> I don't see a scientific theory here at all. To be called science, it needs to have a hypothesis and be falsifiable
Let me explain it for you:
Hypothesis / Theory: The keys on the keyboard are laid out in their particular queer way because of X.
Evidence: (1) the Major Scale, (2) the Standard Chord Dictionary, and (2) the difference between the Major and Minor Triads.
Falsifiability: Do any of the evidence in 1, 2, and 3 fit the theory?
Fitness test: How simple is the theory, as compared to competing theories? How many assumptions (aka "free parameters") are there?
The author explains how competing theories have more assumptions and free parameters that his theory does not require.
This is clearly science. It's just written in a different style than you're accustomed to. Please read and critique the content of the article. If you so firmly believe that it isn't science, then you should be able to easily refute it using science, rather than just superficially (superstitiously) claiming "That's not science! You don't understand!"
* the Major Scale,
* the Standard Chord Dictionary, and
* the difference in feeling between the Major and Minor Triads.
• Major scale... in what musical period?
• Standard Chord Dictionary. What does that even mean? Please map that onto gregorian chant or even Monteverdi Vespers of 1610.
• As I've indicated elsewhere, a Major 3rd in 13th century France is actually a discord, not a resolution.
If the author had indicated that he was only referring to 19th century European classical music, I'd have been cool with it. But the author isn't even referring to the European musical tradition in general.
I'm not understanding what you're explaining. Feel free to ignore me, or explain it more, but I still don't see any actual science in what you're talking about. I see technical terminology, but not scientific method.
The layout of keys on the keyboard is not a natural phenomenon that needs a scientific theory to explain, that was a (somewhat arbitrary) choice that has been canonized. The layout was decided in past history for known reasons that mix music theory, engineering and human factors, it wasn't something that science ever had a direct say in.
If this paper is science, what precisely does it explain that we didn't already know? Music theory isn't a science, and nobody ever claimed it was. Music theory is an art.
What, exactly, does this sciency sounding theory here demonstrate? I acknowledge that it's a useful framework for understanding intervals for physicists and computer scientists, but I don't see it actually showing why the major scale is major, and how to use that fact to compose music, do you? Does it somehow prove why a minor chord following a major chord sounds good to most people? Does it scientifically prove why a minor chord sounds sad and major happy? Does it prove why Turkish music sounds good to Turkish people and not to Canadians? I don't see anywhere in this document that anything about harmony is proposed and then proved via scientific method. I'm not sure it's possible, or a particularly useful goal either.
This document only covers a very tiny fraction of music theory, so it simply can't be a good replacement for music theory until it's much, much bigger.
Let me explain it for you:
Hypothesis / Theory: The keys on the keyboard are laid out in their particular queer way because of X.
Evidence: (1) the Major Scale, (2) the Standard Chord Dictionary, and (2) the difference between the Major and Minor Triads.
Falsifiability: Do any of the evidence in 1, 2, and 3 fit the theory?
Fitness test: How simple is the theory, as compared to competing theories? How many assumptions (aka "free parameters") are there?
The author explains how competing theories have more assumptions and free parameters that his theory does not require.
This is clearly science. It's just written in a different style than you're accustomed to. Please read and critique the content of the article. If you so firmly believe that it isn't science, then you should be able to easily refute it using science, rather than just superficially (superstitiously) claiming "That's not science! You don't understand!"
Prove it! Critique the content, man!