Science

Hey, just following up on the mention of science a minute ago...I really enjoy science, it's a hoot, and good fun stuff. Einstein, especially, is a personal hero...and, of course, he said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." I couldn't agree more; and, of course, a very important thing to keep in mind, when we mention science, is: just what science CAN do, and what it CAN'T. Of course, that is a subject open for some chatting; but, I tend to think that the Universe is not largely explainable by "science." Or logic. Death is a pretty good example of that; ain't much that science can do about that, overall. And, I feel the same way about music, of course, being a musician. Talk about numbers and fractions with music all you want; but, that's not the SOUND of music, and that's what is most important. In tune, out of tune, consonance, dissonance...these are at the service of the artist, and may play different roles in the overall vision of a statement, a composition. In themselves, they do not define actual music in any way. A ratio between notes can be used in many ways in a piece of music...to express profound ideas through music may require very creative uses of basic frequencies, of which there are untold trillions; and there are just as many ways to apply those frequencies.

I had a friend tell me a while back that "science is my religion." That's ok by me, and I think that many folks today feel the same way, to one degree or another. But, it isn't mine...I think there's wayway more to the mysteries of the Universe than what science (or any sort of "organized" religion) thinks it can explain. When scientists can create a planet, not to mention a star, I'll be more impressed. Crap, we can't even time our streetlights right, or send a guy to Mars...just how powerful is science anyway? And speaking of anyway, creating music is what I love best, and learning to use the concepts of tuning theory helps me deepen as a composer/player. Applying these concepts to create real music, though, requires a lot of time and energy...and the end result has nothing to do with what something looks like on paper; you gotta HEAR it...best...Hstick...myspace.com/microstick microstick.net

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I agree, although I think there's nothing wrong with asking "why" in a
musical context. I think that the negative connotations surrounding
overanalyzing music theory spring partially from the fact that there
are a lot of things about common practice theory, for example, that
are counterintuitive and really just the parlance of the day. If you
applied classical common practice music theory to jamming out over
some Dead tunes, you probably won't get very far. The same applies
with jazz theory and all kinds of other theories. God forbid we ever
see a rock theory. And to be honest, that's a fault that I attribute
to the nature of the music "theories" that we've seen so far. They are
simply guesses and as a result they are crude and ineffective, and the
people who swear by them are often the people who write the most
lifeless music.

That being said, deep down, everyone has their own music theory. They
already have an idea of how things work. Even if you're the type who
gets so into the zone while improvising that you stop all thinking
entirely, you will still be hearing what to play in your head or
finding it on your instrument or something. And the way that you find
out what to play, whether it's subconscious or not, is the REAL music
theory. And everyone has access to it already - it's called just
playing.

Real music theory doesn't distinguish between microtonal and
macrotonal and 12tet music. Real music theory accepts that there is no
way to fit every possible musical effect into one neat box. Real music
theory might describe a 4:5:6:7:9:11 chord as "resonant" without
necessarily going into where it "fits" or whether or not it sounds
"good" or "bad." It's so different from formal music theory that it's
almost not worth calling music theory. It's almost more of a mixture
of acoustics, psychoacoustics, and psychology.

In fact, if you ever go take lessons from a private teacher on an
instrument or for composition, you might get some brilliant insights
from watching or listening to this person do what they do. And that's
really just you learning their theory. It produces those "aha"
moments, and so you expand your own internal music theory. So all I'm
really suggesting is we figure out what that's all about! Study that,
take THAT music theory and just put it into words.

And while it's certainly not a substitute for just sitting down and
playing, it's certainly going to be a step up from the confusing mess
that is music school right now, and interesting to think about.

-Mike

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:14 AM, <microstick@...> wrote:
> Hey, just following up on the mention of science a minute ago...I really
> enjoy science, it's a hoot, and good fun stuff. Einstein, especially, is a
> personal hero...and, of course, he said "Imagination is more important than
> knowledge." I couldn't agree more; and, of course, a very important thing to
> keep in mind, when we mention science, is: just what science CAN do, and
> what it CAN'T. Of course, that is a subject open for some chatting; but, I
> tend to think that the Universe is not largely explainable by "science." Or
> logic. Death is a pretty good example of that; ain't much that science can
> do about that, overall. And, I feel the same way about music, of course,
> being a musician. Talk about numbers and fractions with music all you want;
> but, that's not the SOUND of music, and that's what is most important. In
> tune, out of tune, consonance, dissonance...these are at the service of the
> artist, and may play different roles in the overall vision of a statement, a
> composition. In themselves, they do not define actual music in any way. A
> ratio between notes can be used in many ways in a piece of music...to
> express profound ideas through music may require very creative uses of basic
> frequencies, of which there are untold trillions; and there are just as many
> ways to apply those frequencies.
>
> I had a friend tell me a while back that "science is my religion." That's ok
> by me, and I think that many folks today feel the same way, to one degree or
> another. But, it isn't mine...I think there's wayway more to the mysteries
> of the Universe than what science (or any sort of "organized" religion)
> thinks it can explain. When scientists can create a planet, not to mention a
> star, I'll be more impressed. Crap, we can't even time our streetlights
> right, or send a guy to Mars...just how powerful is science anyway? And
> speaking of anyway, creating music is what I love best, and learning to use
> the concepts of tuning theory helps me deepen as a composer/player. Applying
> these concepts to create real music, though, requires a lot of time and
> energy...and the end result has nothing to do with what something looks like
> on paper; you gotta HEAR it...best...Hstick...myspace.com/microstick
> microstick.net
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, <microstick@...> wrote:
>
> Hey, just following up on the mention of science a minute
ago...I really enjoy science, it's a hoot, and good fun stuff.
Einstein, especially, is a personal hero...and, of course, he
said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." I couldn't agree
more; and, of course, a very important thing to keep in mind, when
we mention science, is: just what science CAN do, and what it CAN'T.
Of course, that is a subject open for some chatting; but, I tend to
think that the Universe is not largely explainable by "science." Or
logic. Death is a pretty good example of that; ain't much that
science can do about that, overall. And, I feel the same way about
music, of course, being a musician. Talk about numbers and fractions
with music all you want; but, that's not the SOUND of music, and
that's what is most important. In tune, out of tune, consonance,
dissonance...these are at the service of the artist, and may play
different roles in the overall vision of a statement, a composition.
In themselves, they do not define actual music in any way. A ratio
between notes can be used in many ways in a piece of music...to
express profound ideas through music may require very creative uses
of basic frequencies, of which there are untold trillions; and there
are just as many ways to apply those frequencies.
>
> I had a friend tell me a while back that "science is my
religion." That's ok by me, and I think that many folks today feel
the same way, to one degree or another. But, it isn't mine...I think
there's wayway more to the mysteries of the Universe than what
science (or any sort of "organized" religion) thinks it can explain.
When scientists can create a planet, not to mention a star, I'll be
more impressed. Crap, we can't even time our streetlights right, or
send a guy to Mars...just how powerful is science anyway? And
speaking of anyway, creating music is what I love best, and learning
to use the concepts of tuning theory helps me deepen as a
composer/player. Applying these concepts to create real music,
though, requires a lot of time and energy...and the end result has
nothing to do with what something looks like on paper; you gotta HEAR
it...best...Hstick...myspace.com/microstick microstick.net
>
>
>

I've see this sort of message several times over the past couple
weeks, and what's interesting is that the messages were all from
professional musicians.
I hope young musicians take it to heart. I wasted a lot of time
diving into the details of music before I could answer 2 basic
questions: 1) am I playing the right instrument?, and 2) have I found
my own voice?

I'd say anyone who can't answer yes to both, leave the Microtonal
group immediately !! :^)

I'm not sure why anyone should take this to heart. Besides being
mostly untrue it demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of what
science is and what it is for which sadly puts it at a similar level
of comprehension to most American adults. Fortunately science is
seldom important for a musician so this kind of blather doesn't hurt
much but lets not glorify this kind of ignorance.

By the way, Einstein is not important because of his pithy quotes. He
is important because he "explained" some complex and subtle parts of
how the world works. If those explanations didn't work no one would be
quoting him. No one would know who he was or care. He had no
particular expertise in weighing the relative value of knowledge vs
imagination in solving any particular random problem and should not be
quoted as an expert on that subject. He happened to be working on
problems that could only be understood if you rejected your intuition
and believe the math. That doesn't describe most problems. For most
problems intuition is a powerful tool. It took imagination for
Einstein to figure out what the apparently bizarre math results meant.
However Einstein always started with data and math. He used
imagination to think of non intuitive possibilities and then came back
to boring data and math to test those possibilities.

You can't truly be a fan of Einstein unless you understand his work.
If you don't understand his work then anything you take from him is
out of context and showing him disrespect. Einstein would have
disagreed with everything in this post. In particular contrary to the
poster's view he believed that the universe is largely explainable by
science. Using his words to justify any other conclusion is offensive
to him and his ideas.

I speak as someone does understand much of Einstein's work in the
language he described it to his fellow scientists, namely mathematics.
His pithy quotes were directed at the popular press. In fact I
understand the physics of that era well enough that I can usually make
it clear to an intelligent layman if they are patient enough. I won't
waste the time of this list with that off topic discussion but if
anyone is curious I am wiling to discuss it off line. It is a
fascinating story and an extreme case of not being able to trust your
own experience.

Here is what Einstein might have said if he was trying to teach
instead of entertain:

- You can be a scientist with knowledge but limited imagination.

- You cannot be a scientist with plenty of imagination but no
knowledge. Sorry. Knowledge is required to be a successful scientist.

- You cannot be a Great Scientist with out both. This is the real
point Einstein was trying to make to young physicists. Remember that
he was educated in Germany and Austria, notorious in those days for
the most gruesomely dry and boring treatment of all education but
especially math and science. He wanted students to occasionally lift
their heads out of their books and lectures and let the mind roam. He
didn't say (because it was obvious) that you then needed to put your
head back in the book, after you were done roaming.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Morris" wrote:

> By the way, Einstein is not important because of his pithy
> quotes. He is important because he "explained" some complex
> and subtle parts of how the world works. If those explanations
> didn't work no one would be quoting him. No one would know who
> he was or care. He had no particular expertise in weighing the
> relative value of knowledge vs imagination in solving any
> particular random problem and should not be quoted as an expert
> on that subject.

In the absence of a clear way to evaluate statements on
the relative importance of imagination, I'd be more
inclined to listen to the statements of a guy who not
once but three times revolutionized physics (photoelectric
effect and the special and general theories), to say
nothing of his many other groundbreaking papers, patents
on refrigerators, or many excellent essays in the liberal
arts, which despite what you say, very well could have
gotten published on their own merits by a mortal aspiring
columnist.

> He happened to be working on
> problems that could only be understood if you rejected your
> intuition and believe the math.

Quite the contrary. He was led to learn about the math
that could formalize his intuitions about the relativity
principle. Which is perhaps the reasoning behind the
quote Neil gave.

> You can't truly be a fan of Einstein unless you understand
> his work.

I can't be a fan of his essays on religion or politics?

> If you don't understand his work then anything you take from him
> is out of context and showing him disrespect.

If he would have taken disrespect at my reading of his essays,
why did he write them?

> Einstein would have
> disagreed with everything in this post.

I thought you said he wasn't qualified to pass judgments
on posts!

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Morris" wrote:

> By the way, Einstein is not important because of his pithy
> quotes. He is important because he "explained" some complex
> and subtle parts of how the world works. If those explanations
> didn't work no one would be quoting him. No one would know who
> he was or care. He had no particular expertise in weighing the
> relative value of knowledge vs imagination in solving any
> particular random problem and should not be quoted as an expert
> on that subject.

In the absence of a clear way to evaluate statements on
the relative importance of imagination, I'd be more
inclined to listen to the statements of a guy who not
once but three times revolutionized physics (photoelectric
effect and the special and general theories), to say
nothing of his many other groundbreaking papers, patents
on refrigerators, or many excellent essays in the liberal
arts, which despite what you say, very well could have
gotten published on their own merits by a mortal aspiring
columnist.

> He happened to be working on
> problems that could only be understood if you rejected your
> intuition and believe the math.

Quite the contrary. He was led to learn about the math
that could formalize his intuitions about the relativity
principle. Which is perhaps the reasoning behind the
quote Neil gave.

> You can't truly be a fan of Einstein unless you understand
> his work.

I can't be a fan of his essays on religion or politics?

> If you don't understand his work then anything you take from him
> is out of context and showing him disrespect.

If he would have taken disrespect at my reading of his essays,
why did he write them?

> Einstein would have
> disagreed with everything in this post.

Didn't you imply he wasn't qualified to pass judgments
on posts?!

-Carl

Carl. Clever rhetoric does not a logical argument make.

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> Quite the contrary. He was led to learn about the math
> that could formalize his intuitions about the relativity
> principle.

Quite the contrary right back at you. He STARTED with math and data.
In particular he started with the Michelson/Morely experiment and the
many experiments which came after and verified the original difficult
to believe results. (For years Morely believed that there was a
mistake in this experimental methods.) Einstein's relativity paper
came 19 years after the Michelson Morely experiment. Einstein was 7
years old when the M/M experiment was conducted. He started with the
Lorenz equations and Poincare's work on relativity. (Most people who
get this far think Einstein invented the Lorenz equations.) He STARTED
with a tough problem where the physics and math appeared to contradict
what intuition tells us.

>> You can't truly be a fan of Einstein unless you understand his work.
> I can't be a fan of his essays on religion or politics?

You can be a fan. Just not a true fan. If you don't understand where
he is coming from you are a fan not of Einstein but of some incomplete
projection of Einstein you have created in your mind.

> If he would have taken disrespect at my reading of his essays,
> why did he write them?

Hmm.... where the heck did this come from. Straw man fallacy. I never
said that he would take disrespect at your reading his essays. You are
inventing that argument and putting those words in my mouth.

>> Einstein would have disagreed with everything in this post.
> I thought you said he wasn't qualified to pass judgments on posts!

I am puzzled why you would think such a bizarre thing. Another straw
man fallacy. Certainly those words don't appear in my post. Are you
sure you read it? Perhaps you just skimmed it.

Einstein was well qualified to have opinions in his areas of expertise
which was using the the scientific method to explain the world. He
would have strongly disagreed with the original post which said that
science doesn't explain much about the world.

Many smart people make fools of themselves by making strong statements
in areas where they have no particular expertise. This is a common
failing of many Nobel lauriats. The great unwashed masses often
blindly accept these statements in a kind of uncritical hero worship.
In his area of expertise Einstein was well qualified to have opinions
that must be taken seriously. Outside his area of expertise he was
just a smart guy like many smart guys. It is a fallacy to say that
since Einstein was brilliant in one area of expertise we should
believe him when he speaks on subjects where his qualifications are
not as special. Calling on Einstein like some kind of deity is not a
useful way to arrive at truth. He was a smart man but he was not
infallible and the farther away he was from his area of expertise the
more fallible he was.

If you read the trail of papers which culminate in his relativity
paper you realize that Einstein didn't invent much at all. instead he
was mostly a synthesist like many great scientists before him
(including Newton and Darwin.) He took the scattered ideas of his
time, integrated them and tightened them up and gave them back as a
consistent and complete theory. Newton explained this process by
saying "If I have seen farther than others it is because I have stood
on the shoulders of giants."

The Einstein legend has been blown way out of proportion partly
because of his own clever self promotion but mostly because we want
our heros simple and solitary. We want to believe that they did their
work single handed against the resistance of the world. He was a great
man but he couldn't have done what he did without the help of many
collaborators and correspondents. He was not a particularly good
mathematician. He knew most of the great physicists and mathematicians
of his time and was in frequent communication with many of them. He
went to conferences where he gave and listened to papers. He wrote a
survey of the critical problems of his day and in the process worked
closely with the people working on those problems. He drew on their
ideas and expertise. For two of his three great contributions (the
photoelectric effect and special relativity) he was only a little
ahead of some of his more clever peers. The General was a bigger leap.

[Replied offlist. Naturally you have lost all privileges to
complain about interactions between the likes of Robert and myself.]

-Carl

At 11:42 PM 6/20/2008, you wrote:
>Carl. Clever rhetoric does not a logical argument make.
>
>On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>> Quite the contrary. He was led to learn about the math
>> that could formalize his intuitions about the relativity
>> principle.
>
>Quite the contrary right back at you. He STARTED with math and data.
>In particular he started with the Michelson/Morely experiment and the
>many experiments which came after and verified the original difficult
>to believe results. (For years Morely believed that there was a
>mistake in this experimental methods.) Einstein's relativity paper
>came 19 years after the Michelson Morely experiment. Einstein was 7
>years old when the M/M experiment was conducted. He started with the
>Lorenz equations and Poincare's work on relativity. (Most people who
>get this far think Einstein invented the Lorenz equations.) He STARTED
>with a tough problem where the physics and math appeared to contradict
>what intuition tells us.
>
>>> You can't truly be a fan of Einstein unless you understand his work.
>> I can't be a fan of his essays on religion or politics?
>
>You can be a fan. Just not a true fan. If you don't understand where
>he is coming from you are a fan not of Einstein but of some incomplete
>projection of Einstein you have created in your mind.
>
>> If he would have taken disrespect at my reading of his essays,
>> why did he write them?
>
>Hmm.... where the heck did this come from. Straw man fallacy. I never
>said that he would take disrespect at your reading his essays. You are
>inventing that argument and putting those words in my mouth.
>
>>> Einstein would have disagreed with everything in this post.
>> I thought you said he wasn't qualified to pass judgments on posts!
>
>I am puzzled why you would think such a bizarre thing. Another straw
>man fallacy. Certainly those words don't appear in my post. Are you
>sure you read it? Perhaps you just skimmed it.
>
>Einstein was well qualified to have opinions in his areas of expertise
>which was using the the scientific method to explain the world. He
>would have strongly disagreed with the original post which said that
>science doesn't explain much about the world.
>
>Many smart people make fools of themselves by making strong statements
>in areas where they have no particular expertise. This is a common
>failing of many Nobel lauriats. The great unwashed masses often
>blindly accept these statements in a kind of uncritical hero worship.
>In his area of expertise Einstein was well qualified to have opinions
>that must be taken seriously. Outside his area of expertise he was
>just a smart guy like many smart guys. It is a fallacy to say that
>since Einstein was brilliant in one area of expertise we should
>believe him when he speaks on subjects where his qualifications are
>not as special. Calling on Einstein like some kind of deity is not a
>useful way to arrive at truth. He was a smart man but he was not
>infallible and the farther away he was from his area of expertise the
>more fallible he was.
>
>If you read the trail of papers which culminate in his relativity
>paper you realize that Einstein didn't invent much at all. instead he
>was mostly a synthesist like many great scientists before him
>(including Newton and Darwin.) He took the scattered ideas of his
>time, integrated them and tightened them up and gave them back as a
>consistent and complete theory. Newton explained this process by
>saying "If I have seen farther than others it is because I have stood
>on the shoulders of giants."
>
>The Einstein legend has been blown way out of proportion partly
>because of his own clever self promotion but mostly because we want
>our heros simple and solitary. We want to believe that they did their
>work single handed against the resistance of the world. He was a great
>man but he couldn't have done what he did without the help of many
>collaborators and correspondents. He was not a particularly good
>mathematician. He knew most of the great physicists and mathematicians
>of his time and was in frequent communication with many of them. He
>went to conferences where he gave and listened to papers. He wrote a
>survey of the critical problems of his day and in the process worked
>closely with the people working on those problems. He drew on their
>ideas and expertise. For two of his three great contributions (the
>photoelectric effect and special relativity) he was only a little
>ahead of some of his more clever peers. The General was a bigger leap.
>

> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>> Quite the contrary. He was led to learn about the math
>> that could formalize his intuitions about the relativity
>> principle.
>
> Quite the contrary right back at you. He STARTED with math and data.
> In particular he started with the Michelson/Morely experiment and the
> many experiments which came after and verified the original difficult
> to believe results. (For years Morely believed that there was a
> mistake in this experimental methods.) Einstein's relativity paper
> came 19 years after the Michelson Morely experiment. Einstein was 7
> years old when the M/M experiment was conducted. He started with the
> Lorenz equations and Poincare's work on relativity. (Most people who
> get this far think Einstein invented the Lorenz equations.) He STARTED
> with a tough problem where the physics and math appeared to contradict
> what intuition tells us.

Einstein figured out a lot of what he figured out by running what he
called "thought experiments" on himself. He thought about questions
like "if I were on the head of a beam of light, traveling at the speed
of light, looking at myself in the mirror, what would I see?" And in
plowing through that question by simply plowing through every
crossroad he arrived at, he eventually found an answer.

Einstein figured out what he did by actually going into and figuring
out concepts that most people don't bother with. Concepts like what
time is, what speed is, etc. He eventually came to roadblocks where
the common conception of what time is was inconsistent with something
else he believed, and in figuring it out (which probably took a while)
he ended up with a better notion of time. He could have also said
"that's stupid, I must have screwed up somewhere" and and then he'd
never have come up with the theory of relativity.

So it's not that his answers contradicted intuition altogether. It's
that his previous thoughts about the nature of time turned out to be
inconsistent with his intuition about other things, and so he realized
the problem was the way he looked at time. After reaching an
understanding of the matter, his intuition about time, I imagine,
would have been fixed to more closely correspond to reality.

All "intuition" is is a fancy word to describe your deepest thoughts
on how reality works. Given the depths of probing into the nature of
reality that Einstein did, I imagine his intuitions would have adapted
as made new discoveries. After all, your intuition about how time
works is dependent on some thoughts you came up with to describe it
probably when you were 2 years old. Einstein merely disregarded those
thoughts and found better ones. There's no real universal notion of
"intuition" that fits into the scheme anywhere.

-Mike

I dig science and religion and often filter one through the other in
my thought processes attempting to unify the two. Lately I've been
hearing alot about relationships in respect to quantum mechanics and
how when you put two pieces of matter close together they are changed
on the quantum level due to their proximity, and no matter how far
away they get from each other after the encounter, they will retain
some measurable form of the relationship "physically". How cool is
that? ...and what does that say about religion and relationships?

To me science and religion are just two different ways of looking at
the same thing, and IMO most of the issues that arise stem from the
belief that it's two different things they're looking at.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, <microstick@...> wrote:
>
> Hey, just following up on the mention of science a minute ago...I
really enjoy science, it's a hoot, and good fun stuff. Einstein,
especially, is a personal hero...and, of course, he said "Imagination
is more important than knowledge." I couldn't agree more; and, of
course, a very important thing to keep in mind, when we mention
science, is: just what science CAN do, and what it CAN'T. Of course,
that is a subject open for some chatting; but, I tend to think that
the Universe is not largely explainable by "science." Or logic. Death
is a pretty good example of that; ain't much that science can do about
that, overall. And, I feel the same way about music, of course, being
a musician. Talk about numbers and fractions with music all you want;
but, that's not the SOUND of music, and that's what is most important.
In tune, out of tune, consonance, dissonance...these are at the
service of the artist, and may play different roles in the overall
vision of a statement, a composition. In themselves, they do not
define actual music in any way. A ratio between notes can be used in
many ways in a piece of music...to express profound ideas through
music may require very creative uses of basic frequencies, of which
there are untold trillions; and there are just as many ways to apply
those frequencies.
>
> I had a friend tell me a while back that "science is my
religion." That's ok by me, and I think that many folks today feel the
same way, to one degree or another. But, it isn't mine...I think
there's wayway more to the mysteries of the Universe than what science
(or any sort of "organized" religion) thinks it can explain. When
scientists can create a planet, not to mention a star, I'll be more
impressed. Crap, we can't even time our streetlights right, or send a
guy to Mars...just how powerful is science anyway? And speaking of
anyway, creating music is what I love best, and learning to use the
concepts of tuning theory helps me deepen as a composer/player.
Applying these concepts to create real music, though, requires a lot
of time and energy...and the end result has nothing to do with what
something looks like on paper; you gotta HEAR
it...best...Hstick...myspace.com/microstick microstick.net
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Mike Battaglia wrote:
> I agree, although I think there's nothing wrong with asking "why" in a
> musical context. I think that the negative connotations surrounding
> overanalyzing music theory spring partially from the fact that there
> are a lot of things about common practice theory, for example, that
> are counterintuitive and really just the parlance of the day. If you
> applied classical common practice music theory to jamming out over
> some Dead tunes, you probably won't get very far. The same applies
> with jazz theory and all kinds of other theories. God forbid we ever
> see a rock theory. And to be honest, that's a fault that I attribute
> to the nature of the music "theories" that we've seen so far. They are
> simply guesses and as a result they are crude and ineffective, and the
> people who swear by them are often the people who write the most
> lifeless music.
> There's definitely a rock theory, at least for certain types of rock, namely that of Yes, ELP, Peter Gabriel-era Genesis, Dream Theater, that sort of thing. I'm a prog-rock bassist, vocalist, and keyboardist myself, and I'm trying to figure out how to impress fellow prognerds on microtonal concepts. (Yes, I played in a Rush tribute band once.)

Frank Zappa said it well after going through a serialist phase: "I was writing all kinds of positive and negative canons and weird inverted this and retrograde that and getting as spaced-out mathematically as I could and I was going 'Wait a minute (laughs), who cares about that stuff?' I had always liked rhythm and blues so here I was stuck between the slide rule and the gut bucket somewhere and I decided that I would opt for a third road someplace in between." [Reference: http://www.science.uva.nl/~robbert/zappa/quote/phrases]

Not that there's anything wrong with serialism, of course... ~D.