The common style of notation works well for a thin slice of music, and only for a certain type of learner/performer. My own learning style makes it difficult to transpose, among other things (poor working memory), and that's not even touching the host of other ways that people's perspectives might diverge...
The common style of notation works well for a thin slice of music, and only for a certain type of learner/performer. My own learning style makes it difficult to transpose, among other things (poor working memory), and that's not even touching the host of other ways that people's perspectives might diverge...
I think the issue that gets lost in translation is that sheet music was developed for specific purposes - to broadly propagate access to musical ideas for recreation, and eventually for translating more specific musical ideas by performers specialized in reading music.
The rub is that this is not how music was historically taught, applied, or learned for a long time - and even then it’s primarily been codified in academic training and public education programs more than anywhere else. I just went to a jazz workshop last week, and being able to read music was great for visualizing and practicing theory concepts, but the only things I really read for my combo were chord changes and the heads to my tunes. Even then I was training my ear for learning tunes more than anything else, my sheet music was just a reference point.
I think the problem is that music theory is often misconceptualized. It should be used as a tool to describe the ideas we’re trying to express, and not necessarily as an institution that houses specific theoretical concepts based on genre and style as if they are exclusive to them. There is no Classical Theory or Jazz Theory, it’s all just music theory. And we use theory to describe what we’re doing musically in classical or jazz or whatever, and to describe what the historical traditions of a given genre are to consider and practice to train in that style.
"sheet music was developed [...] to broadly propagate access to musical ideas for recreation"
Sheet music was developed by and for the church, in order to propagate fealty to religion. It doesn't mean that there weren't some good ideas in there! The Western notation system, in its most recognizable form, at least, dates back to Guido of Arrezzo b. 992, not the era you're talking about in which parlor pianos were a common fixture of the average household.
I appreciate what you're getting at though, but I think "Classical" and "Jazz" are merely two subunits of one particular music theory. Classical music from the Arab world, from the South Asian subcontinent, from East Asia—all look vastly different, including a variety of tuning systems, compositional styles, and even things as basic as meter. So I push back on the idea that our understanding of music theory in the West can encompass all of those distinct ideas. It's particularly rich, considering that 12-TET, the foundational tuning system of the West, was first calculated and documented in China.
So, to your point, I think of it more like a world of many, sometimes overlapping, sometimes entirely self encompassed "music theories", amongst which Western capital-T Theory sits.
I should have worded it “re-creation”, to re-create the desired musical idea. I wasn’t imposing any assumptions on how it was used from there. I didn’t mean recreation as in leisurely performance lol. I know music printing began with a strong foundation in the church, you’re right about that, sorry for the confusion mate!
I also became familiarized with the differences in codified music theories from places like the Middle East, India, and China in school. I get what you mean that classical and jazz come from a subset of “Eurowestern theory”. What I mean to express is that, broadly speaking, music theory is what we practice when we want to describe whatever methodology we have devised to perform a particular kind of music. “Western Music Theory” doesn’t and can’t encompass other cultural theories because that isn’t and shouldn’t be the intention, but when I refer to music theory broadly, I’m not making assumptions of what the cultural background or methodological basis is. I happen to be adept with the language of common practice 12-TET theory, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to envision having a common foundational language and understanding when discussing similarities and differences in pitch, rhythm, and interval arrangements between various musical styles and tonal organizations.
I think we’re getting at the same thing, just in different ways, because I agree with what you’re saying!
The common style of notation works well for a thin slice of music, and only for a certain type of learner/performer. My own learning style makes it difficult to transpose, among other things (poor working memory), and that's not even touching the host of other ways that people's perspectives might diverge...
I think the issue that gets lost in translation is that sheet music was developed for specific purposes - to broadly propagate access to musical ideas for recreation, and eventually for translating more specific musical ideas by performers specialized in reading music.
The rub is that this is not how music was historically taught, applied, or learned for a long time - and even then it’s primarily been codified in academic training and public education programs more than anywhere else. I just went to a jazz workshop last week, and being able to read music was great for visualizing and practicing theory concepts, but the only things I really read for my combo were chord changes and the heads to my tunes. Even then I was training my ear for learning tunes more than anything else, my sheet music was just a reference point.
I think the problem is that music theory is often misconceptualized. It should be used as a tool to describe the ideas we’re trying to express, and not necessarily as an institution that houses specific theoretical concepts based on genre and style as if they are exclusive to them. There is no Classical Theory or Jazz Theory, it’s all just music theory. And we use theory to describe what we’re doing musically in classical or jazz or whatever, and to describe what the historical traditions of a given genre are to consider and practice to train in that style.
I don't agree with this:
"sheet music was developed [...] to broadly propagate access to musical ideas for recreation"
Sheet music was developed by and for the church, in order to propagate fealty to religion. It doesn't mean that there weren't some good ideas in there! The Western notation system, in its most recognizable form, at least, dates back to Guido of Arrezzo b. 992, not the era you're talking about in which parlor pianos were a common fixture of the average household.
I appreciate what you're getting at though, but I think "Classical" and "Jazz" are merely two subunits of one particular music theory. Classical music from the Arab world, from the South Asian subcontinent, from East Asia—all look vastly different, including a variety of tuning systems, compositional styles, and even things as basic as meter. So I push back on the idea that our understanding of music theory in the West can encompass all of those distinct ideas. It's particularly rich, considering that 12-TET, the foundational tuning system of the West, was first calculated and documented in China.
So, to your point, I think of it more like a world of many, sometimes overlapping, sometimes entirely self encompassed "music theories", amongst which Western capital-T Theory sits.
I should have worded it “re-creation”, to re-create the desired musical idea. I wasn’t imposing any assumptions on how it was used from there. I didn’t mean recreation as in leisurely performance lol. I know music printing began with a strong foundation in the church, you’re right about that, sorry for the confusion mate!
I also became familiarized with the differences in codified music theories from places like the Middle East, India, and China in school. I get what you mean that classical and jazz come from a subset of “Eurowestern theory”. What I mean to express is that, broadly speaking, music theory is what we practice when we want to describe whatever methodology we have devised to perform a particular kind of music. “Western Music Theory” doesn’t and can’t encompass other cultural theories because that isn’t and shouldn’t be the intention, but when I refer to music theory broadly, I’m not making assumptions of what the cultural background or methodological basis is. I happen to be adept with the language of common practice 12-TET theory, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to envision having a common foundational language and understanding when discussing similarities and differences in pitch, rhythm, and interval arrangements between various musical styles and tonal organizations.
I think we’re getting at the same thing, just in different ways, because I agree with what you’re saying!
Ah thanks for that clarification re: re- :)