It does though, if you have that knowledge foundation.
1 Like
Nope, you can explore harmony without even knowing any language or the word harmony, let alone music theory. Its fundamental.
1 Like
How?
You can sing with people for example. Or harmonise with any steady pitch you can find in the world. A washing machine or telephone ring for example.
2 Likes
How are you exploring harmony?
And how do you think itās better than having a fundamental reference point?
1 Like
Perhaps thatās how it came across. Iām really struggling to get across my view.
I absolutely believe that manipulating peopleās mood over time, using sound, is the core of music, and that music theory is the retrospective analysis and communication of that process. Once you have a language, you can choose to use it, copy it, respond to it, or ignore it as you please. The language is still valid whether you use it or not.
As soon as you determine some feature of this harmony (āthat sounds like thisā, āI like thatā, āthat one wobbles, but this one feels smoothā)ā¦ youāre working out your own theory. As soon as you share that with someone else (or with your future self), you kinda have āa theoryā. If you later replay your findings, or compare some new experiment with some old one, youāre working out more theory.
4 Likes
Not saying which is better but that harmony is a physical and fundamental phenomenon that has always existed. Animals do it too.
1 Like
Yep this makes sense to me - most of what I understand of music theory is simply documenting what āseems rightā
We all utilise music theory whether we know it or not - the difference is whether weāve chosen to prime ourselves with that information or discovered it organically.
Itās much more about the learning, than the theory itself.
Itās interesting to draw analogies to some of the work I do in research. If I were to present the core concept of an idea to a participant at the start of the session then I may reach a conclusion much faster with them, possibly even with the same result. But the journey that will have been missed in the exploration, and the alternative paths taken are unique because I kept them in the dark for as long as possible. The end result is something much richer.
2 Likes
The words of the good old Robert Anton Wilson comes to mind: the map is not the territory. The language is in many ways just an incomplete and posthumous imitation of the actual thing and the way I understand your point is rather that the theory existed before it, that the reality is built upon theory. I mean I think I get what you mean now but that was my initial impression.
2 Likes
I mentioned Sapir-Whorf/Korzybsky above. I only know about them because I read a load of RAW when I was younger.
1 Like
Would you recommend reading something from them?
You still want to have a map though, right? 
1 Like
It depends. Not musically but at times itās good to know how to find physical locations or how to make new kinds of food etc. 
2 Likes
I donāt think Iāve created any new theory. The theory existed long before I came across rhythm, or melody. All music I make is somewhat in dialog with pre-existing theory, whether Iām consciously aware of that theory or not.
I like dubstep and dub. Dub came from reggae, which came from rocksteady, which came from mento, which came from a folk fusion of European marching music and African music. So my GAS for an Erica Zen Delay is deeply rooted in the dual lineage of African rhythmic theory and European tonal theory. Even if I never studied anything but dub records, Iād still be working with sounds that are partly described by existing theories. Itās a gestalt.
3 Likes
No. Just read RAW
(I suck at reading academic writing. Iāve tried a few times and really struggle. Iām better with people whoāve synthesised across academic boundaries, like RAW.)
1 Like
I think we understand each other despite we might see things a bit differently and thatās good enough for me. I like gaining more understanding on how other ppl conceptualise these things.
1 Like
Agreed 
1 Like
Yep, thatās itā¦ and our maps are personal, and develop over time.
I like that analogy. 
Iām holding off going full on nerd with this, but for me itās been a lifetime journey that I donāt often discuss or define.
I adore the science/mathematical side of sound, not just music, but music theory/notation is the map/foundation/reference point to a lot of it.
Ultimately itās about sound, and waves.
440hz to 880hz, one octave in A.
Western music theory tells us there are 12 notes between the two Aās.
Thatās a starting reference point, and complete BS too, but itās a guideā¦ thereās a whole universe to explore in there.
Iāve been interested in 3rdās for yearsā¦ the universe that exists between the min3rd and the maj3rd (tune steps 3 and 4 on your sequencer) is amazing in how it shapes the feel/emotion/tonality of your music.
A standard major third as weāre ātaughtā it is sharp (as it occurs naturally in nature according to the harmonic series (science)), and learning this opens up a world thatās more maths/science/nature based.
I wonāt go into 5ths and 7ths, but you get the point.
Having a map to explore this is pretty useful.
5 Likes
One slightly theoretical interval-related question comes to mind that Iāve encountered with the MnM. The polyphonic engines have all these weird in-between frequencies/notes, I canāt remember from the top of my head precisely but stuff like 4/5 and 3/4 etc.
What is that about? Those are for masonic dub chords and pads arenāt they?
Do you actually want an answer to this, or are you just making a joke?