Path: csiph.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: John Ames Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2026 15:09:10 -0700 Organization: A place where nothing fits quite right Lines: 84 Message-ID: <20261019150910.00001b26@gmail.com> References: <18dee4b6cab427fa$865$2574533$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> <87ik32455m.fsf@solcaium.us> <11asf08$31lan$1@dont-email.me> <11asopt$33n8m$8@dont-email.me> <11asq8f$31lan$6@dont-email.me> <11astpf$33n8m$23@dont-email.me> <11at0ld$31lan$13@dont-email.me> <11at39s$33n8m$36@dont-email.me> <11at4hq$31lan$18@dont-email.me> <11atave$3bqcl$1@dont-email.me> <11atdrd$31lan$25@dont-email.me> <11atgrt$3bqcl$14@dont-email.me> <11atsb5$3edcf$1@dont-email.me> <11au3uo$3k12p$14@dont-email.me> <0t1dqmx8a1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <11b286r$11pis$5@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2026 22:09:16 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="2592102"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19WXe1dorhISt9zc3DSCtGlHlSkaFeSYuI="; posting-host="4eafebe76e2195c89426c3e04175cf47" Cancel-Lock: sha1:0cnsKQ+QRBJaSnAY9lT2MZx9v9E= sha256:2vlxFvuovEQiCRXRjjeKAwyMN3Ku+dTP+VvtWURdvCI= sha1:tZnTmg6dtuBQtBIfocVNvR9+8vE= sha256:0nfvzPBNSHjRUgSLlF3ntmVrS+uH9JULuxMX/HtCa08= X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:94366 On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 11:48:59 +0100 The Natural Philosopher wrote: > The Hammond organ was a beast...synchronous motors driving toothed > steel wheels next to magnetic pickups,..with a spring reverb in the > base. > > Keith Emerson used to switch off the drive motor to bend the pitch > down, and stick knives in the keyboard to create drones and pick the > whole thing up and drop it to make a dramatic 'cymbal crash' > > All while burning an American flag. > > Of course, it was all basic 'music theory' ....not... This is probably your funniest argument yet, seeing as Emerson was, by his own account, a "serious child" who was studying classical music even as he also had a background in jazz, whose wild Hammond stunts featured in e.g. a hard-rock riff on Janacek's "Sinfonietta" with an extended quotation from Bach ("Knife-Edge,") who directly adapted pieces by Copland, Bartok, and Ginastera, and who got an entire album out of blending Mussorgsky with a shot of twelve-bar blues. But sure, sure, absolutely none of that abhorrent Music Theory featured at all! > > > This thread was originally about those who claim that practice is > > > impossible without theory, and those who say that in reality, > > > theory comes much later and is often virtually useless and may > > > indeed be counterproductive. > > > > The theory is used even without formally knowing it. > > Weaselly bollox > > If you dont know it you cant use it This is like arguing that math didn't exist until people in the ancient Near East invented it. (Which, lo and behold, you've *also* said.) That which is discoverable by inference from independent observation because it reflects fundamental properties of the universe is the foundation of science; any creature with a working set of senses and the capacity for abstract thought can work out that 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 * 3 = 6 by counting, even if they use different names for these things, the principles at play can be generalized to other values by experiment, and the whole rest of mathematics can be built independently off the same kernel of observable reality. Similarly, anyone with a length of string (catgut, rubber band) can discover the relationship between wavelength and frequency, anyone with *two* lengths of string can discover harmony & dissonance, anyone who can walk and count at the same time can work out the basics of tempo & meter, anyone who's ever had a kid scream in their ear understands the power of dynamics painfully well, etc. etc. Music theory, like mathematical theory, is a system (or category of them) that seeks to derive overarching principles from the observable properties in a way that can be communicated and put to practical appl- ication: why (and when) is some dissonance pleasant, when most is not? Why is perfect harmony sometimes boring? What rhythms suit which moods/ accompanying activities, and why? What progressions and cadences seem to evoke instinctive responses in the human animal, and can these be relied on to do so (in which cultures, in which social contexts?) And so on and so forth. Yes, perspectives on different points have varied with time & place. Yes, one does not *have* to receive this knowledge in the context of a formal education in a formalized system, because the foundations are grounded in observable properties of reality, and the principles are therefore independently discoverable. But to argue that theory is some arbitrary invention that has nothing to do with practice - as opposed to a guide to understanding & applying the principles that have under- lain practice from prehistory down to present day, across the globe - is frankly absurd. > > The chinese Classic of Music dates back to about 3000 years ago and > > the Pythagorean school is not that far behind, but ok. > > 'music theory' *as we know it today * has only existed a couple of > hundred years You yourself started off this discussion talking about "music existing ten thousand years before music theory," so grouping classical Chinese and Pythagorean thought in with post-Renaissance Western theory is as fair as anything. They didn't have *any* of those in the Paleolithic.