Talk:Music theory

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Public Musicology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christopherbowers176 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Christopherbowers176 (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding the notable Ewell debate on the white racial frame (2020)

This entire article had practically no references to anything but white european 18th century classical music theory and its main white proponents in the field of music theory and music studies, writ large. There was a pivotal debate in the field during Black Lives Matter after Phillip Ewell published a bombshell article on the topic. This shouldn't be buried in a final section though I intend to add more there. It must be included, imho, in the opening paragraph because the debate was game-changing in the field. The impact continues in 2024. So four years later, it's imperative to include the debate in the intro.

Welcome other contributions to make this article more neutral and inclusive. sheridanford (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Organisation of the "History" section

The "History" section of the article first links with "Further information" to History of music, which has little to do with music theory. Follows a first subsection, "Antiquity", which similarly links with "Further information" to Ancient music, again with little to concern music theory. A first subsection of this first section, "Mesopotamia", at last begins with more useful information, with first a "See also" link to Music of Mesopotamia.

Each of these two first section and subsection also adds an [Edit] suggestion to provide additional information. One fails to see what could be added, however, as the "History" of theory in "Antiquity" really begins with "Mesopotamia". I wonder whether these [Edit] suggestions are automatically added by WP because the concerned sections already give an information in the form of "Further info Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hucbald.SaintAmand, I agree that this needs attention. Why don't you go ahead and rationalise it a bit? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I won't, because I'll be to busy with other things (or, rather, with similar things in other contexts) in days, weeks and months to come. Also, I think that questions about Ewell might need to be answered bevore: see the section under this one. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverting Reversion: Eurocentric Focus in Music Theory

@Suonii180, while I do not at all agree with the thrust of the IP's recent removals of your contributions, I want to make clear that I think it should be better organized before considering its readdition: the article lead should be a balanced summary of the article itself, so generally new additions should not be made directly to the article lead, see WP:LEAD Remsense ‥ 论 08:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Remsense, I've taken the gross liberty of adding a a new section header here, as this seems to be a new topic distinct from that above; please edit the title if you so wish. Am I right in thinking that it is the content added by SheridanFord with this edit that you're referring to? In view of the back-and-forth that's been going on, I've restored the revision from before that addition in the hope that some discussion will develop here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

First, thanks to @Justlettersandnumbers for weighing in on the inclusion of the Ewell debate to the Music Theory article after 4 years of controversy in the field. @Remsense: I would be remiss if I didn't suggest that you conclusion is misguided. Let me explain your oversight.

The edit I made was firmly rooted in, and is substantiated by, the existing guidelines (remember the pillar: "there are no firm rules") for a lead section of a WP article, and I quote: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Perhaps you missed this passage in WP:LEAD.

This prominent debate was the result of the impact of the global Black Lives Matter movement that impacted many disciplines in music. I am a notable music scholar who also has taught theory. There has not been a substantial debate concerning the discipline of music theory that was published and discussed in a national journalistic outlet like The New Yorker throughout the 20th and 21st century. It's an ongoing debate with multiple articles over the last four years since 2020.

Let me conclude, I’m titling this Talk topic Reverting Reversion: Eurocentric Focus in Music Theory and reverting the removal of the passage:

"In recent years, music theory has been debated for its Eurocentric focus and exclusion of non-Western and [[African-American music|African American musical]] theories, with scholars like [[Philip Ewell]] leading calls for a more inclusive approach."

This passage is well-supported by reliable sources, including:

1. Ewell, Philip. "Music Theory’s White Racial Frame." Music Theory Spectrum, vol. 43, no. 2, 2021, pp. 324–329. https://doi.org/10.1093/mts/mtaa031.
2. Ewell, Philip. "Music Theory's White Racial Frame." Music Theory Online, vol. 26, no. 2, 2020. https://mtosmt.org/ojs/index.php/mto/article/view/485.
3. Neely, Adam. "Music Theory and White Supremacy." YouTube, August 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr3quGh7pJA.
4. Ross, Alex. "Black Scholars Confront White Supremacy in Classical Music." The New Yorker, September 2020. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/21/black-scholars-confront-white-supremacy-in-classical-music.

In addition, I intend to add more context to the passage about the debate around Ewell’s white racial frame in music theory.

Adding references to scholars Edwin S. Fruehwald who published substantial counterpoints in Why Philip Ewell’s “Music Theory and the White Racial Frame” is Fundamentally Wrong: Ignoring Inconvenient Facts (2022). In the meantime, Ewell responded to these critiques in his 2024 article, Tonality, Racism, and White Indifference, published in the Journal of Music Theory (2024), providing further nuance and substantiation for the inclusion of the ongoing discourse in the lead of this article. The most pivotal debate in centuries in US academic disciplinary discussions of music theory should not be buried in the final section without mention in the lead, is my stance.

Given the weight of the sources and the significant impact of this debate in the field of music theory, I intend to proceed with the reversion/revision. I may simply make a new edit later today. sheridanford (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

SheridanFord, that may not be entirely a good idea. Please read this (non-binding]] advice – the general idea is that if your edit is reverted, it's best to seek consensus on the talk-page before making the same edit again. You might also look at this – this article needs to cover music theory over several thousands of years and many cultures round the world, something that can be done in only the most cursory and superficial way. It may not be appropriate to dedicate a large proportion of the lead section to criticism of the music syllabus in schools of just one of 200+ countries (I can never keep up with exactly how many there are), a topic that would almost certainly fit better at Music education in the United States. Anyway, why not wait for some other opinions here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

May I mention that a thorough revision of the Music theory article had been envisaged almost ten years ago. I had opened a page on my own pages, User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Music_theory, after having proposed to begin with a new page on User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Western_music_theory. These, I think, indicate that we were aware of the problems raised by Ewell long before he began discussing them. The discussion on my pages did not turn very well and I didn't pursue it, but some of the ideas expressed there, also by others, may be of interest. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hucbald.SaintAmand, SheridanFord, Remsense, I'd very much like to see the creation of an article on Western music theory. That might leave room to make this page more global in its scope (no criticism of those who wrote it, but the lead section here already reads to me as heavily Western-oriented). If there's any sort of agreement here I'll go ahead and start such a page, initially with some material from this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do so, Justlettersandnumbers, I'll gladly participate – I am a triffle too busy just now. Feel free to peruse anything available on my pages. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers: The world does not need more Western music theory, but go right ahead. I'd invite you to consider a non-Western music theory article instead. This whole article IS about Western european music. And tbh calling it Western music theory is a misnomer. It's actually the theory behind18th-century White european art music and musicians since then who have dominated institutions of higher learning and cultural institutions like the English National Opera and the Met.

The world of Wikipedia -- as the sum of all human knowledge -- needs more of non-Western music theories to offset the knowledge and info imbalance towards so called Western music theories. I strongly urge us to consider adding new perspectives that tell stories which have been erased and muted from the general knowledge as music theory.

That is the reasoning behind adding recent debates to this article. This article is not neutral and comprehensive of the discipline as it stands today. sheridanford (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

SheridanFord, as an European professional music theorist myself, I feel concerned with the fact that this discussion apparently is about, first, "Eurocentric Focus in Music Theory" (I presume that "Eurocentric" points to Europe, rather than to the Western world at large); then about "the global Black Lives Matter movement" which, I think, is not really "global" because the problem arose and remains mainly in the US. I cannot accept the idea that Western music theory is "the theory behind 18th-century white European art music and musicians", while there is an enormous corpus of Latin theory in the Middle Ages, and in a soon increasing number of Western languages, in the Renaissance and the Baroque.

In addition, although I am somewhat reluctant to admit it here, I believe that the very idea of music "theory" to a large extent is a "Western" (or "European", if you prefer) way of thinking. Music theories exist the world over, there is no doubt about that, but nowhere to the extent in which they exist(ed)' in "Europe" (or "the West", again as you prefer). This is a highly complex matter, of which Ewell (who obviously knows very litte about music theories worldwide) isn't aware. Ewell appears to be confusing music theory as a discipline taught in the US (and elsewhere) with as a consideration of music itself as done in many world cultures.

To say it otherwise, the problem perhaps is that our (and Ewell's) conception of "music theory" is a Western one, which may not readily apply to what may be considered "music theory" in other cultures. But this raises questions that certainly cannot be solved in Wikipedia. I understand that one of the most important American specialists of music theory is planning a collective History of Music Theory in the World (this may not be the final title). We should perhaps realize that WP cannot enter in competition which such a project. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too attached to or deeply knowledge enough about the inner worlds and specialized knowledge of all of the academic discipline of music theory. I've only attended a couple of US conferences. So to that, I admit humility. Yet as an ethnomusicologist—a field that notices musical theories beyond Western classical arts music histories, I am well aware of a handful of musical theories that are far older.

My concern in adding these edits is about what readers on the worldwide web or WP, general and young (not specialized) readers can and might discover from this article about what has been and is music theory.

If there are other debates to add to the intro to reflect range, help me add it. Could say in the intro that intellectual debates range from Plato's music of the spheres in X century to Phillip Ewell's debate on racial hierarchies limiting knowledge of non western music theories (2020-2024). I can do that and it would nice if ppl looked for where to help not hinder significant edits.

I hoped for a collaborative response rather than a gate keeping talk page discussion. I am but an aspect of that process. Might you all help add relevant issues like fellow worker bees or ants that crumb by crumb build the nest not just to argue over the aspects that are clearly credible.

I'm interested in adding to an unfinished and eternally evolving process, a philosophy of what is meaningful and what is debated as knowing what's known as music theories. Not a singular one which has been centered in any first level teachings of music theory on European ideologies primarily.

Wikipedia will never capture it all in any moment. But the thing about knowledge creation is that it is positional and situational. Most marginalized members of Wikipedia know the systemic biases affecting whose edits stick and are the first to be patrolled or thought to be vandalizing, and those whose edits are immediately deemed worthy of collaborating for the social good. Why? so any individual can contribute to the sum of all human beings' knowledge, not just the oldest or most dominant due to empire; not just the white males or the superior in written knowledge.

Theory — the concept— may need to be unpacked early in the article and this may very well involve moving what I think is essential in this discussion to a separate and new article.

The fact that the previous commenter does and can contextual the Ewell debate from a wider POV—one that is by no means representative of the full spectrum of a global point of view, chronologically or geographically—could amount to helping me find more sources to add to this article.

All I'm trying to do is include or just begin to add a significant debate that is notable among the US academic music theory community, using nearly 10 credible sources including peer reviewed articles — the good standard of scholarship— to the article on music theory.

A recent adage seems useful here. Amateurs compete. Professionals (or active WP editors) collaborate.

"There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil." ~ Alfred North Whitehead

Kindly, keeping faith in the wisdom of thinking and acting together,

sheridanford (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Above is tagged to @Hucbald.SaintAmand sheridanford (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

SheridanFord, you may not have seen the numerous discussions that already arose on WP about this matter. See mainly Philip_Ewell#"Music_Theory's_White_Racial_Frame" and several comments on the talk page of the same. You rightly write that "this article [should help discover] what has been and is music theory," and we all certainly agree about that. You rightly say that debates range "from Plato's music of the spheres" (I'd say even quite earlier than that), but you may be wrong when you continue "to Phillip Ewell's debate on racial hierarchies." Ewell merely suggested that we should "reframe" theory, but never said how, nor what he really meant by that. And there has been a lot of scientific debate after Ewell — I don't mean "about Ewell" — see for instance the Epistemologies of Music Analysis conference of 2023 in Paris (the Acts should be published soon, in the US as I understood).

You rightly ask for "a collaborative response," but you may not realize that what you want to discuss has been with us for several years now. Also, I for one (but others as well) think that Ewell's affair is but an annoying incident in the history of music theory worlwide. You mention it as "a significant debate that is notable among the US academic music theory community," but I hope that this debate is over. I'd view as a token of this the annoucement of the Sixth International Schenker Symposium (University of Michigan, March 2025) by the SMT itself.

So, let's indeed further discuss how we could best arrange the Music Theory article to be more inclusive of Non-Western theory. But the matter must be considered from a wider and more up-to-date perspective than that which you apparently suggested. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)