#47

I agree that the kind of Music Theory discussed by Neely (capitalized to avoid confusion with “music theory”, which could be any theorizing about music) is certainly useful. I use it all the time! On its own, without any cultural context, it is not white supremacist. If we existed in a cultural context where people generally said “hey, Music Theory is just one of many tools that we can use to analyze music, and let’s use the correct tool when looking at music made by POC” – well, then there would be no issues.

However, one must also consider cultural context; and in that context Music Theory is unquestionably white supremacist for a series of reasons: (i) when most americans (including many academic theoreticians) talk about music theory they mean Music Theory alone (i.e., no other additional theories); (ii) when most americans talk of Music Theory they believe it can be used as a metric to objectively judge the quality of music; and (iii) Music Theory explicitly excludes the music made by POC (as well as many other modes of music).

That’s why Neely brings up pop-culture thinkpieces that use Music Theory to “prove” that certain pop songs are great. Because Music Theory cannot be used in the same way to analyze, say, rap (I mean, you can try, but it won’t work well; it is the wrong theory for the job), the unavoidable implication of the dominance of Music Theory in our cultural discourse is that rap is inferior because it does not lend itself to the same analysis. Thus Music Theory, when placed in its cultural context, is inescapably white supremacist.

4 Likes
#48

I don’t understand how that could be.

I really hope I’m misunderstanding you here… You think we have a Music Theory, capitalised, that’s explicitly only for white people? … and you see no issues with this?

#49

My point is (a) yes, Music Theory as discussed by Neely (i.e., a very particular kind of music theory developed to study a small group of white 18th century composers) is explicitly only for studying white people and (b) I have a huge problem with this being the dominant mode of music theory! I don’t see the theory itself as being white supremacist; it’s the dominance of the theory that makes it white supremacist, in a cultural context. That’s the thrust of Neely’s video, which I agree with.

#50

I’m struggling with this one… There were Black composers around Europe in the 18th century. There are Black western classical music composers and music theorists around now.

I don’t have any interest in western classical music theory personally but saying it’s only for white people seems to be missing the point? Different musics have different approaches but also often has a great deal in common, and so Western classical music theory can be applied to whatever you like (cf Kofi Agawu)…

Schenkerian analysis is explicitly white supremacist. As far as I understand it, it’s also unscientific/unformalised and so useless for any kind of computational approach to music theory.

But going from that, to saying that western theoretical understanding of classical music can only be applied to music written by white people just doesn’t make sense to me.

6 Likes
#52

Those assertions would need some evidence to be convincing. They seem implausible to me.

1 Like
#53

That’s pretty absurd though. You’re talking about a body of theory that is optimized for analyzing triadic harmony structures, not white people. Unless you think that white people are triadic harmony structures.

3 Likes
#54

I like the convention of capitalizing it, that’s great for clarity.

#55

I don’t think it makes things clear at all, unless the context is already clear. Why not just say which music theory you’re talking about?

1 Like
#56

Maybe it should MUSIC THEORY for the Eurocentric kind

#58

To my mind, the music theory is a product of the repotoire. The hegemony of European classical music repotoire in music education leads to a preponderance of musicians equipped to perform, teach and theorize about it. Looking at what is taught in kids music lessons, grades and exams might be a good place to effect change.

1 Like
#60

I’m writing in the UK, but based on my experience, I think this is total bollocks, really. If the works at the International Computer Music Conference are anything to go by (I admit I haven’t been for a few years), academic electronic music is in general profoundly stuck… There’s some weird, passive-aggressive rejection of anything that doesn’t conform to a narrow aesthetic, for example any form of repetition or even regular pulse is shown as an amusing sideshow to the serious ‘art music’. The scene has ossified, and it’ll stay that way while the conservative patriarchy keeps outside influences out.

Labels like conditional records are bringing together real forward thinking stuff, and I’m sure there’s influences from and crossover with the academic scene, but like everything else, the real influences are from hip-hop, house, techno, etc.

“When you trace the historical development of jazz harmony, it is always lagging behind the “legit” composers by a decade or two.”

Now I’m not a music theorist, but is there any basis in this at all? This seems a prime example of what Phil Ewell is talking about - putting an extremely limited frame on what music is, and then declaring anything that doesn’t fit that frame as degenerate. Lumping “Jazz” in with “Pop music” is a classic example of this blinkered thinking.

14 Likes
#61

I see there are some concerns about the tone of the thread happening. I’m not overly concerned myself at the moment—my take is that we’re having brave conversations about topics where it’s easy to put your foot in your mouth unintentionally and then be called on it. Something that might be useful to keep in mind when writing here is that while everyone here is intelligent and excited to contribute and learn from the conversation, not many people at all are right there with you and your experience of music theory.

Just to take a random example, this quote is secretly a missed opportunity for several posts in the thread, right? like “what is Schenkerian analysis,” “why is it white supremacist,” “who are the people who made it explicitly so,” and even “given that, why is it so relevant?” are all great questions that I’d love reading the dialogue around.

Anyway, sorry to be mod-y, I was and am really excited to watch this conversation develop, and maybe next time I’ll share something actually on-topic!

18 Likes
#62

Thanks @alanza, I’m a bit puzzled about what these concerns could be. I just saw something from @electricanada about this thread needing some “positivity”, but honestly have no clue about what posts have been ‘negative’ apart from one saying that they didn’t like a piece of music that was shared. I think everyone is discussing in good faith, but I also think white supremacy in music is an important topic, that needs to be dealt with in a critical way.

Re your questions on Schenkerian Analysis, I think the video in the top post answers them very well.

2 Likes
#63

hahahaha you got me! I had yet to watch the video

3 Likes
#64

I don’t mean to come across as snarky, but have you watched the video? It pretty clearly argues that the issue is about more than triads.

#65

I’m going to try once more… Is your argument that we need different music theories for different composers, based on their colour of their skin, because the music they make is fundamentally different? I’m fairly sure that this is what you have written and confirmed, but I’m struggling with the thought that this is what you really believe.

1 Like
#66

A) Show me a harmonic development in jazz that can’t be found in earlier orchestral music. I don’t know of one. Usually the innovations turn up in film music before they get to jazz.

B) Jazz was pop music from its inception well into the 1970s. Is this really controversial?

And who labeled anything degenerate?

#67

That’s a fair question. I didn’t make it very far. I bailed out when he started presenting Youtube clips of Indian music, and I realized he didn’t know what he was talking about there.

The entire premise seemed click-baity, and he didn’t make a case at the beginning convincingly enough for me to stick around. It seemed that the direction he was heading in was equating not teaching certain things with “white supremacy”. There are so many holes in that argument that I didn’t stick around until the end.

1 Like
#68

Well, then you’re just wasting everybody’s time.

2 Likes
#69

I dare say one should seriously question their intentions and motives when they feel the need to start off a post with this.

11 Likes