I feel like this is the image that kills the meme

No, the art is how you express yourself.

That's not a disagreement with my statement that "the art is in how the science is applied."

People expressing themselves are applying the science, whether they're doing it consciously or not.

The theory is just "the way most people in a culture do it because other people in this culture like it".

Music theory isn't about preference. It's about "place tension on a string at intervals of halves and thirds, and it creates a harmonic resonance." Or "two resonances with specific vibrational proportions relative to each other create certain effects."

There is certainly some biological reasoning behind it that is common across cultures, but it's a fairly small part of music theory.

It's not biological, what the fuck? It's geometric, primarily.

Consider a simple question like "why are dissonant chords considered dissonant?" and it can lead you down a path of discovery.

Dissonance is the effect produced by two or more resonant frequencies whose proportions to each other aren't fractional, or aren't simple fractions.

Ask yourself why harmonious chords are all at set intervals. To keep things simple, let's consider one musical scale. Why do you think 1-3-5 forms the basis of every chord progression? Why do you think 1-3-5-7 produces a similar effect across any musical scale? Why do you think sus2, sus4, diminished, and augmented chords produce consistent effects no matter what scale they're applied to?

Granted, I recognize that these are examples from western notation, but the concept isn't limited to western notation. If you break the whole steps and half steps into microtonals, you can "convert" a western musical scale into any other culture's system, and vice versa. Just like converting between fahrenheit and celsius.

It absolutely is eurocentric to enforce western music theory as some holy book that separates good music from bad music.

I'm not enforcing "western music theory" as anything! That's a leap you're making, by conflating "music theory" with "western notation." In other words, you're the one being eurocentric.

Also, I made no statements on what separates "good music from bad music." That's about preference, which is in the art. It's wholly outside the realm of the science that underlies the art.

It's a tool that helps you write music that sounds good to a western ear. But a lot of good music can disagree or break the norms of western music theory.

The "western ear" is a false construct. There's all sorts of people in the west with ears for all sorts of different music. There isn't some unified "this sounds good to westerners." That's ridiculous. What you're doing is attempting to conflate the art of music with the science of music, to claim that there is no science. There is a science, it just has nothing to do with preference. Preference is entirely within the realm of the art, which applies the science, and can do so in many ways with much variance.

Different people like different kinds of cars. Different cultures make different cars. But would you really try to argue that the science underlying mechanical design doesn't really exist because people have different preferences in the way that science is applied?

No one would say "Red and blue make purple" is a western colonialist or eurocentric statement. Color theory is a science. Visual arts apply the underlying science to create variance of expression, and everyone has their own preferences regarding that expression. But that doesn't change the fact that the color wheel is a science. Lines and forms are a science. Light and shading is a science. They can be applied in abstract ways, and people can like or dislike them, but it's still a science.

Likewise, rhythm, meter, and harmony are sciences. They can be applied in different ways. They can even be described in different ways. But underlying them are certain mathematical constants, and if you don't understand that then you're revealing your ignorance about musical theory.

“science of music theory is western eurocentric colonialism” is a new low bar.

It is literally the core principle of modern ethnographic musicology. 50 years ago there were people claiming that eastern microtonality was a savage aberration.

It feels exactly like arguing with climate change deniers 🙄 they don't understand the science so they just pretend the science doesn't exist and it all comes down to subjective interpretation.

There is subjective interpretation in music, but that falls within the realm of art, which I even acknowledged.

They're conflating the art with the science, and using that to claim that there is no science underlying the art. It's absurd at its core.

Oh, somebody made a youtube video claiming music theory is white supremacy. Might as well be peer-reviewed research then! /s

Jazz borrows from western music theory but has its OWN theory.

It has its own what? Theory? What kind of theory is that? Oh, music theory! Wow. So what you're saying is, jazz has music theory.

That was a lot of hoops to jump through only to end up not disclaiming anything I said.

Did I ever say "Western music theory is the only valid system of musical notation?" No, I said "music theory is a science." And it is. You conflating "music theory" with "western musical notation" doesn't change that.

Go read about John Coltrane's circle of fifths. If there wasn't a science underpinning music theory, it simply wouldn't work. The reason it does work is because there are geometric proportions underlying musical phenomena.

Are you proposing experimental jazz doesn't have rhythm and harmony?

I never said that. But if you're talking specifically about avant-garde, the underlying philosophy of which is specifically and explicitly stated as deconstructing systematized musical conventions (including rhythm and harmony), then I'd say yes, the entire point of avant-garde is to be arhythmic and anharmonious.

Music absolutely doesn't need to have western rhythm and harmony to be enjoyable.

You're fucking adding all these layers of "western" this and that, which are things I didn't say. I said music theory isn't eurocentric, because it's more expansive than just western notation. You're the one operating on the assumption that only western notation classifies as music theory.

If you honestly believe that "rhythm" and "harmony" are exclusively western concepts, then you're extremely ignorant and eurocentric, and you need more exposure to international music.

Whether you wanna talk about Western or Byzantine or Arabian or African or Indian or Chinese or Native American musical systems, or any other kind, all of these systems of music utilize rhythm, meter, and harmony. They have different ways of using them, different ways of annotating them, and different ways of incrementing them, but they all use them.

The concepts of deconstructing musical conventions, such as is seen in avant-garde, dadaism, and noise metal, have only arisen in the 20th century and forward. And guess what. They arose primarily in the west! By western musicians. So there's nothing "colonialist" about a philosophical rebuttal of those concepts.

So your misinformed takes reveal not only your ignorance of musical theory and of international musical systems, but also your ignorance of musical history.

Edit:

P.S., if you didn't pick up on how a critique of avante-garde relates (or doesn't relate, as I'm claiming) to anti-colonialism, then you clearly don't have a very solid understanding of the history and philosophy underlying avant-garde. From it's inception, it was framed as an anti-colonialist deconstruction in the post-modern movement.

My argument is solely this: that's it's entirely possible to be anti-colonialist without rejecting music theory as a whole. Because music theory isn't limited to just western notation.

Everything else you're arguing against is purely strawman and red herring.

There's math in music, but music isn't just math.

I didn't say it was just math. I said the art is in applying the science. And that holds through all of your arguments.

you'll notice a ton of extremely happy songs, that are in minor scales. This usually trips classically trained musicians because, well, major = happy, minor = sad, was the science for the past 400 years

No, the mood is in the application. That's part of the art. The science is in how many microtonals are between notes on a scale. In western musical systems thats 12-12-6 (whole step - whole step - half step). There are other musical systems, but the science is still underlying.

Contemporary pop, is doing away with it as younger composers and producers experiment with modal theory and unorthodox rhythmical structures and find wild commercial success with younger audiences.

Again, that experimentation is in the application. That's the art. The concepts they're experimenting with: modal theory and rhythmic structures (whether orthodox or unorthodox) are the science. They can be described numerically. All the qualia which result from their application are the art aspect, but the building blocks of those qualia are quantitative and precise.

that just flips over your arguments by making microtonal polyrithmic music that is perfectly scientific and mathematically organized yet it sounds alien

The "alien" sound is the qualia; that's an aspect of the application. In other words, the art. The microtonals and polyrhythmics are fundamentally mathematical, and thus a science.

There's a lot you can do with baking. Even unconventional. But to deny that baking is science at its core, and an art in its application, would be wildly ignorant.

Music is art, get over it.

I never said it fucking wasn't, but there is a science underlying it. Get over it.

If people likes it, science has no power over it. Music theory is, precisely, just some relic of colonialism.

Some people like flat earth theory and being unvaccinated, are you saying science has no power over that?

Yes, people can like unconventional music. I never said they can't. Convention itself is about application. Unconventional implies something about the art, or the application of the science. That doesn't change anything about the underlying science.

Music theory is, precisely, just some relic of colonialism.

That's a wildly ignorant statement, since many cultures have their own musical systems. Music theory isn't just western notation, and if that's how you're thinking of it then you're the one with the colonized mindset.

By quantitatively analyzing microtonals, rhythm, meter, and tempo, a musical work from any musical system can be understood by its fundamentals. This says nothing about the art or the expression or the qualia or people's preferences, because those are all aspects of the application of those fundamentals. But that doesn't change the fact that the fundamentals themselves are intrinsically mathematical and scientific.

I mean that's valid, I'm not claiming that music has to be defined a particular way, even though if I were personally to define it I would probably include certain characteristics that distinguish it from noise. But I'm not claiming my personal definition is the only valid one.

The whole point of philosophy is to dig into ideas a little further than we ordinarily do. People can have different opinions, and that can stimulate good discussion. At least, as long as people don't resort to bad-faith argumentation by misrepresenting someone else's argument or taking other cheap shots like that.

What I mean is, although you say you don't care about categories, do you consider the sound of a construction site to be music? If so, that's fine, and I'm curious what your definition of music is. And if not, then I'm curious how you distinguish between noise and music. Is there any defining characteristic that places a collection of sounds squarely in one camp or the other, or is it entirely ambiguous?