[no subject]

>the problem is, the conventions of music theory make it so the _music_
>itself is an external reference system to the "internal"
>rules/concepts/content of the school of music theory.
agreed as for the conventions..., that are, however, auto-referential
like the rules being part of them ... While finding your "music theory
alienates the musician from the music" far too over-generalizing, I
might just state that such a (pre-established) reference system might
well serve for inductional classification purposes (or structural
analysis/generative synthesis) ; fact is, however, that traditional
music theory (as a convention, auto-referential but not auto-justifying)
can (potentially) well be replaced by any other (coherent,
(sufficiently) stable, and in itself logical, pre-established) reference
scheme, and inversely also (re-)interpretation (most successfully)
follows the consequent application of this (set of) recipe(s).

>> btw the fact that you can (theoretically)
>> discuss about "Edim7" vs. "C# dim" chords is already an indication
>> for some usefulness of this (some) concept ...
>right, this concept can be used to discuss music theory. not music.
you discuss music in some abstracted sense ; it's useful (here) for you
know (by learning) what you are referring to and are able to realize
theory in practice ...
>just pointing out some inconsistencies...
Well, I am myself by far no orthodox music theorist, but it's just (the
possibility of) this sort of abstract, yet (here) unequivocal usage that
I am finding something useful in this regard ...

>hmm, how about microsound "composers"? which was the original
>question.. "useful" to microsound?
Well, that's the question ... ; probably not (traditional) music theory
alone ; I personally did much profit from (listening into) other areas
of interest, as digital signal processing, psychoacoustics/music
perception, noise abatement, sound (quality) design, ethnomusicology --
but also music history ...

Bl:ah ...