Talk:Music theory/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Clean up of the intro

Hi everyone, I went through and cleaned up the lead a bit, as it was difficult to read and had a lot of unnecessary information in it. I still feel as though it's missing a lot of vital info that is included in the article. If anyone wants to assist in summarizing some of that information, and providing some critiques on my clean up, please do so! Thanks, dominiktesla -talk- 03:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Having always been unsatisfyed by this intro, I propose another one that for the time being is too short and should be extended. I have however removed the mention of a prehistoric German flute producing "harmonic" (?!?) tones: one cannot say which tones a flute produces unless one knows how it was fingered and blown; and four holes are hardly sufficient to suggest "consideration of intervals, scale, aesthetics and other aspects". That Ancient cultures indicate roots of music does not mean that they have a theory of music. If such ideas are to come back in this lead, they should be thought over extremely carefully; they seem to me much too specialized (and way too uncertain) to figure there. I also added Schenker to the list of theorist: some consider him the most important 20th-century theorist; I wonder whether Schoenberg should not be removed, as his reputation stems from his activity as composer much more than as theorist... – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks a lot better Hucbald. I agree with the removal of the German flute reference, it seemed unnecessary, but I didn't remove it because I was just trying to trim down the intro without really doing any research on the subject. Later today I'll get some more time to work on it. I feel like the lead for Music theory really doesn't need any references to its history, as that is largely covered in Music history. In response to having Schoenberg on the list of theorists, before I went through and edited that paragraph, it included way too many composers and theorists to be readable, so I went through and pulled the ones out that I recognized well and was familiar with. But Schoenberg should be left on since his contributions with the Twelve-tone technique had major impacts on the music of the twentieth century and even still to modern time. I'll probably work on the intro a bit more when I get back from work today. Thanks, dominiktesla -talk- 14:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

OK for Schoenberg, Dominiktesla. Note, nevertheless, that it is as composer that he contributed to twelve-tone technique, not so much as theorist. It the same vein, I wonder to what extent Aristotle can really be considered a music theorist. But let's leave their names there for the time being. I think all names should eventually disappear: in the end, the link to the list of music theorists will be enough. As to the history of theory, I think on the contrary that at some point it should be dealt with – probably not in the lead, but in a specific section. Christensen's Introduction to the Cambridge History of Western Theory might provide a useful model. The important point is, as he says, that the meaning of "music theory" and "music theorist" changed over time, and WP readers should be aware of that. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

While I tend to agree that stuffing the lede with names of theorists is pointless, considering there is a separate "List of music theorists", I am astonished that both of you seem to think Schoenberg's contribution to music theory might have had to do with his twelve-tone technique. Of course, he did write one or two theoretical essays on this subject but his importance in this area is, as Hucbald points out, primarily as a composer. In twelve-tone theory, Milton Babbitt is far more important, though I would prefer not to get embroiled in an argument about Babbitt's relative importance as a composer, as well. What causes my consternation is that neither of you has considered the fact that Schoenberg is one of the four or five most important theorists of tonal harmony (after Rameau, Riemann, Schenker, and perhaps one other name of your choice, who would you name as more important in this field than him?). While this is not of importance for a lede from which all names should be excised anyway, it does matter a great deal when we turn our attention to the discussion of the history of tonal harmonic theory, later in the article.

On another issue, I notice that both of these revised ledes have removed all references to speculative theory. In fact, the opening sentence now flatly states, "Music Theory is the study of the structure of music." I submit that this is too restrictive a definition. In what way, for example, does Philippe de Vitry's Ars nova notandi engage with the notion of musical structure? The same question could be asked with a somewhat different focus, about Vicentino's L'antica musica ridotta alla moderna prattica, which not only fails to consider anything about the structure of the ancient music it purports to take as its jumping-off point, but also ends up proposing structures for music that (as far as we can tell today) did not yet exist in reality. Considerations of musical ethos, such as are discussed by Plato and Aristotle, as well as a host of successors, seldom have anything to do with musical structure, either, and modern theorists often engage in elaborate discussions of possible systems that may never result in actual music or, if they are in fact based on observed musical structures, this fact is kept concealed from the reader. I am thinking specifically of a recent collection of six theoretical essays in Perspectives of New Music 49, no. 2, under the collective title "Tiling Rhythmic Canons", which are characterized in the introductory "Brief Guide to the Tiling Articles", by John Rahn, as being "ordered approximately from the most musical to the least musical, and from the least to the most mathematical." Anyone who has survey this collection will understand that "least musical" means "having least to do with existing (or even possible) music".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Jerome, in short:

1. Whenever we come to talking about the history of tonal harmonic theory, I eagerly await to read in what sense you consider Schoenberg an important theorist. His contribution consists in two books, unless I'm mistaken, Harmonielehre and Structual Functions of Harmony. In either of them, the only novative aspects, so far as I can tell, are the openings towards post-tonal theory; but what he has to say of tonal theory is in my opinion either conventional, or naive, or both.

2. About theory and structure, note that this statement comes, almost directly, from Palisca in the New Grove. It certainly needs developments, but I don't think it excludes speculative theory. The structure of music is something quite different from the structure of musical works. Vitry's Ars nova, IMO, engages with the proportional structure of rhythm. And Vicentino's L'antica musica is concerned with what he believed was the structure of the Antique musical system. Etc. In short, I believe that when Palisca wrote that theory is "the study of the structure of music", he had weighed each word. I agree however that his statement is too short and elliptic, not only for WP, but probably even for the New Grove. The lead as it is now is but a suggestion for improvements and complements...

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite. Perhaps we are construing the word "structure" differently, but I notice you have passed over my reference to contemporary speculative theory entirely (perhaps appropriately, for a distinguished theorist of the remote past ;-). I have been reviewing the article's contents, with a view to seeing what is actually there (which of course is all that should appear in the lede, in its function of article summary). Currently there is of course absolutely nothing at all about speculative theory, either medieval or modern, but I am also dismayed to learn that music theory appears to be solely about tonal harmony of the Common Practice Period. In fact, this article is organized like a syllabus for a college freshman-year course in music fundamentals, not like a discussion of the subject of music theory. I have been led to believe (and this article's lede still leads me to believe) that music theory had a long history prior to the year 1600, and that theorists since 1900 have sometimes ventured to discuss other styles and aspects of music, as well as going beyond the mere teaching of rudiments. On the other hand, some of this material may be excessively detailed for this article, and might be moved to Tonality or Harmony, but certainly some balance could be created by adding sections on other fields of theoretical investigation, and also to make plain that music theory is a field of academic investigation, not just a mechanics course in which piano players learn how to change a flat tire. Further, since there is no article on "History of music theory", would it be best to create one, or would it be preferable just to add a short section to this article? Some perspective is sorely needed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We might even be construing the word "theory" differently. Some of this was alluded to above, see 'Major theorists'. I would think that all theory, in the true sense of the term, is speculative, but this is obviously not the most current opinion in the US, where a 'theorist' is someone who teaches something (unduly?) called 'theory'. The Grove Dictionary of American Music defines theory as follows:

An area of study that tends to focus on musical materials per se, in order to explain (and/or offer generalizations about) their various principles and processes. It investigates how these materials function (or, in a more speculative vein, how they might function), so that musical "structure" can be better understood. More broadly, in the United States, music theory refers to an academic discipline with a dual focus on research and pedagogy. Regarding the latter, especially at the undergraduate level (and earlier), theory is often coterminous with a program for teaching a variety of skills, from the rudiments of melody and rhythm, to harmony, counterpoint, and form (along with their attendant "ear training" or aural perception). Related to but standing apart from these fundamentals of praxis are the various research areas of modern theory, as described under §5 below. It should be noted that music analysis plays a major role in this agenda. Although conceptually separate from theory, in that analysis often focuses on the particulars of a given composition whereas theory considers the broader systems that underlie many such works, in practice the two have a reciprocal relationship. (David Carson Berry and Sherman Van Solkema)

As you see, here too "structure" is mentioned quite early, in a context that isn't very much clearer than in the Palisca article.

In any case, the article obviously needs a lot of work, but it is not an easy task; I won't do it, I am afraid. I must confess I know very little about contemporary theory (as often is the case here in Europe: modern theory is mainly an American game, I think). In my opinion, a section on the history of theory should be included, later to be transformed into a link to a specific article, if needed. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Are we putting the cart before the horse? I recommend we leave off work on the lead until we have a better sense of what should be in the body. I agree with Jerome's comments, and with all due respect to Grove, the opening sentence is flatly mistaken. Music theory doesn't only "study" and certainly not only "structure." Aesthetics, acoustics, perception, and as Jerome emphasizes, speculation are far more vital and active areas these days and historically. This aspect of vitality should also be apparent and I urge that we avoid making the subject sound like some dead and dried academic exercise. I come at all this from the perspective of a composer and to me, theory is fantastically exciting. But rather than debate the lead now, let's get the sections of the body into shape. Then we can go back and work out a good lead. I am putting up draft of the proposed new section on history that I hope might serve as a starting point.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

RE: link to list of music theorists--I hope you might all feel at least a little of the shame I do looking at that embarrassing list. Everybody's from the Western tradition! IMO, really not OK. That's why I put up the all those names in the lead. We should remember, this article is read around the world. Hopefully, this issue in the article will be moot once we settle on a History section, so I'm not going to bother about it. Eventually however, that list really needs to be fixed up. Jacques Bailhé (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

RE: Schoenberg--Yes, he wrote two books, principally for his teaching work in theory and composition. He also wrote some earth-shaking music, and although there seems to be a tendency to consider scholarly treatises as the only real form of theory, I think history plainly shows different. Most theory is, in fact, mostly a description of what composers have been doing. Comparatively, not much is prescriptive. However, among prescriptions, it's hard for me to understand how declaring "the emancipation of the dissonance" doesn't rank rather high as a contribution. Would we have had Stravinsky, Webern, Berg, or Babbit, etc. without him? Maybe. But as his WP article rightly says, "...his name would come to personify innovations in atonality (although Schoenberg himself detested that term) that would become the most polemical feature of 20th-century art music."Jacques Bailhé (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Quarter tones

I have slightly modified the recent change to 'Scales and modes' by Jbailhe, who I hope will excuse me. I think that to speak of quarter tones in scales, for Oriental music, is misleading because the quarter tone as such never appears, neither in the melodies, nor in the (scalar) description of 'modes'. Some consider that Oriental music is based on a background system of 24 quarter tones in the octave (which in itself is questionable because real notes are quite movable, and could as well be described as corresponding to 1/3 or 1/5 of tones); but the smallest interval ever used in real music is the semitone, then 3/4 tone, tone, etc. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hucbald, I'm always pleased to have your help. In this case, I think I probably misunderstand you. Quarter tones never appear in melodies or descriptions of modes? The literature is filled with descriptions of descriptions of scales in Asian and other musics that use 1/4 tones. Classical Indian theory is an outstanding example. I also don't know what you mean by "real music." Microtonal music is dependent on exploiting 1/4 and smaller divisions. Curiously, so are genres like blues, rock and roll, jazz (especially modal jazz), and so on, with "bent" notes. It is also common for instrumentalists and vocalists to use 1/4 and smaller tones to create better or simply more expressive blends in harmony. This occurs especially in performance of the canon of Western classical music that does not used instruments of fixed tuning, thereby returning some of the flavor of keys lost in 12-tone ET. This may, of course, be lumped into what we generally refer to as intonation, but it's essentially the exploitation of tones smaller than what may be "listed" as comprising a given scale or mode. I won't change your revision, but I do hope you'll give this further thought.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Jacques, we should not confuse the modern description of 'systems' with the traditional (?) one of 'scales'. One could say that from the early 17th century the background system of Western music is one of 12 degrees in the octave; yet, no 17th- (or 18th-, or 19th-) century Western scale makes use of the chromatic semitone, nor of two successive semitones. One could say that the background system of Oriental (especially 'Arabic') music is a system of 24 degrees in the octave; yet (a) such a description does not seem to predate the Cairo Congress of 1932 and (b) I know of not one single description of maqamic scales that would include an interval of a quarter tone between two successive notes.

I can only repeat that the smallest interval used in 'Arabic' music is the 2/4 tone (semitone), then 3/4 tone, 4/4 tone, etc. As to 'classical' Indian theory, the situation is roughly the same: there is a modern description of the background system as formed of 32 srutis; however this once again is but a recent (19th- or early 20th-century, and probably much influenced by the West) theorizing of the system, and there is, that I know, not a single traditional description of a raga or of a melody in a raga that would use the sruti as a direct interval. For such music, even the notion of 'scale' remains problematic.

Western microtonal music is entirely different, of course, but I wasn't speaking of that, nor was it question of that in the phrase that I modified. In addition, the "bending" of an interval (even if it were by as much as a quarter tone) does not result in the scale considered including any kind of microinterval. Note that the maximum deviation of any note between the various Western tunings is of the order of a comma – 1/8 tone, half a quarter tone; but I know of noone who'd claim that our music makes use of 1/8 tones.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict: replying to Jacques, above, without regard to Hucbald's subsequent remarks)

It is important to make two distinctions here: (1) between different musical styles and traditions (e.g., jazz vs gagaku, or gamelan vs gypsy fiddling), and (2) between theoretically articulated scales and local expressive ornamentation. In the second case, for example, seen from the perspective of traditional Chinese music theory, one may have sounds from outside the basic anhemitonic pentatonic scale, as auxiliary or passing tones, but these are indefinite pitches with no validity as scale tones. They may, for instance, glide continuously from one of the notes to another, or bend upward or downward and then return to a main tone. Hucbald is absolutely correct, at least about certain Oriental repertories. From his wording, I infer he is thinking primarily about Arabic/Persian/Turkish music. Where Indian music is concerned, quarter tones as such hardly figure at all, though it is similarly the case that the smallest measuring interval, the sruti, never occurs between adjacent scale members—conceptually it is similar to the cent in Western theory.

In Ancient Greek theory, where the enharmonic genus is often cited as an example of the use of quarter tones, we come closer to the idea but, even here, we are imposing modern Western theoretical conceptions if we describe its scales as being built up from these and larger intervals. This is because the Greek theoretical foundation is the tetrachord and its progressive division of the perfect fourth into smaller and smaller intervals, rather than the cumulation of a smallest value into multiples. The "quarter tones" of the enharmonic genus are the residuum, caused by progressively lowering the string called lychanos below the fixed pitch of the mese until it reaches the maximum interval of a ditone (major third). This results in forcing the string parhypate down between the descending lychanos and the lower fixed string, hypate, which is always a perfect fourth below mese. This "crushing" results in a group of notes called pyknon, but the actual pair of intervals dividing it into two are not usually thought of as being equal to one another (at least, not by theorists of the Pythagorean school). Therefore, they can only be thought of as approximate quarter tones. I have only gone into such detail to demonstrate how we do violence to the native conceptions of music theory when we try to translate them into Western theoretical terms.

Having said that, we have got the problem here of writing in English, for a predominantly English-speaking audience. This readership may reasonably be assumed to have more familiarity with the "do-re-mi" theories (and their everyday aural manifestations) of Western music than with any other, and we must keep in mind that they will be (perhaps subconsciously) struggling to fit everything we say into these preconceptions. If we insist too rigorously on honestly representing the constructs of other cultures, we run the risk of losing at the first hurdle all but the most well-informed of our readers. On the other hand, we must be wary of oversimplifying issues which really do matter, or presenting non-Western ideas in the way that 19th-century musicologists tended to do: as imperfect systems striving to achieve the magnificence of the more fully developed (even "perfect") European ones.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jerome’s remarks about writing for the WP readership (generally non-specialist, though educated) and that walking the tight rope between precise scholarship and understandable explication is important, a song I've been singing since we started thinking about the article overall.

However, the remarks above about quarter tones by both of you, Jerome and Hucbald, puzzle me and are at odds with WP’s article on the subject. I would also refer you both to the lengthy discussion of ¼ tone Western notation that resulted in pages 67-71 of the report on the Ghent Conference in Kurt Stone’s Music Notation in the 20th Century, W.W. Norton & Co., 1980, ISBN 978-0-393-95053-3. Clearly the little buggers are used enough to give rise to such a lengthy discussion of their notation. RE: Indian classical music, the WP article on Sruti (shruti, śruti, etc.) states, “Bharata Muni (author of Natya Shastra c.1st-3rd Century CE) uses shruti to mean the interval between two notes such that the difference between them is perceptible. He formulates jatis, which are classes of melodic structures. These can be further grouped into two gramas—shadja-grama and madhyama-grama. The notes (svaras) are separated by intervals, which are measured in terms of shrutis.” “Notes at nine and 13 shrutis from each other are mutually samvādi (consonant). The notes that are at the distance of two and 20 shrutis are mutually vivādi (dissonant). The remaining ones, at the distance between 2 and 20 shrutis, are called anuvādi (assonant).” “By the time Venkatamakhin formulated the melakarta ("mela") system [round about the middle ages in Europe], the grama system was no longer in use. Unlike the grama system, the mela system uses the same starting swara. It forms the scales by varying the intervals of the subsequent swaras, and does not specify a fixed interval for a swara in terms of shrutis.”

Although I studied sitar myself very briefly in Benares and Kathmandu as a young lad, my teachers never delved into the matter so theoretically. Both were more inclined to explain things by quoting from the great and venerable oral traditions, specifically, “Shut up and hear the music, boy!”

Besides the rather excruciating intricacies of sruti theory, it must otherwise be clear to you both that this and many other forms of music use bent notes and inflections of specified and unspecified intervallic varieties that in a general nomenclature I think may sensibly be described as "¼ tones and other small intervals" as I think I did in the history draft. And as you can tell by the fact that I'm replying since I wrote that, the gods of music and orthodoxy have not struck me down.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You said "scales"?

The case of scales is IMO exemplary of the problems we are facing (and which, if we do not beware, may lead to dispute between us), defining what music theory is and what its history should be. About scales, we may choose one of two options:

• Consider that scales are an important feature of theory at large, not only in Western theory, but in all cultures of the world, and describe the "scales of the various nations", as Ellis did some 130 years ago. So doing, we would be "presenting non-Western ideas in the way that 19th-century musicologists tended to do: as imperfect systems striving to achieve the magnificence of the more fully developed (even "perfect") European ones", as Jerome wrote.
• Explain that the concept of scale may or more often may not exist in non Western cultures and that any attempt to build scales for cultures where they may not exist is ethnocentric.

Jacques writes: "For instance, the carefully placed finger holes in bone flutes from c. 35,000 years ago indicate consideration of pitch relationships and intervals within scales." How does one know that these holes are finger holes? (Even in some Western wind instruments, vent holes cannot easily be distinguished from finger holes unless one knows how to play). How does one know that they were "carefully placed"? How does one know, without knowing anything about how these instruments were blown, nor how they were fingered, that they produced "intervals within scales"? How can one ascertain that this resulted in even a merely implicit theory? I read once (I cannot find this reference anymore, unfortunately) that 19th-century explorers in the Maghreb asked the musicians there to play the scale of their clarinets or oboes, and that the question merely was not understood: the musicians did not imagine that the notes of their instrument could be played outside a specified melody or that they formed a scale; in addition, they could not decide the intonation of these notes outside of context. One of my Tunisian PhD students recently wrote his thesis on the fluctuation of intonations in recorded 20th-century Arabic music, showing that depending on the mode the intonations were variable and that even in a given mode, the cofluctuation of notes was high (that is, notes tended to fluctuate together: the F or F half-sharp tended to become all the more sharper that the E flat of E half-flat tended to be lower); one of his conclusions was that such expression as "F", "F half-sharp", "E flat" or "E half-flat" might be inappropriate.

It strikes me that most of the references given by Jacques either come from non-musical journals, or are outdated. Some of the statements, which basically are but quotations from the works cited, are properly uncredible. Jacques, would you mind to reread these and wonder?

• "Similar bone flutes [...] dated c. 7,000 BCE reveal their makers progressively added more holes to expand their scales, structured pitch intervals closer to each other to adjust tuning, and could play increasingly expressive and varied music."
• "The flutes also became progressively standardized in pitch". [Note that one cannot ascertain a pitch unless one knows the name of the notes. A pitch is a relation between a frequency and a note name. Pitch, in Europe, was not fully standardized before the end of the 19th century; or, even, it is still not standardized today.]
• "In the tomb of the Marquis Yi of Zeng (5th century BCE), among many other instruments, a set of bronze chime bells were found that sound five complete seven note octaves in the key of C Major and include twelve semitones." [In the key of C major !!! What is a key? How can one say in what key a diatonic or chromatic scale is? And what is a "seven note octave" that includes twelve semitones?]

All these quotations (and so many others that I could cite) are motivated by a desire to show that these ancient musics (and their alleged theories) were as developed, or almost, as Western music and its theory, or at least under way to Western perfection. Nobody ever dares make a supposition that, perhaps, the musical systems (if any) of these ancient culture was different from the Western one, and possibly on the path to something even more different. This is Western-oriented globalization at its worst.

I trust that history should be left to historians, and I strongly doubt any of your cases (and the commentaries associated to them) could be admitted in a general history of music. We, as theorists, should keep to the history of theory – that is to cases were theory is attested. Among models that we might choose are Curt Sachs' books, The Music of the Most Ancient Nations and The Rise of Music in the Ancient Word. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

An afterthought. We may be able to build (modern) theories about ancient music, say on the basis of preserved instruments, and we should do so, avoiding Western biases. But this is entirely different from thinking that the Ancients had theories even before they began to write. To present a modern theory as an ancient one would be a major mistake. – By the way, the book by Sachs I had in mind was not The Music of the Most Ancient Nations, which is by Carl Engel, but The Wellsprings of Music. It includes a lot of theorizing about ancient music, but never claims that such theories would be ancient in themselves. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hucbald—I agree with your comments about the problematic use of the word “scale.” Perhaps we can find better wording: “pitch collection”? I was trying to write in easily understood language without digressing into concepts with which most readers will not be familiar—until we get to the section on modes and scales, but as I say, I think your point is helpful. Thanks.

RE: your comments on the references, please know that I would be very pleased to have any suggestions you may know on more current sources, but looking over the references listed at the moment, they are predominantly from the 1990’s and 2000’s (and a couple of historical interest from earlier decades). These don’t seem outdated to me, but again, I’d be pleased to use any more recent sources you may know. Clearly, Sachs’ The Wellsprings of Music from 1977 won’t discuss the discoveries covered in the draft that occurred later. I’ll get his 2008, The Rise of Music in the Ancient World: East and West and see how it can help us, but again, it can’t refer to discoveries and analyses I cite from 2007-2012.

The fact that some references come from journals and other sources that are “non-musical,” as you put it, is, I suggest, obviously understandable since the most authoritative monographs on the ancient instruments are archaeological. There are, however, any number of sources cited that are specifically musical. So, unless I’m overlooking something, I don’t see that the citations suffer from mustiness or lack of authority. See also WP's articles on the Chinese bells, the Jiahu flutes, Prehistoric music and related links.

RE: What we know of the ancient flutes--If you read the sources cited, you’ll find the answers to all your questions, including by the way, discussion of very small, non-finger-sized holes drilled next to some finger-holes that seem to have been made to correct intonation, similarly to the separate pair of small holes in the last finger position of recorders (also suggesting these ancient flutes are likely the direct forbearers of recorders).

RE: The Chinese bells, pardon me, but I don’t understand your comment. As described in the sources, they are apparently in the key of C Major based on the arrangement of their intervals and a tonic pitch class very close to the frequencies of our C pitch class that is apparently within the variations of that frequency in current use, as for instance in different orchestras around the world. Is it incorrect to say that the pitch collection has seven notes in the octave and that, as is the case with our modern scales, the seven notes are selected from a division of the octave into twelve semitones? Perhaps you’re suggesting that the sentence in the draft that summarizes the research, “…five complete seven note octaves in the key of C Major and include twelve semitones” could be made clearer by re-wording? Or have I run amok in theoretical concepts?

RE: Your comment, “I trust that history should be left to historians, and I strongly doubt any of your cases (and the commentaries associated to them) could be admitted in a general history of music.” I submit that the history I described comes directly from authoritative historical sources. I've responded to your previous mentions of your doubt about these ancient instruments, and I hope by now its clear that to you that I didn’t make all this up. Wherever I have committed the sin of what WP euphemistically refers to as “original research,” please do point it out and I’ll correct it, but whether these instruments should be admitted to “a general history of music,” seems to be a fait accompli because their physical existence is irrefutable and they are increasingly well-recorded in the literature. I don’t see that this is something for us to decide, whatever our personal opinions may be. Questions regarding their dating, use, and theoretical implications are certainly legitimate. In that regard, I know of no other course than to address them by citing the most authoritative sources I can find. If you know of sources that disagree with, or refute the sources I’ve cited or that are provided in related WP articles, please do let me know.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Jacques, it is not the word "scale" that is problematic, it is the concept itself, i.e that of a collection of more or less fixed, distinct pitches. "Pitch collection" would be even worse, because it would make us (and WP readers) believe that all music is a matter of distinct pitches. The whole WP project is about vulgarization, that is about making difficult concepts understandable to a large public. We have to explain that other musical cultures may not view music as a play of distinct pitches; I don't think that making that point would be so difficult. And to write as if music always was a matter of distinct pitches is exactly the opposite to what we should do.

About prehistoric instruments: I do not deny their existence, of course, nor the fact that they have holes. I don't even deny that we may hypothetize the purpose of the holes – even if I have my doubts about some of the hypotheses. But I firmly repeat that we cannot seriously hypothetize whether prehistoric musicians had any notion of distinct pitches, of scales, or the likes. There are too many more recent cases where such hypotheses are problematic – including modern Arabic music, but also Medieval and Renaissance Western music: how can we explain that the terminology of our musical scale is based on only seven letters, A B C D E F G, while it obviously counts twelve degrees, some of which are merely indicated by additional signs, # of b? (Or, in other words, do who enough understand what "movable pitch" means?) Understanding Medieval and Renaissance music and theory also involves understanding this. And even if we cannot make WP readers understand it, we can at least make them aware that there is a problem here.

One of your sources mentioned that the developments in Chinese prehistoric flutes made them able to play "increasingly expressive and varied music to play": but how do we decide that music necessarily should be "expressive" or even "varied"? These are modern Western categories projected, merely on the basis of instruments of increased technology, upon a music about which we hardly know anything. Such hypotheses might be worth discussing in specialized circles; but not on WP.

Chinese bells. We reach here one core of the problem. Either these bells evidence twelve notes in the octave, then they evidence some kind of chromatic scale – that is, a scale well-known of 20th-century atonal music. Or they count seven notes in the octave, and the idea that these have been chosen in a collection of twelve notes is but a projection of modern theory upon ancient instruments. You may claim that some of the intervals seem about twice as large as others; but did you, or anyone, hear any of these Chinese people of 2500 years ago say so? I don't argue against the presentation of a 2500-years old Chinese bell scale as formed of intervals that ressemble semitones and tones, I merely argue about any supposition that this, therefore, necessarily was the theory of the time. I didn't recently reread the litterature about these bells, but I remember to have read that they were tuned in equal temperament. Now, so far as I know, even modern bells have quite an unstable pitch that prevents determining their tuning to such a detailed result (remember that an ET 5th is only 2 cents narrower that a pure one); and I trust that the corrosion of such old bells, buried for more than 2000 years, makes all bets unbelievable.

To say that these bells are tuned "in the key of C major" suggests that one somehow identifies one of their pitch as "tonic"; otherwise, a diatonic scale could as easily be, say, in D Dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian, etc. And to say that their frequencies are close to that of our modern pitch standard apparently supposes that there is something special about our A=440Hz (or did you think of another recent pitch? Ellis, at the end of the 19th century, described historical pitches covering about a full octave, from about a 4th or a 5th below A=440 to about a 4th or a 5th above). May I remind you that A=440Hz is the result of the mistake of a late-19th-century conference in Vienna, that supposed that the French "normal pitch" of A=435 was meant for orchestras playing at 15° centigrade (while the truth merely was that Lissajous claimed that his tuning fork, still preserved today in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers in Paris, had been adjusted by himself and his assistant at that temperature) and where [at the same conference in Vienna] it was considered more civilized to let orchestra musicians play at a temperature of 20°, the difference of 5° degrees accounting for the difference betweem 435 and 440... Do you suppose Chinese musicians of 2500 years ago foresaw this? And do you think any pitch standard suffices to identify "C major"?

The problem of "authoritative" sources in WP is a major problem for me today. I cannot believe (and I have been taught not to believe) that anything published is authoritative. Once again, I do not doubt the existence of the prehistoric instruments that you mention, I merely doubt the hypothetical prehistoric theories built about them. Most of your sources seem very much concerned with demonstrating that such early theories were on their way to Western ones, to scales, to diatonic and chromatic scales, to tonalities (C major!), to modern pitch, etc., and this is what I cannot easily swallow. That archeologists are concerned with archeological instruments is excellent; that they hypothetize notions of prehistoric aesthetics or theories merely is hardly acceptable to me...

(These comments written before your last changes.)

Don't misunderstand me, Jacques. The above, I hope, remains of the order of a normal scholarly discussion (and if at times you think otherwise, remember that English is not my native language). I don't want to bring in arguments of authority, which have no place in WP. Let me say, however, that I have spent a long time teaching about all this, trying to help my students grasping the complexities involved (rather than presenting as simple things that were not), and convincing them never to accept things as granted. I participated in some of the articles of the New Grove, first edition (which should convince you that I am not young: this was, I hate to say, 40 years ago); one recommendation we received was never to present something questionable as if it were sure, and to always present questions as questions. I'd say that this should be valid for the WP project as well. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hucbald—Let me start with your last comments. I hereby, unequivocally declare I shall never take offense at your excellent arguments, nor ever intend any disrespect. It is abundantly clear to me that your knowledge in many areas of theory is profoundly deep and valuable to the project at hand. I hope the same is true of you when you consider my regrettably shallower arguments. Scale—Maybe what you’re suggesting is clarification early on in the history section that declares the point you now make (assuming I understand it correctly): “other musical cultures may not view music as a play of distinct pitches” in some-such language. I’ll take a crack at making that very important point clear early on. Prehistoric instruments—I’ll see if I can find a way to make the issue of cultural distortion clear enough to satisfy. It is, BTW, something I think may be appropriate for the lead, but well worth re-emphasizing in the history section. RE: “…increasingly expressive and varied…” referred to the apparent fact of the Jiahu flutes showing development of more holes, adjustment of intonation with tiny holes near those holes, etc. Reading the articles cited about these and other ancient flutes may change your mind about what can be reasonably deduced from them. You might also enjoy hearing the tones produced by Jiahu Flute No. 7. http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/1999/Flute7.wav RE: Chinese Bells--in this case, the theory of the time was written in regard to these bells. It’s not supposition or deduction. RE: stable tuning--they, like many of our modern bell instruments (celeste, glockenspiel, etc.) are tuned quite well with pronounced fundamental. You can have a look at pictures of these bells showing apparently negligible corrosion, but interestingly, other ancient Chinese bells crafted from stone also produced good tones. Good question, though. RE: Authority—I agree with you on clinging tightly to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. In the case of these early instruments, I’ve cited as many corroborating sources as seemed sensible, using the monographs where possible, but they’re heaps more papers. In the article, I also tried to step gently around specifics declared in some of the research, with the notable exception of the Chinese bells because in that case, as I say, we have documents from the time describing the theory. And again, I’ll be sincerely pleased to read any source refuting the references given. I’ve looked and haven’t found any. RE: your other questions, I’m happy to continue giving you my understanding of the research on these instruments, but encourage you to read the WP articles and citations. Really quite fascinating. Jacques Bailhé (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

History of Music Theory

DRAFT:

The beginnings of music theory can be observed in extremely ancient instruments, artifacts, and later, depictions of performance in artworks that reveal theoretical ideas and practices. The worldwide history of its development is briefly outlined here by examples of the instruments, people, and cultures that created it. More detailed information may be found in specialized articles.

As early as the Paleolithic, it appears people considered elements of music in sophisticated ways. For instance, the carefully placed finger holes in bone flutes from c. 35,000 years ago indicate consideration of pitch relationships and intervals within scales. "These finds demonstrate the presence of a well-established musical tradition at the time when modern humans colonized Europe….”¹ Similar bone flutes (gǔdí, 贾湖骨笛) from Neolithic Jiahu, China dated c. 7,000 BCE² reveal their makers progressively added more holes to expand their scales, structured pitch intervals closer to each other to adjust tuning, and could play increasingly expressive and varied music.³ The flutes also became progressively standardized in pitch, perhaps to enable playing in harmony or aesthetic consideration. The primary study of these instruments⁴ indicates the Jiahu flute makers became familiar with acoustics and developed theories of music comparable to those of modern times. “Tonal analysis of the flutes revealed that the seven holes [in some of the flutes] correspond to a tone scale remarkably similar to Western eight-note scales.”^5,6, *MEDIA: audio of Jiahu Flute7

In North America, similar flutes from the Anasazi Indian culture were found in Arizona and dated c.600-750 CE, but again, suggest an older tradition. These instruments typically have six finger holes ranging one and a half octaves.⁷ As with all these ancient flutes, it is likely an error to imagine the Anasazi flutes were limited to only as many tones as they have holes. Changes in embouchure, overblowing, and cross-fingering are common techniques on modern flutes like these that produce a much larger range of notes within an octave and in octaves above the fundamental octave.⁸

The earliest known examples of written music theory are six clay tablets found in Syria inscribed in cuneiform in the Hurrian language dated c. 1,500 BCE. One that is nearly complete, known as Hurrian Hymn Text H6, appears to explain a tuning system, a hymn to a goddess, and instructions for performance of instrumental accompaniment on an early harp or lyre. The system of phonetic notation in Sumer and Babylonia is based on a music terminology that gives individual names to 9 musical strings or "notes", and to 14 basic terms describing intervals of the 4th and 5th that were used in tuning string instruments (according to 7 heptatonic diatonic scales), and terms for 3rds and 6ths that appear to have been used to fine tune (or temper in some way) the 7 notes generated for each scale.^9,10,11 (see also Emmanuel Laroche, Le palais royal d' Ugarit 3: Textes accadiens et hourrites des archives Est, Ouest et centrales, 2 vols., edited by Jean Nougayrol, Georges Boyer, Emmanuel Laroche, and Claude-Frédéric-Armand Schaeffer, 1:327–35 and 2: plates cviii–cix (Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1955):; "Documents en langue houritte provenent de Ras Shamra", in Ugaritica 5: Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d'Ugarit, edited by Claude-Frédéric-Armand Schaeffer and Jean Nougayrol, 462–96. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique / Institut français d'archéologie de Beyrouth 80; Mission de Ras Shamra 16 Paris: Imprimerie nationale P. Geuthner; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968). In the latter, the transcribed text of h.6 is on p. 463, with the cuneiform text reproduced on p. 487.)

Over time, many cultures began to record their theories of music in writing by describing practices and theory that was previously developed and passed along through oral tradition. In cultures where no written examples exist, oral traditions indicate a long history of theoretical consideration, often with unique concepts of use, performance, tuning and intervals, and other fundamental elements of music. The Vedas, the sacred texts of India (c. 1,000 – 500 BCE) contain theoretical discussion of music in the Sama Veda and Yajur-Veda, however, these texts are widely considered to be based on far older oral traditions. The Natya Shastra, written between 200 BCE to 200 CE and attributed to Bharata Muni, discusses classes of melodic structure, intervals, consonance and dissonance, performance, and other theoretical aspects such a “shruti,” or the least perceivable difference between two pitches. The music of pre-Colombian Mesoamerica is known through the many instruments discovered. Thirty-two condor-bone flutes and thirty-seven cornet-like instruments made of deer and llama bones have been recovered from a site at Caral, Peru dating to c. 2,100 BCE^12,13,14 Flute No. 15 produces five distinct fundamental tones. A Mayan marimba-like instrument (c. 350 CE), made from five turtle shells of decreasing sizes suspended on a wooden frame, has been discovered in Belize.¹⁵ Later artwork depicts ensemble and solo performance. Taken together, this evidence demonstrates the sophisticated development of music theory in Mesoamerica from at least 2,000 BCE.

Musical theory in ancient Africa may also be seen instruments. The Mbira, a wood or bamboo-tined instrument similar to a Kalimba, appeared on the west coast of Africa about 3000 years ago, and metal-tined lamellophones appeared in the Zambezi River valley around 1,300 years ago.¹⁶ These instruments produce a number of tones, ranging to 32 separate pitches, and demonstrate a variety of sophisticated tunings.¹⁷ The djembe, a common type of drum, likely originated from earlier, extremely ancient drums.¹⁸ Djembe ensembles create complex polyrhythmic patterns,¹⁹ but produce a variety of pitches depending on size and playing technique, usually producing at least three separate tones.²⁰ African music theory is also preserved in oral and cultural traditions that are one example of the great variety of concepts of fundamental aspects of music around the world.²¹

In China, a variety of wind, string, percussion instruments, and written descriptions and drawings of them from the Shang Dynasty (c.16th to 11th century BCE), show sophisticated musical theory in their form and design.²² During the Zhou Dynasty (c. 1046–256 BC), a formal system of court and ceremonial music later termed yayue was established. As early as the 7th century BCE, a system of pitch generation was described based on a ratio of 2:3 and a pentatonic scale was derived from the cycle of fifths,²³ the beginnings of which may be seen in the 7,000 year-old Jiahu bone flutes. In the tomb of the Marquis Yi of Zeng (5th century BCE), among many other instruments, a set of bronze chime bells were found that sound five complete seven note octaves in the key of C Major and include twelve semitones.²⁴ The Analects of Confucius, believed to have been written c. 475 to 221 BC, discuss the aesthetics of what Confucius considered to be the most benevolent form and use of music, in contrast to popular music of his time—an example of early music criticism and consideration of aesthetics.²⁵²⁶

Around the time of Confucius, the ancient Greeks, notably Pythagoras (c. 530 BCE), Aristotle (c. 350 BCE) (Politics Book VIII, chap. 5-7), Aristoxenus (c. 335 BCE) (Elements of Harmony),²⁷ and later Ptolemy, (c. 120 CE)²⁸ speculated and experimented with ideas that became the basis of music theory in Middle Eastern and Western cultures during the Middle Ages as can be seen, for example, in the writing of Boethius²⁹ in 5th century Rome, and Yunus al-Katib³⁰ in 7th century Medina. Middle Eastern and Western theory diverged in different directions from ancient Greek theory and created what are now two distinctly different bodies of theory and styles of music.

As Western influence spread throughout the world in the 1800's, Western theory became adopted as an international standard, but many other sophisticated theoretical traditions in both textual and oral traditions continue to be used to create the distinctive music of the world’s cultures. For example, the long and rich musical traditions unique to ancient and current cultures of Africa are primarily oral, but inherently contain consideration of specific forms, genres, performance practices, as well as tuning, and other aspects of music theory.^31,32 Jacques Bailhé (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Conrad, Nicholas J.; Malina, Maria; Munzel, Susanne C. (August 6, 2009). "New flutes document the earliest musical tradition in southwestern Germany". Nature 460: 737–740.
2. Juzhong, Z.; Kuem, L.K. (September 2005). Natural History Magazine.
3. Juzhong, Z.; Xiao, X.; Lee, Y.K. (2004). "The early development of music. Analysis of the Jiahu bone flutes.". Antiquity. 78(302): 769–779.
4. Lee, Yuan-Yaun; Sinyan, Shen (1999). Chinese Musical Instruments. Chinese Music Society of North America Press. ISBN 1880464039.
5. Juzhong, Z.; Xiao, X.; Lee, Y.K. "The early development of music. Analysis of the Jiahu bone flutes". Antiquity. 78(302): 769–779.
6. Juzhong, Zhang; Garman, Harboolt; Wang, Changsui; Kong, Zhao Chen (September 23, 1999. February 4, 2007). "Oldest playable musical instrument found at Jiahu early Neolithic site in China". Nature.
7. Bakkegard, B.M.; Morris, Elizabeth Ann (September 1961). "Seventh Century Flutes from Arizona". Ethnomusicology 5 ((3)): 184–186. doi:10.2307/924518.
8. Goss, Clint. [www.flutopedia "Anasazi Flutes from the Broken Flute Cave"] Check |url= scheme (help). Flutopedia. Retrieved 2011-03-27.
9. Civil, Miguel (2010). "Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, Cuneiform texts V". Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 12 (The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection): 203–214.
10. Dietrich, Manfred; Loretz, Oswald (1975). "Kollationen zum Musiktext aus Ugarit". Ugarit-Forschungen 7: 521–522.
11. West, Martin Litchfield (May 1994). "The Babylonian Musical Notation and the Hurrian Melodic Texts". Music and Letters 75 (2): 161–79.
12. Ross, John (November 30, 2012). "First City in the New World?". Smithsonian Museum.
13. Shady, R. Hass; Creamer, W. (2001). [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov "Dating Caral, a Pre-ceramic Site in the Supe Valley on the Central Coast of Peru"] Check |url= scheme (help). Science. doi:10.1126/science.1059519. PMID 11326098.
14. Cheong, Kong F. "'A Description of the Ceramic Musical Instruments Excavated from the North Group of Pacbitun, Belize". Pacbitun Regional Archaeological Project, Report on the 2011 Field Season. Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize.
15. Brill, Mark. "Music of the Ancient Maya: New Venues of Research". Texas State University. AMS-SW Conference Fall 2012.
16. Kubik, Gerhard (1998). Kalimba – Nsansi – Mbira. Lamellophone in Afrika. Berlin: Museum für Völkerkunde.
17. Tracey, Hugh (1932). "The Mbira class of African Instruments in Rhodesia". African Music Society 4 (3): 78–95.
18. Charry, Eric (2000). Mande Music: Traditional and Modern Music of the Maninka and Mandinka of Western Africa. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226101614.
19. Billmeier, Uschi; Mamady, Keita (2004). A Life for the Djembé—Traditional Rhythms of the Malinké (5th ed. Arun-Verlag: Kirchhasel-Uhlstädt. ISBN 9783935581523.
20. Henning, Michi. [www.djembefola.com "Harmonics of tones and slaps"] Check |url= scheme (help). Djembe forum. Retrieved July 13, 2012.
21. Chernoff, John (October 15, 1981). African Rhythm and African Sensibility: Aesthetics and Social Action in African Musical Idioms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226103457.
22. Thrasher, Alan (2000). Chinese Musical Instruments. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195907779.
23. Randel, Don Michael (2003). The Harvard Dictionary of Music (4th ed.). Harvard University Press. pp. 260–262. ISBN 9780674011632.
24. Lu, Liancheng (2005). The Formation of Chinese Civilization. p. 140.
25. The Concise Garland Encyclopedia of World Music (Vol. 2 1st Ed. ed.). Routledge. 2008. pp. 1201–1202. ISBN 978-0415994040.
26. Confucius (1999). Ames, Roger T.; Rosemont, Jr., Henry, eds. The Analects of Confucius. Ballantine Books. ISBN 0345434072.
27. Marcam, Henry (1902). The Harmonics of Aristoxenus. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. ISBN 9004115919.
28. Ptolemy (1999). Solomon, Jon, ed. Harmonics. Brill Academic Publications. ISBN 9004115919.
29. Boethius, Anicius Manlius Serevinus (1989). Palisca, Claude V., ed. Fundamentals of Music. New Haven: Yale University Press.
30. Shiloah, Amnon (2003). Music in the World of Islam: A Socio-Cultural Study. Wayne State University Press. p. 24. ISBN 0814329705.
31. Kubik, Gerhard (2010). Theory of African Music. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226456919.
32. Ekwueme, Laz E.N. (September 1974). "Concepts of African Musical Theory". Journal of Black Studies 5 (1).

Jacques Bailhé (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha-ha! You have given me a hearty chuckle here, not because I disagree with what you have proposed (though I do have an issue here and there) but because your presentation has exactly the reverse imbalance to the the usual curriculum in graduate-school courses in the history of theory. When I taught History of Western Music Theory, our curriculum was divided into three academic quarters: theory up to 1600, the period from 1600 to 1900, and twentieth-century theory. This meant that, when I taught the first module, I had to cover a period of roughly 2000 years, compared to 300 and less than 100 years for the remaining two modules. Apart from the fact that this division is largely justified by the quantities of surviving documents (I know it stretches credibility, but the sheer number of sheets of paper preserved from the period 26 January 1975 to 3 February 1975—most of it utter rubbish, it is true—greatly exceeds the number from between 400 BC and 1600 AD) so, pound for pound, there is obviously a lot more to sift through. But for richness and diversity, it is another matter altogether, and this curriculum did not take into account the music theory of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, or of the ancient world prior to the Greeks. In your version, the telescope has been turned round and we are peering thought the other end. Western theory has been shrunk to the pinpoint it really amounts to, and the vast tapestry of the remote past is spread before us for our wonder and delight. Bravo! Now all we have to do is perform the same operation on the article itself, and get rid of all this boring and mostly irrelevant stuff about chords and things.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Jerome—Well, it’s certainly not as charming and witty as you might have written, but maybe it can serve as a starting point. Your posts remind me of the élan of one of my favorites, Cecil Forsythe. As you notice, the typical parochial imbalances and nonsense about “art music” versus that dirty, primitive other stuff is replaced by what I hope gives readers a quick run through time and around the world. RE: the other sections in the article, I’ve been at it, trying to take the article as a whole before I offer my attempts. So many things necessarily overlap and trying to find sensible ways to deal with that has been a challenge. As I mentioned in the suggested outline I posted some time ago, I’m trying to avoid blah blah definitions that are far better handled in specialized articles, and see if we can find a way to illuminate the theoretical issues and interest. This is, after all, an article about music theory as a field of inquiry (or so I think), not a rudimentary lesson book or dictionary. Of course some defining is necessary so we can discuss things clearly, but I do believe this will all be considerably more helpful to readers by focusing on the larger issues in the field.

In that regard, a thorny stumbling block has been what I now see as a feint and duck by most writers on the subject of WHY we moved from modality to tonality. They all say it happened, but nobody seems willing to spit out a couple concise sentences about WHY the church modes fell into disuse and Ionian and Aeolian came to rule. My own view is that the principal impetus was the particular arrangement of half and whole steps that give those two modes an especially pronounced gravity toward the tonic, with all ensuing implications in regard to powerful cadences and clarity of form. So far, I have some passable references (Taruskin, Perischetti, etc.) but only the ever-bold and unguarded Forsythe comes close to saying this plainly. (see Stanford and Forsythe, A History of Music, MacMillan, 1918 p.90) How might you in two sentences explain the principal reason for abandonment of the thousand year-old tradition of modality in favor of tonality? Or, do you know a concise reference?Jacques Bailhé (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just counted 31 paragraphs in the material covering tonal music of the Common Practice Period. Considering that this covers approximately two centuries, I think the first step here ought to be to add a proportionate 1,085 paragraphs on the theories deducible from prehistoric bone flutes.

One thing that we really ought to be thinking about here is, why are we describing the products of music theory (scales, harmonies, melodies, and so on), rather than theory as such. The article on History, for example, does not indulge in accounts of the Pelopennesian War, listings of the emperors of the Han Dynasty, or the development of the feudal system. A concern with the reasons for "WHY we moved from modality to tonality" might fall under this same umbrella. Is the question one of theory, or one of change in musical style, only dealt with after the fact by theorists?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Jerome--Maybe you know of 40,000 ans de musique by Jacques Chailley, Paris 1961 (40,000 Years of Music, Paris 1961, trans Rollo Myers, Farrar, Strauss, Giroux 1964) in which, as Taruskin explains, Monsieur Chailley “got through the first 39,000 years…on its first page.” I don’t know the emoticon for lying on the floor in tears of laughter.

RE: products v. theory, I think you know I agree wholeheartedly, as in my proposed outline. You consider, “Is the question one of theory, or one of change in musical style, only dealt with after the fact by theorists?” Of course, I’d answer, "All of the above." You have no doubt heard David Fischer’s quip about fallacies of question framing(Historian’s Fallacies, Harper & Row, 1970). “Basil of Byzantium: Rat or Rink? Fischer answers, “Maybe Basil was the very model of a ratfink?” The interrogative being significant. More plainly then, history tells us that all three of these (theory, musical style, written theory) don’t seem to pay heed to any standard progression and dichotomies are often, if not usually, illusory results of our penchant for black and white answers. Historically, we have musica speculativa in its sometimes cosmic glory; written theories madly trying to make sense of the terrible upset caused by a respected composer’s latest hit (Maschaut's hair-raising chromaticism); and of course, all this roils in the stew of how we moved from one style to another--sometimes in a flash, other times at a snail’s pace (Tinctoris' declaration in 1477 that there wasn't then a single piece of music more than 40 years old that is "regarded by the learned as worth hearing." RE: the question at hand, WHY did Western music move from modality to tonality in a comparatively short time, it would not seem inappropriate to me to describe this as a change in style, later recorded by theorists, but again, history does seem to reveal footprints in the path. As Taruskin describes, theorists and historians have steadily pushed back the advent of tonality. Taruskin remarks on Viderunt omnes (Perotinus, 1198), "We have, in short, the beginnings of a cadential practice here, in which the motions of individual parts are subordinated to the overall harmonic function (maximum dissonance resolving to maximum consonance). This is the beginning of harmonic tonality (or, if you prefer, of tonal harmony)." But of course, although this may indeed be an early example of the emergence of elements of tonality, it seems historians would generally place the "stylistic" shift sometime around 1500.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not know the Chailley book, but that is a very funny quip by Taruskin, whose sense of humor I have always enjoyed. For the rest, it is important (as Hucbald points out elsewhere on this talk page) to remember that the subject of this article is music theory, and that we are responsible for distinguishing between what is theory properly so-called, and all the other no doubt interesting aspects of music, its history, and its archaeology. Your speculations on the abrupt (or not) onset of tonality will be interesting to read, when they are published in a book or journal somewhere, but on Wikipedia, alas, there is no room for original research.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I have trouble imaging how we might write a brief outline of the history of music theory without reference to applicable archaeology. If the consensus is to ignore all archaeology, so be it, but that would problematically limit us to existing written histories that, in the main, were written before these very recent discoveries or that chose the terribly short-sighted view of simply ignoring them. This would seem especially peculiar when numerous articles in Wikipedia describe each of the archaeological examples in the draft as “musical” instruments and refer to their theoretical implications. See the Chinese bells, the Jiahu flutes, Prehistoric music and related links. All evidence of the ancient roots of theoretical thinking in the draft is well-documented--not "original research"--so unless there's something I'm missing, I don't see that excluding it furthers Wikipedia's goals of being up-to-date, thorough, and accurate since it would be obviously inaccurate to say or imply that before such and such a date we just don't know anything, when in fact, we do know a few very interesting things.

RE: modality to tonality--The question remains: how do we explain in a couple tidy sentences the WHY of this change? Perhaps the consensus is that trying to do so is just too danged difficult and we elect to sweep this hugely significant theoretical issue under the rug, but my hope is that if we think on it, we can find a way that has a solid basis in authoritative sources.Jacques Bailhé (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Jacques, I have seen the Wikipedia pages on Prehistoric music that you quote and in general they seem to me way more cautious than your sketch of the early history of theory. See in particular Prehistoric_music#Archaeoacoustic_methodology.

Karl Popper explained that a statement can be said to be scientific only if it can be proved false; it then remains true until proven false ("falsified"). A statement that inherently cannot be falsified also cannot be said true. Recordings made with prehistoric instruments make unfalsifiable claims: prehistoric flutes of Chinese bells could probably play the first examples given at the beginning of WP's Pentatonic scale article ('Oh! Susanna' or 'Laideronette') – it really is a matter of who's playing. Should we conclude that prehistoric musicians played minstrel songs or Ravel? Is this so different from saying that prehistoric music was "expressive"? The only way to falsify such claims would be to phone the prehistoric musicians themselves and ask them, but they do not seem to answer the phone anymore...

As to the "change" from modality to tonality: this remains a highly complex, much discussed matter. Depending on whether our sources are, say, ten, or twenty, or thirty years old (and also whether they are in English or in French), our descriptions, and even our temporal and geographical localization of the phenomenon, would be widely different. The most recent opinions may even not yet have been published (the question of the origin of tonality will be part of the discussions in the coming European Music Analysis Conference, see the EuroMAC website, especially the session on Tonality: Recent theoretical models). The most recent opinion would appear to be that there is no "change" properly speaking, that tonality is but a special case of modality, linked with the necessity to resolve dissonances in counterpoint, etc. Here as in many other case, the only thing we could do is to succinctly present existing theories...

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hucbald--RE: modal to tonal, my research has been pointing me in the direction you describe. Some authorities describe the change as more a matter of style than fundamentals. Of course others refer to "final" vs "tonic" and all the latter implies with regard to gravity, etc. A paper being presented at the conference you note may help with all this: Dmitri Tymoczko, A Study on the Origins of Harmonic Tonality. 96.251.86.227 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

RE: The archeoacoustics article, “The use of the term 'music' is problematic within prehistory. It may be that, as in the traditional music of much of sub-Saharan Africa, the concept of 'music' as we understand it was somewhat different.” Not maybe! Certainly! And as we know with the difficulties of defining the concept of “music” even within one cultural context, “somewhat different” is an understatement. Add to that the ever-expanding notions of what we will admit as music and all those thorny questions raised about whether intent as music is enough. That’s why I think the cultural question is important to raise in the lead, not only for prehistoric, but also modern music genres. These issues seem inadequately addressed by the Grove’s Eurocentric definition for the purposes of WP's article. I also agree this problem needs to be re-emphasized in the history section. The matter of archeoacoustics seems different. If a person sings a tune in the Lascaux caves today, do we have any reason to argue it would sound fundamentally different from 30,000 years ago? It might indeed sound different to the listeners of such different ages, but neglecting minor effects of barometric pressure, etc. would it be fundamentally different acoustically? 96.251.86.227 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

96.251.86.227, I'll be at the EuroMAC Conference and I'll listen to Timoczko with utmost attention – but also to other talks in the same session, which I think may be even more helpful about all this. I only hope that a publication will follow.

As to a person singing in the Lascaux caves today, I don't think the acoustics of the cave are the most important. Even from a mainly acoustical point of view, the vocal technique probably is way more important. And for what concerns music properly speaking, I trust that what is sung is of paramount importance: I'd love to hear some of the Gershwin tunes in the Lascaux caves, but I very strongly doubt it would help us in any way to figure out what prehistoric people may have shouted there... – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Theories of Harmonization Problems

The information under the current (120414) Theories of Harmonization Heading doesn't seem to have much to do with the subject of the heading. It is instead, a description of standard Western harmonic analysis pedagogy. I recommend this entire heading be removed since it is undoubtedly more appropriately discussed in other articles: Harmony, Music Education, or elsewhere. The writer has also included a link to a page (their own?) offering the sale of various related materials. This seems inappropriate, if not a violation of Wikipedia policies, and should be removed.--Jacques Bailhé (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)