Originally Posted by: SilimtaoAs you pointed out, Chris, a lot of confusion can lie in...I guess you can say semantics to a great degree.[/quote]
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. What I said was that the wrong word was being used. I said that because using the word derived was more precise: Modes are derived from a scale.

And more than which words we used in which manner to communicate was at stake, also. We are seeking conceptual clarity in the understanding of the unique structure of each scale, mode or chord. In this case the modes of the major scale.

Originally Posted by: SilimtaoTo further clarify, I think we should say we're discussing Western/European music theory.[/quote]
That is indeed the only one I have an interest in discussing.

In response to my statement: However, just to be clear, there is no contradiction inherent in music theory. You replied:

Originally Posted by: Silimtao
Depends who you talk to.[/quote]
In this case I am talking to you. Can you show me one?
[QUOTE=Silimtao]
When I was at Berklee, we had classical music theorists who told us what was "wrong" with jazz/pop theory. I remember when we spent 2 weeks dissecting the Beach Boys' harmonies in "Surfer Girl" and what was "wrong" with it from a classical sense, and what was right with it in a "modern/jazz" sense. Then we would have a jazz guy come in and say, "forget that classical crap, this is jazz."

Classical theorists are mistaken when they claim that Beach Boys harmonies are "wrong".

The harmonies are what they are. Music theory only exists to identify, mentally organize, classify and categorize those harmonies (and all musical sounds in fact)".

What those classical theorists should have said is that Beach Boys harmonies do not conform to the standard of voice leading that classical composers used (no perfect fifth or octave motions, not too many consecutive thirds, etc.). But, of course, the Beach Boys don't have to conform to those standards. :)

That is what your classical theorists most likely meant when they mistakenly claimed the harmonies were "wrong".
[QUOTE=Silimtao]
I'll try to give an example- say you're playing in C major, and you're playing a G mixolydian scale over it; it will "fit" correct?

Music theory can tell you what notes are involved. What all the possibilities are, what the harmonies the resultant sound could create. What the possible chord progressions might be. It depends upon what notes you play and when. Just saying "this scale and that mode" is not even close to a complete description of a musical event.

But the larger point is that it is up to you to decide if it "fits". What is it supposed to "fit" anyway? Your intention (as player or composer).

For example, playing a C major scale over a C# major chord might "fit" if that creates the sound you are trying to achieve. Music theory can tell you what those objects are, and even show you (if you understand enough) why it will be dissonant as hell. Theory only tells you what it is, how you can understand it and relate it to the other musical concepts you know. Theory is only "wrong" when someone attempts to misidentify or mis-conceptualize something. For example, if you want to call the notes "c, e, g" a D major chord, then you are wrong. That is "bad theory".

Music Theory is the set of concepts that describes the nature of musical events.

It is the process of mentally indentifying the sounds that occur in music. We do this in order to build a consistent set of ideas to describe what happens in music.
[QUOTE=Silimtao]I guess music theory can be so maddeningly frustrating because there are really no absolutes (to some, maybe so), and that's why it's called theory.

This is wrong. There are absolutes. I have given you some in this post. It is an absolute that there are absolutes.

It is called theory because it is the conceptual organization of all the musical sounds we can hear. All those sounds are the concrete applications, the practice.