[238 / 14 / ?]
Quoted By: >>7006111 >>7006113 >>7006114 >>7006122 >>7006137 >>7006148 >>7006150 >>7006179 >>7006180 >>7006186 >>7006187 >>7006221 >>7006225 >>7006247 >>7006260 >>7006304 >>7006307 >>7006309 >>7006314 >>7006315 >>7006323 >>7006326 >>7006327 >>7006331 >>7006333 >>7006335 >>7006340 >>7006343
listen up
i think people "get" music theory in a way, but the pattern to me is either one of me looking in and not understanding
or me looking in, after reading a lot, trying to ask questions to form a more fundamental understanding, and seeing no answers
music theorists fags, put on your critical thinking
it is possible that music theory is rampantly incoherent and misunderstood, or perhaps _JUST_ understood?
one piece of evidence I submit is that the wikipedia pages are changing to much, it's like they are trying to rewrite and say "well no no no we did know"
there is science behind frequencies, ear n shit
and we know intuitively about what sounds good
music theory looks like a mix of pseudoscience and unfounded theory based on intuition, rewritten with some science, and a whole load of uncertainty
there's no structure to what is music theory
and they seem to want to rely on some jargon that they cannot explain when explaining something
I read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(music)
and I posit that it does not explain what a key is in music (but it's just not that ... is the foundation... of a piece of music)
I am telling you now: I do not think this is the accurate and technical definition of key
which begs the question, why isn't there a specific definition of a key?
am i right? are people playing at leaning "music theory" and learning basically "pidgin" music theory?
>inb4 some faggot pretends to misunderstand what I am saying and say "but look at all these books"
again, are people learning "pidgin music theory" and in reality they are missing the accurate and technical details? or am I just not versed enough, despite having researched it as much as I can?
i think people "get" music theory in a way, but the pattern to me is either one of me looking in and not understanding
or me looking in, after reading a lot, trying to ask questions to form a more fundamental understanding, and seeing no answers
music theorists fags, put on your critical thinking
it is possible that music theory is rampantly incoherent and misunderstood, or perhaps _JUST_ understood?
one piece of evidence I submit is that the wikipedia pages are changing to much, it's like they are trying to rewrite and say "well no no no we did know"
there is science behind frequencies, ear n shit
and we know intuitively about what sounds good
music theory looks like a mix of pseudoscience and unfounded theory based on intuition, rewritten with some science, and a whole load of uncertainty
there's no structure to what is music theory
and they seem to want to rely on some jargon that they cannot explain when explaining something
I read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(music)
and I posit that it does not explain what a key is in music (but it's just not that ... is the foundation... of a piece of music)
I am telling you now: I do not think this is the accurate and technical definition of key
which begs the question, why isn't there a specific definition of a key?
am i right? are people playing at leaning "music theory" and learning basically "pidgin" music theory?
>inb4 some faggot pretends to misunderstand what I am saying and say "but look at all these books"
again, are people learning "pidgin music theory" and in reality they are missing the accurate and technical details? or am I just not versed enough, despite having researched it as much as I can?
