflate music theory (including rhythm and harmony) with western musical notation. Which I've told you repeatedly are not the same thing.

Rhythm and harmony exist in musical systems outside of the west. And the fact that you can't seem to get that through your head is what's eurocentric.

I told you the philosophical underpinnings of avante-garde and dadaism. I also mentioned why it's erroneous to equate "harmonious" with "western". What part of that are you not getting?

personally I think it sounds like crap.

It is a matter of taste, you don't like it, fine. Shut up and let's move on.

My personal opinion, which I explicitly tagged as "personally I think"? Yeah, you're right, that is a matter of taste. I can express my tastes. And that can still be completely separate from the argument that "music theory is fundamentally mathematical and descriptive at its core, making it a science."

Two different statements, and only one of them has any bearing on my personal taste. And I made that separation pretty clear.

It has nothing to do with following or not following musical science, whatever it is that you personally conceive as such.

Someone's personal tastes may or may not have anything to do with the musicality of the music. I just happen to prefer music with fine degree of musicality.
The science underpinning musical theory has nothing to do with my personal tastes or conceptions. It's objective. And I'm getting sick of you not being able to get that through your thick skull.

As you pointed out, musical theory is just describing what musicians, artists, are doing.

I never said that. That sounds more like musical critique.

I said music theory is descriptive, but it doesn't describe individual musicians. It describes the basic components and building blocks of music (i.e., tonality, harmony, rhythm, tempo, meter, etc.). Inasmuch as those fundamental building blocks are inherently mathematical (which if you don't understand, it's your ignorance), music theory is a science.

Just because you keep trying to conflate the science of music theory with the art of musical expression, does not mean the science underpinning the art doesn't exist. It just means you don't understand it.

Just because you don't like it doesn't demerit its value.

It's not about what I like and don't like. What the fuck, we're arguing in circles. Are you a troll?

Bunch of great painters have come up with marvelous, brown only, paintings. that are not inferior just because you feel like they don't know anything about color theory.

Just because a painter can make a good painting that's entirely brown, doesn't disprove the fact that there's a science behind what colors mix to create what colors. You can't mix red and green to get orange just because you feel like it. If you want brown, you mix colors that make brown. If you want orange, you mix colors that make orange. And now matter how badly you torture my arguments to make them sound ludicrous, that only proves that the point is going way over your head.

I never said "an all-brown painting is inferior." That's more assumptions that you're projecting onto me. I said if you want to mix colors to get the colors that you want, you need to understand the color wheel. Because there's a science behind it.

I never made any statements whatsoever on what art has "value" and what doesn't. You keep loading up all these terms with meanings that I never implied. You're full of straw men and red herrings, and you're the one not arguing in good faith. You've never actually refuted a single point that I've made, only misrepresented them to try to score easy points.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 child)

What a dense brick of elitism. You speak so much that you stopped noticing when you contradict yourself. It is also rich when you accuse others of ignorance or misreading, when you don't even understand what your own words mean.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 0 points 4 months ago

You're really putting the Dunning-Kruger effect on full display, so I won't take it personally when you try to call me ignorant.

Also, words like "elitism" lose all meaning when you throw them around just to flame anything you don't like, agree with, nor understand.

You still haven't once addressed a single point that I've actually made, only misrepresented things as straw man arguments. So clearly you dont have a more informed response. Goodbye.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

lemmy:	0.19.20
mlmym (mschae):	26.3.4