Man, sign up for a forum after ordering a norns, think to myself, “this looks like a fun place to tinker with exciting hardware, no way would my first post be about the racist origins of western music theory.” It’s a failure of my own imagination.
I share a bit of a path with some here, receiving an education at a US music school (University of the Arts in Philadelphia) before promptly not making music professionally for many years. The curriculum was jazz heavy and really, focused on bebop as the foundational element.
What I don’t see really being elevated here is the colonial vs racist underpinning that makes a certain type of notation and theory dominant. Maybe this is just semantics, but I think that’s an equally valid and important lens to view this under. We’re on a forum written, largely, in English, despite an international collaboration of creators with a shared interest. This might be unfortunate as English isn’t a particularly wonderful language to be an international standard, but it’s where we are. The violent history of colonialism and dominance that brought us here is understood and well beyond a forum post.
Still, I think learning “western/traditional american/white supremacist racist” music theory is useful is in an understanding that a large number of people have been trained to hear music in 4/4 12 tone equal temperament as ‘normal.’ This makes learning the patterns and concepts that begin there and extend through the 20th century and intermingle with American music history (not necessarily contemporary symphonic, but jazz, hip hop, rock, blues, modern folk, country, pop, experimental, basically everything in a post-historical context) useful as a language rather than as a theory. It also provides a framework to begin to understand styles and traditions that fall outside of that core and to notate where those differences are for personal education and group discussion. It’s problematic, just like communicating in English as a “standard,” as there’s an inherent bias in it: if 12 tone notation is right, then anything outside that is “wrong.” I don’t think that anymore than, from what I gather, anyone with the intellect to approach this subject. I do think, if you were raised on pop, rock, jazz, or “classical” music, you’ll likely be at least somewhat tuned to those rules, and would probably hear other traditions for their differences from your core understanding, so the utility of those “rules” probably will get you to a better understanding of other traditions more easily if you use that framework as a jumping-off point.
I agree wholeheartedly that western classical music theory (even when it’s mislabeled as contemporary music theory) is a framework for a particular kind of music. But, it’s raw tools that were developed for that purpose (notation, tuning and terminology) have significant utility in letting a diverse group of people use a language that can be modified to talk about other kinds of music.
The entirety of our lived experience, particularly as others have pointed out in the US, is a history built on racism and colonialism. It’s a brutal history, and in an age of split-second news cycles, it’s one that so many people are so quick to forget, or willfully reject. Being deeply self aware of where you are in the system, and acknowledging your privilege if you have it, and using that privilege to lift up others who need your help is a noble path. I don’t think that should include rejecting the language you know or the utility or beauty it may have. You do nobody any good if you blink yourself out of existence on realizing the weight of the history that brought you to be.
This is an amazing and important conversation. Western music theory is a system, and it’s a system that has produced amazing works of art, but it is not “music theory,” nor is it necessarily (like English) the best framework to analyze music. Still, there is no reason to feel guilt for being trained in that framework.
Anyhow, I hear norns is cool. Looking forward to checking it out 
