OldManDoc

The minutiae of obstruction and how it intersects with interference, I get how people could be wrong about that if they were never umpires. But you don't need to be an umpire to google what the base path is - just the most basic sense of media literacy suffices.

it BAFFLES me that so many are so confident in asserting complete nonsense online re: baseball and sports arguments

I think it depends what the standard for "good" is. That said, there are definitely some people whose willful evil choices amaze me...

I 💙 #schizorune 🗣️🗣️🗣️

( #tobyfox #deltarune )

Kind of makes me wonder if the uneven shape would also help deaden weak contact into potential "swinging bunt" infield singles for fast runners...

Before music theory: whoa that was beautiful
After music theory: (indigestibly) why did they put the brown note in this beautiful song

who up reharmonizing they standard

Is there a good way to describe music that you think is too rhythmically "square" (too conventional, uncool)? Where melodies mainly accent strong beats, feature strong/simple rhythms and no syncopation?

Think of military marches and national anthems. Or in popular music today, "Die With A Smile".

Your view/definition of music theory differs from mine. That's why I see it as complete and you see it as incomplete. If you disagree with that then I think there's nothing more to talk about.

Music Theory having a very specific definition is news to me! I believe the "theory" you're talking about is what I might term a "model"; if we don't agree that the "theory" in music theory is describing its inherent subjectiveness, then we're not going to have much ground in common, I suppose.

... and still I've never heard a more convincing explanation than "everything is subjective" combined with "you like what sounds familiar".

Even if those studies flawlessly and conclusively proved that consonance is to some extent 'objectively' pleasant (not learned to be so), I think we've all seen people go off the deep end trying to explain music theory "objectively" using consonant intervals to make the scale, making chords...

I also think we have definitional disagreements on what counts as "music theory". My view is that nothing can be "unexplained by music theory", but some things fit nicely into the most common frameworks of musical understanding and some don't. It's all theory to me.

Music theory is just music understanding, I feel that it's impossible to understand music completely. A note that sounds dissonant to Western ears might not be dissonant at all in another culture's understanding of music. That's why I feel comfortable saying human perspective is the limiting factor.

This is also true of course. Just as one can be ignorant of significant patterns in music, one can also overprescribe them and wind up with other underdeveloped music skills and experiences.

I think people misconceive what the endgame of "knowing theory" actually is. To truly know all of theory is to feel EVERY perspective on sound simultaneously - all cultures, traditions, styles.

Is theory incomplete, or is human perspective too narrow to prevent gaps in understanding?

(for example music) I feel it becomes easier to judge something positively while also personally disliking it if you have some knowledge of the craft yourself.

any song is in 4/4 if you don't count it like a NERDDDDD 🤓🤓🤓

Music ~= [Language]
music theory ~= linguistics(?)
notation ~= text formatting
performance ~= acting(?)
sight-reading ~= reading
analysis ~= literary analysis
composition ~= writing
improvisation ~= communication

(and if you squint your eyes a little there may be something profound in that)

if the 808 is so great how come they never made an 809

Depending on the game and my mood, I might want to spend an hour or two screen working through possible solutions by hand, or I might not.

What bothers me is when games show you a puzzle early on and then neglect to warn you that the solution only comes several chapters later... grrrr.

please let this be less toxic than 🐦