Music Theory and White Supremacy

> pop music lacks musicality, most of what they listed were to do with sonic tricks that are not really tied to musicality or musicianship This is a paradox, though. You’re saying that one of the most popular types of music “lacks musicality”. The only way that can be true is if you start with a narrow and arbitrary definition of what “musicality” is. If you examine the history of ideas of what is “real” or “authentic” or “objectively good” in music, who has been a proponent of those ideas through history, and why, you will find is that a lot of it is rooted in white supremacy. The idea is that a certain style of white European music is the only true music, and that other music is only valuable to the extent that it happens to fit within the theoretical frameworks developed around those styles. I guess what I’m saying is, please watch this excellent video, “Music Theory is Racist” by Adam Neely: [this video]

I grew up in a family of classical musicians, got a degree in music, and was briefly a professional classical musician myself. So my advice may be very out of touch with the experience of someone learning for the first time, but my experiences learning beyond European classical music theory left me feeling insulted. The basics of music theory are presented as though they are the foundations upon which all subsequent music is derived. In fact, teaching scales and chords is like teaching that the electron orbits the nucleus - a 'simplification'. There _are_ real psychoacoustic truths, alongside equally fascinating historical forces, that underpin music theory. Learn the language and idioms of music theory, by all means, but don't think of it as being in any way true. Its a syncretist cargo cult of hacks and rules of thumb handed down by centuries of men with dubious motives. I recommend Adam Neely on YouTube, he illustrates music theory concepts clearly, engagingly, and with an appropriate skepticism for received wisdom. Here's his discussion of some more political criticisms of music theory: [this video] I recommend Sethares' _Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale_ to anyone interested in the underpinnings of why some notes sound good together and others don't. [2] [link]

A generous reading makes me think that his music department is just widening their program to incorporate more non-western content. They asked him to change his course material in a way he doesn't like. If that's the case, it's something many arts departments around the world have been doing in the last few years. You can call it a product of "wokeness", but it's also a product of globalisation. > He said that music departments could stop teaching Beethoven and Wagner because their compositions were produced during a time of empire “in the frankly insane belief that doing so will somehow materially improve current living conditions for the economically, socially, sexually, religiously, or racially underprivileged”. They're never going to stop teaching Beethoven and Wagner and it sincerely sounds like he's misunderstanding the goals with most music departments' changes. On the other hand, there _are_ genuine issues with how music theory and history are taught today: [this video] He's a professor of music history and theory. He edits a book series called "Music in Context". He's written about homosexuality in the world of opera. He doesn't seem like at outright conservative reactionary and I'd really like to understand what his grievances with his department are.

> Does it refuse to get rid of dialect and variation if the race of the person processed is white? If it doesn’t it doesn’t make it white. For it to remove any dialect, it has to consider some dialect as standard. Think about it. > I’m not reading the whole crazy pointless long article about more fake problems, the abstract is ridiculous enough. Well if you're going to question-beg, then you can't really complain can you. The rest of what you said is a different complaint than the one I answered, so you're moving the goal post but then setting up a straw man of what that person wrote when you say such music can't be made on it. They were specific in what they said and it didn't exclude the possibility of making some of it with it. This subject is definitely something that's been discussed a lot in music lately, so apparently it's not that meaningless to many people. Adam Neely has a popular video on what people are talking about if you're curious. [1] 1. [this video]

This article left me a bit confused. After a perusal I couldn't find a satisfactory set of criteria that defines a "Beethoven" beyond this vague bit at the top, which feels very hand-wavy. > Why has there been no one better in the last ~200 years - despite a vastly larger world population, highly democratized technology for writing and producing music, and a higher share of the population with education, basic nutrition, and other preconditions for becoming a great musician? and from a footnote: >Beethoven's music is "great" in at least two significant senses: (a) for nearly all listeners, it is enjoyable; (b) for obsessive listeners who are deeply familiar with other music that came before, it is "impressive" in the sense of demonstrating originality/innovation/other qualities. a) in the footnote feels very, very selective in "for nearly all listeners", and b) I'm not sure how "impressive"-ness is quantified, especially if obsessive listeners are required as a hurdle to clear to establish impressiveness as a barometer for a qualtifiable "better". What's "better"? How is the author sure there is no one "better"? Who decided that ? What criteria makes someone better? Is it some combination of technical skill at the keyboard, compositional skill at "the harmonic style of 18th century european music"[0] ? Is it the Fame that is achieved as a result of writing famous, lasting compositions? It is the music's complexity, or popularity? Does it have to be limited to so-called "class