Or maybe not. You decide.
Pseudoscience in music theory is a description of a structure where there's no inherent structure. An attempt to catch patterns in a noise, patterns which are one-off and don't help in composition. Patterns which don't exist in minds of listeners until they become deeply immersed in your theory.
-
Jonathan Christian Petty. Wagner's Lexical Tonality. An author claims that keys in Wagner operas bear a wordable meaning, and every key change means a new meaning. For some reason, this work doesn't seem to be referenced in any other research and is largely ignored by a scientific community. The author explicitly mentions that his research is falsifiable.
Also see this
-
David Huron. What is a Musical Feature? Forte’s Analysis of Brahms’s Opus 51, No. 1, Revisited - An example of a statistical disproof of someone's theoretical claim
-
Explanations of why we build chords the way we build them. Eg. undertone series
-
Affect theory
-
Guerino Mazzola. The Topos of Music
-
Adam Neely. A = 432Hz (Adam is great, 432 Hz is weird)
-
The Lydian Theory by Brett Clement - I've just found this discussion, I don't have my own opinion yet
-
Studies that claim that different keys employ different features in composers - I'm not sure that's 100% true. See Steven Bradley Yan. Aspects of Mozart's Music in G Minor and think for yourself
-
Michael Buchler. Are There Any Bad (or Good) Transformational Analyses? - A case against transformational analyses and methods without preference rules.
-
Ethan Haimo. Atonality, Analysis, and the Intentional Fallacy, review
