# famous youtuber and jazz musician adam neely claims music theory is racist



## julide

what do you all think?


----------



## starthrower

A very interesting video. He clearly states the point that there is a racist or biased angle to the way 18th century European music theory is taught and presented as superior and to the exclusion of the music theories of other cultures. Not that the theory itself is racist. But it's clearly not representative of all musical cultures and societies.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

He probably doesn't understand why 18th century music is used - it is the most studied and consistent language with good examples of masterworks. (The only problem is that some people have - even on this forum - the wrong impression that this is the only possible "canonical" music theory, while it is not even authentic in methodology and analysis of what is going on even in the style that is being taught; that's why there is a recent movement to teach partimenti etc)


----------



## millionrainbows

If you use the term "racist" then you are biasing the argument. It should be culturally/socially biased, not "racist."

The "Black Lives Matter" movement is really a bigger, more inclusive problem in which citizens have been "played" by the powers that be. So is "Classical music is "racist."


----------



## julide

should we assume the centrality of the common practice era or should we just claim all music is valid and should be taught to everyone even though that is not practical at all.... i love turkish art music and i'm turkish but i can see that its ottoman court music and its music associated with alcohol consumption and dining .... so i would never claim it to be universal and central to everyones experience.... whereas i can argue that mozart or beethovens music for the concert hall is truly democratic and they have that universality which might lack in arabic music, indian classical or what have you....... this relativism where everything is valid and there is no centre was already passe in the 60s but in our post covid world it feels like a farce when everyone parrots the same inclusivity diversity rhetoric when that is a very american concern........ but i truly hope worse for the americans because they deserve all of it... i just hate it when this kind of rhetoric spills out in all areas and all geographies....


----------



## julide

millionrainbows said:


> If you use the term "racist" then you are biasing the argument. It should be culturally/socially biased, not "racist."
> 
> The "Black Lives Matter" movement is really a bigger, more inclusive problem in which citizens have been "played" by the powers that be. So is "Classical music is "racist."


Can you elaborate on why do you think citizens have been "played" by the powers that be and how that came about and to what purpose. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing i was just intrigued by your reply.


----------



## SanAntone

A university course on 18th century counterpoint or music history is clearly NOT racist or culturally biased. The subject is what it is, limited and focused.

However, when I hear people claiming the superiority of Western (read European) classical music I cringe since it clearly undervalues music from other cultures. Coincidentally, Western Europe was also responsible for colonization, slavery, the genocide of indigenous peoples, among their crimes against humanity.

That said, the music produced by Western Europe is a great cultural achievement - but it is not the only one nor is it of intrinsically higher quality than other musical accomplishments by non-Western cultures, or even non-classical cultures in the West.

We have comparative religion courses, maybe a comparative music course might be interesting.


----------



## julide

SanAntone said:


> A university course on 18th century counterpoint or music history is clearly NOT racist or culturally biased. The subject is what it is, limited and focused.
> 
> However, when I hear people claiming the superiority of Western (read European) classical music I cringe since it clearly undervalues music from other cultures. Coincidentally, Western Europe was also responsible for colonization, slavery, the genocide of indigenous peoples, among their crimes against humanity.
> 
> That said, the music produced by Western Europe is a great cultural achievement - but it is not the only one nor is it of intrinsically higher quality than other musical accomplishments by non-Western cultures, or even non-classical cultures in the West.
> 
> We have comparative religion courses, maybe a comparative music course might be interesting.


Calling the common practice era music european music itself is a bit....... As if there was something inherently european (whatever that term might mean) in the music. Anyway common practice era music should not exclude other music from pedagogical concerns or approbation. But neither the fact of the european colonialism and european atrocities make this music something to be ashamed of. This warding off shame with calling music theory intrinsically racist because it only deals with common practice era music is ridiculous.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Music theories and notations (plural as in ancient and modern cultures) are an attempt to prescribe and explain/analyze the music respectively. There is nothing inherently racist with any of them. Those guys in the video are already being exclusive for interpreting music theory in general as Western music theory. 

Western music notation and theory, though, is the most comprehensive and advanced system on the planet. So it was adopted in many cultures by merit, not by class/race. Scott Joplin and Duke Ellington wrote some great stuff, but was still based off of the Eurocentric tradition. I feel those guys in the video are reducing music theory down to a particular style rather than overall scope. Bach's music was more influential than Ellington's. He at least indirectly influenced Ellington, and everyone that came after him. So it makes sense to study the music of the historical figure that influenced so many (including all pop artists whether or not they know it).

Sounds to me these guys in the video are re-evaluating why we put the horse before the cart.


----------



## norman bates

julide said:


> should we assume the centrality of the common practice era or should we just claim all music is valid and should be taught to everyone even though that is not practical at all.... i love turkish art music and i'm turkish but i can see that its ottoman court music and its music associated with alcohol consumption and dining .... so i would never claim it to be universal and central to everyones experience.... whereas i can argue that mozart or beethovens music for the concert hall is truly democratic and they have that universality which might lack in arabic music, indian classical or what have you....... this relativism where everything is valid and there is no centre was already passe in the 60s but in our post covid world it feels like a farce when everyone parrots the same inclusivity diversity rhetoric when that is a very american concern........ but i truly hope worse for the americans because they deserve all of it... i just hate it when this kind of rhetoric spills out in all areas and all geographies....


so you are basically saying that european music is superior to the music of all other cultures (without explaining why) and saying that to say otherwise is rhetoric.


----------



## norman bates

Phil loves classical said:


> Music theories and notations (plural as in ancient and modern cultures) are an attempt to prescribe and explain/analyze the music respectively. There is nothing inherently racist with any of them. Those guys in the video are already being exclusive for interpreting music theory in general as Western music theory.
> 
> Western music notation and theory, though, is the most comprehensive and advanced system on the planet. So it was adopted in many cultures by merit, not by class/race. Scott Joplin and Duke Ellington wrote some great stuff, but was still based off of the Eurocentric tradition. I feel those guys in the video are reducing music theory down to a particular style rather than overall scope. Bach's music was more influential than Ellington's. He at least indirectly influenced Ellington, and everyone that came after him. So it makes sense to study the music of the historical figure that influenced so many (including all pop artists whether or not they know it).


Ellington (and even more Strayhorn, but much more by the impressionists than Bach) was influenced by classical music, but their music was also something else. The blues didn't come from the harmony of eighteen century classical music. Same for swing.
And other jazz composers after Ellington were even more removed from that. It must be said that even the same classical music of the 20th century is very different from functional harmony of previous centuries.


----------



## julide

norman bates said:


> so you are basically saying that european music is superior to the music of all other cultures (without explaining why) and saying that to say otherwise is rhetoric.


i never said it was european music... and i certainly never would call common practice era music as "european" as if that term and what it connotes isnt a recent ideology.... i certainly did say that beethoven or mozart is more democratic music not superior dont get it twisted and try to make me the white supremacist.... they are not church music.... or court music... in the sense that they are for the concert hall..hence having a universality beyond other music.... like jazz music with a chamber formation, or a church music for christians or music for rituals.... hence concert hall music in the common practice era whether that be symphonies or concertos or recitals will always assume centrality pedagogically at least....


----------



## julide

now the practices of music theory might be experienced as racism by some jazz musician or some minority who might feel alienated by schenkerian analysis or whatever.... but calling the common practice era music inherently racist white and male is just incredibly vile......


----------



## Vasks

I now can imagine "woke" musicologists searching for info on racist thoughts of composers in the past, so we cancel their culture. 

And we'll be left with only Dittersdorf and Satie to enjoy.


----------



## norman bates

julide said:


> i never said it was european music... and i certainly never would call common practice era music as "european" as if that term and what it connotes isnt a recent ideology.... i certainly did say that beethoven or mozart is more democratic music not superior dont get it twisted and try to make the white supremacist.... they are not church music.... or court music... in the sense that they are for the concert hall..hence having a universality beyond other music.... like jazz music with a chamber formation, or a church music for christians or music for rituals.... hence concert hall music in the common practice era whether that be symphonies or concertos or recitals will always assume centrality pedagogically at least....


I don't get what the fact that music for a big orchestra had to be performed in a concert hall should give it more universality. Or why it should assume centrality pedagogically.
When I watched the video I thought that Adam Neely was absolutely right when he said that a person that wants to learn spanish would learn the modern version of it, not the spanish that was talked centuries ago. And that's exactly what happens with music. He even mentioned Rimksy Korsakov that said basically the same thing more than a century ago.


----------



## julide

norman bates said:


> I don't get what the fact that music for a big orchestra had to be performed in a concert hall should give it more universality. Or why it should assume centrality pedagogically.
> When I watched the video I thought that Adam Neely was absolutely right when he said that a person that wants to learn spanish would learn the modern version of it, not the spanish that was talked centuries ago. And that's exactly what happens with music. He even mentioned Rimksy Korsakov that said basically the same thing more than a century ago.


Anyone can go to a concert hall to listen to a symphony or a recital. It doesn't have to be a huge orchestra. My point is thats inclusivity. Not church music like bach's or ritualistic local music. Does that mean common practice era music is superior to them no. They just have universality which makes them pedagogically more important in academia. If you cant see why secular and humanistic music is priviliged by secular and humanistic institutions and call everything racist ... thats on you


----------



## norman bates

julide said:


> now the practices of music theory might be experienced as racism by some jazz musician or some minority who might feel alienated by schenkerian analysis or whatever.... but* calling the common practice era music inherently racist white and male is just incredibly vile*......


I don't think he said that. He (and more than him the professor he interviewed) said that TODAY, the fact that common practice harmony is still held in the highest regard (like even classical music didn't went beyond it) and it's still so central when the musical language of today is often very different can be explained in terms of racism.


----------



## norman bates

julide said:


> Anyone can go to a concert hall to listen to a symphony or a recital. It doesn't have to be a huge orchestra. My point is thats inclusivity. Not church music like bach's or ritualistic local music. Does that mean common practice era music is superior to them no. They just have universality which makes them pedagogically more important in academia. If you cant see why secular and humanistic music is priviliged by secular and humanistic institutions and call everything racist ... thats on you


again I don't understand what should make the concert hall more universal. Jazz too has been played in concert halls, and I suspect other genres too. If I'm not wrong maqam music has been played in concert halls. I don't know about indian music or gamelan or other stuff. And the fact that the same classical music of the twentieth century that is played in concert halls is often dramatically different from common practice music with incorporation of non functional harmony, modality, polytonality, atonality and serialism, microtonality, noise, concrete music, spectralism and other techniques.


----------



## mikeh375

norman bates said:


> I don't think he said that. He (and more than him the professor he interviewed) said that TODAY, the fact that common practice harmony is still held in the highest regard (like even classical music didn't went beyond it) and it's still so central when the musical language of today is often very different can be explained in terms of racism.


CP's high regard can also be explained by the benefits that learning it bestow on the musician and composer, even in todays musical multiverse. It functions as a solid foundation that can withstand any amount of aesthetic and technical building upon.

As pedagogy, CP learning is sometimes misunderstood by those who haven't been through it and do not understand how it contributes to the growth of a developing composer wanting to be versed in the best practice of the great canon of musical achievement.


----------



## JAS

Not liking jazz is no more inherently racist than preferring waffles to french toast might be. Personal taste is not necessarily a sign of racism, even if our preferences may be influenced by a broader context. Claims to the contrary do not make jazz any more appealing to me.


----------



## HenryPenfold

I think we need to think clearly about the hideous behaviour of Dvorak when he swept into the US, enjoyed white privalige, and indulged in some of the most blatant cultural appropriation that the world has ever seen. Perhaps the Czechs could lead by example and pull down all statues, plaques, paintings of him. I've done my bit; I've destroyed all my Dvorak CDs and burned the two books on him that I bought years ago. We must #kick racism and white supremacy out of music.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Not liking jazz is no more inherently racist than preferring waffles to french toast might be. Personal taste is not necessarily a sign of racism, even if our preferences may be influenced by a broader context. Claims to the contrary do not make jazz any more appealing to me.


True. But claiming that Western Classical Music is superior to Jazz is not merely stating a personal opinion.

I think all negative opinions are in large part based on ignorance. Limited exposure to possibly mediocre examples of a genre we are unfamiliar with could easily give the listener an inaccurate idea of the scope of that genre. Only with extended listening experience can anyone hope to delve into the complexities and richness of any genre.

It is my belief that the best Jazz is equal to the best Classical Music, in complexity, beauty, and musical invention.

However, if Jazz is not for you, saying simply that is vastly better than trying to claim that the music you happen to like is just better.


----------



## JAS

Claiming that any particular form of art is inherently superior (as opposed to merely a matter of taste) is pretty much always a lost cause. It wins no converts and serves no real purpose.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Claiming that any particular form of art is inherently superior (as opposed to merely a matter of taste) is pretty much always a lost cause. It wins no converts and serves no real purpose.


True, and yet I've heard that kind of claim made about Western Classical Music for as long as I can remember. And it is that kind of statement that renders the claimant vulnerable to a charge of racism or bigotry, IMO.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> True, and yet I've heard that kind of claim made about Western Classical Music for as long as I can remember. And it is that kind of statement that renders the claimant vulnerable to a charge of racism or bigotry, IMO.


I think that, for the most part, that may be more snobbery than racism, although individual cases may qualify for that. I have also heard similar claims made in favor of Jazz, Rock and Hip-Hop, without it ever occurring to me that it is a matter of racism or bigotry.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> I think that, for the most part, that may be more snobbery than racism, although individual cases may qualify for that. I have also heard similar claims made in favor of Jazz, Rock and Hip-Hop, without it ever occurring to me that it is a matter of racism or bigotry.


Not to belabor the point, but while I have heard that kind of thing said about Classical Music by a Rock fan (for one example), I have interpreted it as a statement of personal preference, they just like Rock better and find Classical Music boring for one reason or another. However, I've never heard a Rock fan try to make a case that Rock is on a higher plane of creativity or musical quality than Classical Music.

Whereas that is exactly the kind of argument I've heard made countless times on behalf of Classical Music _vis a vis_ other genres.


----------



## JAS

Well, I have heard the identical claim made for each of the forms noted. Classical Music has a pedigree of several centuries (and probably a larger bank of snobs to draw from), which probably makes it more prone to that sort of thing. Except in particular instances, I don't think any of this is properly denoted as racism, and saying so undermines credibility of better claims of actual racism (which is a serious problem).


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Well, I have heard the identical claim made for each of the forms noted. Classical Music has a pedigree of several centuries, which probably makes it more prone to that sort of thing. Except in particular instances, I don't think any of this is properly denoted as racism, and saying so undermines credibility of better claims of actual racism (which is a serious problem).


This is where we depart. Unconscious racism is a phrase I've heard a lot recently, but I understand it to mean someone who doesn't even know their cultural biases. To think that Western European Classical Music is inherently superior to say, West African music - could imply that the speaker harbors an unconscious cultural bias that African culture is inferior to European culture. I cannot tolerate that kind of thinking. One can only say something like that with a large dose of arrogance and hubris.

And I've never heard a Blues musician (for one example) claim that his music is superior to Classical Music. Partly, because Classical Music is largely an undiscovered island for him - but more importantly, that kind of broad claim would never occur to him to make.

BTW, I have been a professional musician, and I've interacted with many musicians from a variety of genres: Jazz, Classical, Country and Rock. I can tell you in my experience the most arrogant were some Classical musicians, although some Jazz guys run a close not too distant second. But they are almost always making the claim for Jazz being superior to Rock, or other Pop genres.

But the most arrogant are Classical Music fans.


----------



## JAS

I don't think this is necessarily unconscious racism as I don't think that it is necessarily racism at all. Racism is a deeply rooted and serious problem, and we must be mindful of it in evaluating our own thoughts and actions, but not everything can be explained by or as racism.

While racism = bad is true (in my mind), bad = racism is not necessarily true.


----------



## millionrainbows

julide said:


> Can you elaborate on why do you think citizens have been "played" by the powers that be and how that came about and to what purpose. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing i was just intrigued by your reply.


I'll elaborate more on that after I finish reading this book.



julide said:


> now the practices of music theory might be experienced as racism by some jazz musician or some minority who might feel alienated by schenkerian analysis or whatever.... *but calling the common practice era music inherently racist white and male is just incredibly vile......*


Yes, it is, but it's not on purpose, or with bad intent. Like all racism and supremacy, it's unconscious, a cultural "given," an assumption.

This is the same as white people being told they are racist. All human beings are "racist" in a sense. It's all unconscious, so we have to "wake up" to see it.


----------



## Bwv 1080

all 'classical' traditions - European, Indian, Persian, Chinese etc are the music of elites. We dont baggage Chinese Opera or Hindustani music with the unsavory acts by the elites of those societies, why should European music be different in this regard? Yes, holding common practice theory as some sort of scientific universal standard of music is stupid and people would be much better educated using, as Adam says, other traditions as 'foils' to better understand music in general. However, if the goal of a music theory class is to better prepare a performer for a job in a symphony, then teaching sonata form is more valuable than teaching gamelan music


----------



## Phil loves classical

norman bates said:


> I don't think he said that. He (and more than him the professor he interviewed) said that TODAY, the fact that common practice harmony is still held in the highest regard (like even classical music didn't went beyond it) and it's still so central when the musical language of today is often very different can be explained in terms of racism.


Pop music is the most popular musical genre of today, and does use common practice harmony, while there is nothing in it that goes beyond the Classical masters in terms of scope (an understatement). So studying the chord progressions from Taylor Swift is less illuminating than from the masters.

Classical is more fundamental than Jazz in that Jazz uses a lot of chord extensions which were built from the foundations of common practice harmony, so it makes sense to study Bach, Telemann before Coltrane and others. Ellington himself thought of Jazz as modern Classical. I noticed the RCM has been introducing pop and jazz songs into the repertoire for piano.

There's nothing stopping someone who wants to get into Jazz to bypass the stuff less applicable to them, but to expect conservatories to do the same? Also how would they be able to analyze children lullabies and songs like Twinkle, Twinkle? Or do they have to introduce more contemporary and diverse songs for kids? It's easy to make a Youtube video and get viewer support, but not easy or practical to actually do.


----------



## Jacck

grammar is racist, math is sexist, and musical theory is white supremacist and eurocentric, and if you question these views, you are a racist, sexist, misogynist, white supremacist pig and you should be canceled.


----------



## Guest

HenryPenfold said:


> *I think we need to think clearly about the hideous behaviour of Dvorak when he swept into the US, enjoyed white privalige, and indulged in some of the most blatant cultural appropriation that the world has ever seen.* Perhaps the Czechs could lead by example and pull down all statues, plaques, paintings of him. I've done my bit; I've destroyed all my Dvorak CDs and burned the two books on him that I bought years ago. We must #kick racism and white supremacy out of music.


Hah! Maybe, Mr Penfold, you are old enough to remember the TV ads in the late 70s in the UK for "*Hovis brown bread*" that used an adaptation for brass band of the slow movement from AD's _New World_ symphony. *Brown* bread! Good lord! And with music from "The New World"! Appropriated from the idigenous culture! I'll never be able to listen to any of his music again. You have ruined my day.


----------



## HenryPenfold

TalkingHead said:


> Hah! Maybe, Mr Penfold, you are old enough to remember the TV ads in the late 70s in the UK for "*Hovis brown bread*" that used an adaptation for brass band of the slow movement from AD's _New World_ symphony. *Brown* bread! Good lord! And with music from "The New World"! Appropriated from the idigenous culture! I'll never be able to listen to any of his music again. You have ruined my day.


Lol!

...... and I remember those adverts like it was yesterday and I still buy Hovis religiously!






*Edit*: Although I've almost exclusively eaten Hovis brown bread all my life, I must publicly state that I also believe white loaves matter.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> Pop music is the most popular musical genre of today, and does use common practice harmony, while there is nothing in it that goes beyond the Classical masters in terms of scope (an understatement). So studying the chord progressions from Taylor Swift is less illuminating than from the masters.
> 
> Classical is more fundamental than Jazz in that Jazz uses a lot of chord extensions which were built from the foundations of common practice harmony, so it makes sense to study Bach, Telemann before Coltrane and others. Ellington himself thought of Jazz as modern Classical. I noticed the RCM has been introducing pop and jazz songs into the repertoire for piano.
> 
> There's nothing stopping someone who wants to get into Jazz to bypass the stuff less applicable to them, but to expect conservatories to do the same? Also how would they be able to analyze children lullabies and songs like Twinkle, Twinkle? Or do they have to introduce more contemporary and diverse songs for kids? It's easy to make a Youtube video and get viewer support, but not easy or practical to actually do.


Studying "common practice" harmony, form, or history is of no use to anyone other than someone wishing to go on to study composition, musicology or music education. In fact it is questionable of how much use it is for budding composers, since it can create some bad habits like trying to write in sonata form for music that is not harmonically suitable.

But I have no gripe with teaching 18th century music history or counterpoint or harmony or form since it is a subject that still has some relevance. And to do so is absolutely not "racist" or "Eurocentric" or what not. It is no different from teaching courses on Black history or Women's studies. The curriculum is a focused subject matter and has a specified audience and purpose.

What does touch on racism is the claim that European classical music is the highest expression of music mankind has created, superior to all other genres of music, or music from non-Western cultures.

The fact is there is much music, non-classical music, e.g. Blues, which is so complex it cannot begin to be described using Western classical notation. While it is possible to write out a crude version of a melody - all of the aspects which make Blues what it is are missing: the complex rhythm, the most basic aspect cannot be described with Western note durations, and the melodic style - the notes of which fall between the cracks of any Western scale. Which is why this (as well as many musics) are transmitted orally.

Western music has wielded a hegemony of a written tradition as some sort of indication of superiority. But that is a specious argument.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I almost fell reading that one: Blues is complex?! I love Blues, but I can't imagine how it can be so complex that it couldn't be notated. There is way more complex music that IS notated.

BTW, this is pretty bluesy, and more complex than the usual Blues I've listened to.


----------



## JAS

That fallin' outta ma chair blueeesssss . . . .


----------



## julide

SanAntone said:


> Studying "common practice" harmony, form, or history is of no use to anyone other than someone wishing to go on to study composition, musicology or music education. In fact it is questionable of how much use it is for budding composers, since it can create some bad habits like trying to write in sonata form for music that is not harmonically suitable.
> 
> But I have no gripe with teaching 18th century music history or counterpoint or harmony or form since it is a subject that still has some relevance. And to do so is absolutely not "racist" or "Eurocentric" or what not. It is no different from teaching courses on Black history or Women's studies. The curriculum is a focused subject matter and has a specified audience and purpose.
> 
> What does touch on racism is the claim that European classical music is the highest expression of music mankind has created, superior to all other genres of music, or music from non-Western cultures.
> 
> The fact is there is much music, non-classical music, e.g. Blues, which is so complex it cannot begin to be described using Western classical notation. While it is possible to write out a crude version of a melody - all of the aspects which make Blues what it is are missing: the complex rhythm, the most basic aspect cannot be described with Western note durations, and the melodic style - the notes of which fall between the cracks of any Western scale. Which is why this (as well as many musics) are transmitted orally.
> 
> Western music has wielded a hegemony of a written tradition as some sort of indication of superiority. But that is a specious argument.


Did anyone claim "european classical music" -oh i shudder to call it that- was superior that you went on this rant. The discussion was how whiteness and maleness was assigned to common practice era music and was considered not "diverse and woke" and therefore racist that it took a central position in musical pedagogy. And then you had to claim how blues was this superiorly complex music. Make it make sense.....


----------



## Bwv 1080

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I almost fell reading that one: Blues is complex?! I love Blues, but I can't imagine how it can be so complex that it couldn't be notated. There is way more complex music that IS notated.
> 
> BTW, this is pretty bluesy, and more complex than the usual Blues I've listened to.


Art>Sergei


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I almost fell reading that one: Blues is complex?! I love Blues, but I can't imagine how it can be so complex that it couldn't be notated. There is way more complex music that IS notated.
> 
> BTW, this is pretty bluesy, and more complex than the usual Blues I've listened to.


Anyone with a knowledge of musical notation and Blues will readily agree that while you can notate a Blues melody using Western notation, it will sound very little like a performance by a Blues singer. You may have heard about the Blues scale, usually said to have a flatted 3rd and 7th degrees and sometimes the flatted 5th. This is a crude description of the melodic patterns used in Blues music. It is microtonal so that (in C) the 3rd is not an E nor is it an E-flat - it is somewhere in between and often there are several variations, some slightly flatter or sharper than others. Blues pianists came up with some tricks, playing two notes at the same time, crushing the E/Eb together in an attempt to simulate this conundrum. But Blues is normally played on a slide guitar (or bending the strings) and singing, where the melody is not confined to Western scales.

Then there is the rhythm. You may have heard of the concept of "swing" most often used in reference to Jazz. There is no satisfactory method of notating this way of playing. Some used the dotted eight-sixteenth, a very exaggerated version, others use triplets - but nether method really captures how Louis Armstrong plays his melodies. Blues uses a similar swinging rhythmic stye.

Blues must be transmitted orally, as is also true for Flamenco music, Indian Classical Music, and Bluegrass, and countless other kinds of vernacular music.

Your example is not Blues it is a a composed work using some syncopation but has nothing in common with Blues.


----------



## Bwv 1080

SanAntone said:


> Blues must be transmitted orally, as is also true for Flamenco music, Indian Classical Music, and Bluegrass, and countless other kinds of vernacular music.


But this is also true of Western Classical music, you cant become a good player without personal instruction on phrasing, dynamics, ornamentation, rubato and other items not in the score


----------



## SanAntone

julide said:


> Did anyone claim "european classical music" -oh i shudder to call it that- was superior that you went on this rant. The discussion was how whiteness and maleness was assigned to common practice era music and was considered not "diverse and woke" and therefore racist that it took a central position in musical pedagogy. And then you had to claim how blues was this superiorly complex music. Make it make sense.....


Common Practice music is European Classical music. It was created in large part by white males. Teaching this music accurately and historically is not racist. That is a very short discussion. I took that discussion on a short tangent because my entire life as a Classical music listener, and practitioner, I have been subjected to a parade Classical fans and musicians claiming its superiority over all other musics (often this occurs on Internet forums). A notion I do consider racist.

If someone wants a university course to be "woke and diverse" I suggest a comparative music course, much like a comparative religion course.

But wokeness and diversity have no place in the study of 18th century Western common practice music, since it is what it is: the music of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and their contemporaries. Unless you are suggesting we include the study of the 18th century music of Africa. Something I would expect might occur in a comparative music course.


----------



## SanAntone

Bwv 1080 said:


> But this is also true of Western Classical music, you cant become a good player without personal instruction on phrasing, dynamics, ornamentation, rubato and other items not in the score


That is icing on the cake. Western notation accurately captures the music and while you may never become great without instruction, you can play the music convincingly. Not so with Blues read from notation without having at least heard a real Blues musician play it.

I have heard Classical musicians try to play it from reading a score. Apparently you have not.


----------



## Bwv 1080

SanAntone said:


> That is icing on the cake. Western notation accurately captures the music and while you may never become great without instruction, you can play the music convincingly. Not so with Blues read from notation without having at least heard a real Blues musician play it.
> 
> I have heard Classical musicians try to play it from reading a score. Apparently you have not.


Yes, and I have also heard Jazz players try to read and phrase Baroque music, and suck at it


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> Anyone with a knowledge of musical notation and Blues will readily agree that while you can notate a Blues melody using Western notation, it will sound very little like a performance by a Blues singer. You may have heard about the Blues scale, usually said to have a flatted 3rd and 7th degrees and sometimes the flatted 5th. This is a crude description of the melodic patterns used in Blues music. It is microtonal so that (in C) the 3rd is not an E nor is it an E-flat - it is somewhere in between and often there are several variations, some slightly flatter or sharper than others. Blues pianists came up with some tricks, playing two notes at the same time, crushing the E/Eb together in an attempt to simulate this conundrum. But Blues is normally played on a slide guitar (or bending the strings) and singing, where the melody is not confined to Western scales.
> 
> Then there is the rhythm. You may have heard of the concept of "swing" most often used in reference to Jazz. There is no satisfactory method of notating this way of playing. Some used the dotted eight-sixteenth, a very exaggerated version, others use triplets - but nether method really captures how Louis Armstrong plays his melodies. Blues uses a similar swinging rhythmic stye.
> 
> Blues must be transmitted orally, as is also true for Flamenco music, Indian Classical Music, and Bluegrass, and countless other kinds of vernacular music.
> 
> Your example is not Blues it is a a composed work using some syncopation but has nothing in common with Blues.


You're getting more into performance vs the written music. No Classical musician only goes by what is written mechanically. Also you can go as detailed in notation as you want. Microtones have been notated (to the point of 1200 different pitches in an octave I've heard claimed in Johnston's Quartet 7). And the rhythm you are suggesting is like a 5:3 (or you can go 7:4, 7:3, 7:2) ratio, which can be easily notated, but would only be complicating something that isn't that complex to begin with. Ever look at a Ferneyhough score? You can notate any rhythm.

I love Blues, but it's just not complex. The performance matters so much in Blues, because it can't hang solely on the essence of its notes and rhythms alone, which are so simple. You need that embellishment to make it interesting and alive. The fact that Classical and Jazz could retain more of its essence is because it was more complex to begin with. Much of the life was already written into the music, even though it could be further realized with interpretation.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> You're getting more into performance vs the written music. No Classical musician only goes by what is written mechanically. Also you can go as detailed in notation as you want. Microtones have been notated (to the point of 1200 different pitches in an octave I've heard claimed in Johnston's Quartet 7). And the rhythm you are suggesting is like a 5:3 (or you can go 7:4, 7:3, 7:2) ratio, which can be easily notated, but would only be complicating something that isn't that complex to begin with. Ever look at a Ferneyhough score? You can notate any rhythm.
> 
> I love Blues, but it's just not complex. The performance matters so much in Blues, because it can't hang solely on the essence of its notes and rhythms alone, which are so simple. You need that embellishment to make it interesting and alive. The fact that Classical and Jazz could retain more of its essence is because it was more complex to begin with. Much of the life was already written into the music, even though it could be further realized with interpretation.


We simply disagree, about the complexity of Blues and other vernacular musics and the resulting inability of Western musical notation to really capture a Blues song. What I am describing is accurately writing down the performance - and then, and this is the rub, what it will sound like for a Classically trained musician to read the score, not having heard the song/performance, and compare the two.

I can tell you from first hand experience they will sound very different. Reading a score of swing rhythms and the microtones of a Blues melody without any experience of the real thing will sound stiff and plodding - a universe away from the original. Some musicians who have only had a Classical training cannot even replicate the phrasing even after hearing a recording. It's not in their muscle memory, which is how a musician develops his technique.

The score of a Beethoven sonata completely captures the pitches and rhythms and much of the articulation and phrasing. Yes it can be enhanced by study with a teacher who was himself taught by someone who might have a direct link to a student of Beethoven's who could impart some information that would help in interpreting the score. But there is no discrepancy between what Beethoven wrote and what he played.

To try to do this with a performance of a Blues song would be monumentally more complicated and still not produce a convincing performance.

You have described how complex a score looks when it tries to notate microtones and complex rhythms. Ferneyhough is a product of a Western Classical music education and tradition. All of his rhythms are coming out of that. As I said earlier - we cannot even accurately notate the rhythm of Louis Armstrong's swing phrasing. Armstrong came out of an African tradition. non-Western, even though he grew up in New Orleans, the music (and this has been documented for Blues as well) evidences many attributes found in West African, not Western European Classical, music.

I really think you are missing the point.


----------



## SanAntone

Bwv 1080 said:


> Yes, and I have also heard Jazz players try to read and phrase Baroque music, and suck at it


I agree. I am not saying that Blues or Jazz musicians are better musicians than Classical musicians, only that their training has been different and that it is very hard to cross those boundaries, for either. One has to work very hard at both styles (a lot of listening, and practicing) and most do not care to expand their focus. Some do, Wynton Marsalis, Herbie Hancock on the Jazz side playing Classical, and Friedrich Gulda on the Classical side (I'm sure there are others).

But why bother, we have so many great musicians from each camp and there is really no need other than a personal choice for a musician to try to be equally competent in both fields.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> We simply disagree, about the complexity of Blues and other vernacular musics and the resulting inability of Western musical notation to really capture a Blues song. What I am describing is accurately writing down the performance - and then, and this is the rub, what it will sound like for a Classically trained musician to read the score, not having heard the song/performance, and compare the two.
> 
> I can tell you from first hand experience they will sound very different. Reading a score of swing rhythms and the microtones of a Blues melody without any experience of the real thing will sound stiff and plodding - a universe away from the original. Some musicians who have only had a Classical training cannot even replicate the phrasing even after hearing a recording. It's not in their muscle memory, which is how a musician develops his technique.
> 
> The score of a Beethoven sonata completely captures the pitches and rhythms and much of the articulation and phrasing. Yes it can be enhanced by study with a teacher who was himself taught by someone who might have a direct link to a student of Beethoven's who could impart some information that would help in interpreting the score. But there is no discrepancy between what Beethoven wrote and what he played.
> 
> To try to do this with a performance of a Blues song would be monumentally more complicated and still not produce a convincing performance.
> 
> You have described how complex a score looks when it tries to notate microtones and complex rhythms. Ferneyhough is a product of a Western Classical music education and tradition. All of his rhythms are coming out of that. As I said earlier - we cannot even *accurately notate the rhythm of Louis Armstrong's swing phrasing*. Armstrong came out of an African tradition. non-Western, even though he grew up in New Orleans, the music (and this has been documented for Blues as well) evidences many attributes found in West African, not Western European Classical, music.
> 
> I really think you are missing the point.


I do think there is an intuition when it comes to Blues, a certain groove. But as I said that can be replicated with complete accuracy (one way is using nested tuplets) and notated, the below video talks a bit about it. It's groovy and looks complicated on paper. Ferneyhough's notation can be applied to any rhythm in any genre. Also some natural gifts can't be transferred to other performers. John Lee Hooker's thick deep voice and Skip James spooky voice are likely hard for anyone to imitate, *including* other Blues performers, which I why I don't bother with covers unless they don't try to replicate it, but offer some additional insight.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> I do think there is an intuition when it comes to Blues, a certain groove. But as I said that can be replicated with complete accuracy (one way is using nested tuplets) and notated, the below video talks a bit about it. It's groovy and looks complicated on paper. Ferneyhough's notation can be applied to any rhythm in any genre. Also some natural gifts can't be transferred to other performers. John Lee Hooker's thick deep voice and Skip James spooky voice are likely hard for anyone to imitate, *including* other Blues performers, which I why I don't bother with covers unless they don't try to replicate it, but offer some additional insight.


Western Classical music has been transmitted through scores; Blues and other vernacular music has not. By definition vernacular music is transmitted orally. There is a reason for this - the music happens outside of a score, does not need one and cannot accurately be captured by one.

Not only is a score superfluous it inhibits the transmission. A student needs to hear how the master plays the music and then s/he mimics the rhythms and the melodies until they understand the style and can do it naturally. A score is entirely irrelevant to this process. And because the music is written, performed and transmitted without ever being notated - a score must come after the fact and attempt to capture that process the best it can. In the case of Blues, not very well.

You are hung up on the idea that Blues songs could possibly be captured in notation. I don't think so, I've never seen it. And a score is 100% unnecessary for Blues to be learned and performed. As has been the case for more than a century.

Despite the fact that Brian Ferneyhough writes complex rhythms and notates them - his music has nothing to do with Blues. And in fact he admits that he purposely writes rhythms and figures he does not think possible to play but when a performer attempts to play them, that process produces the kind of music he desires.

Blues has only been transmitted orally, either one-on-one or through recordings that musicians use to learn the music (ask Eric Clapton). The opposite is the case for Western Classical music.

I'm done.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> Blues has only been transmitted orally, either one-on-one or through recordings that musicians use to learn the music (ask Eric Clapton). *The opposite is the case for Western Classical music.*
> 
> I'm done.


I agree notation is not the way to teach Blues performance, because you're not transmitting the style or spirit in the music, and it is also not necessary because all you have to do is carry a melody, a riff and some chords (still requires substantial dexterity and technique); the complexity just doesn't warrant a written score, even though it could easily be done. But the first part goes with the improvisation and performance in any style *including *Classical. An opera singer can't successfully sing based on the score alone which doesn't specify when to carry a vibrato, certain ornaments, etc., there has to be some specialized training. The same with the violin, the score doesn't show how to phrase.

The original point is that anything in music can be notated, here is an example of Robert Johnson. What is missing in the score from actual performance is also the similar in an opera aria. By elevating the complexity of Blues performance, there runs the danger of trivializing Classical performance.

https://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/HL-6574.html


----------



## mikeh375

SanAntone said:


> Studying "common practice" harmony, form, or history is of no use to anyone other than someone wishing to go on to study composition, musicology or music education. *In fact it is questionable of how much use it is for budding composers, since it can create some bad habits like trying to write in sonata form for music that is not harmonically suitable.
> *


Apologies for the digression here. If CP is practised, mastered and internalised in an appropriate and pertinent way by the composer, the outcome can be quite the opposite to the above and provide musical instincts that develop the composer and give them the foundation to progress upon even further. My point being that via the learning, the composer is also musically finding themselves. They must also have a sense of adventure in order to not be hidebound by CP once it's been assimilated and a good composer with something worth pursuing will naturally do this regardless.


----------



## millionrainbows

SanAntone said:


> Studying "common practice" harmony, form, or history is of no use to anyone other than someone wishing to go on to study composition, musicology or music education. In fact it is questionable of how much use it is for budding composers, since it can create some bad habits like trying to write in sonata form for music that is not harmonically suitable.


I agree with you.



SanAntone said:


> Common Practice music is European Classical music. It was created in large part by white males. Teaching this music accurately and historically is not racist. That is a very short discussion. I took that discussion on a short tangent because my entire life as a Classical music listener, and practitioner, I have been subjected to a parade Classical fans and musicians claiming its superiority over all other musics (often this occurs on Internet forums). A notion I do consider racist.
> 
> If someone wants a university course to be "woke and diverse" I suggest a comparative music course, much like a comparative religion course.
> 
> But wokeness and diversity have no place in the study of 18th century Western common practice music, since it is what it is: the music of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and their contemporaries. Unless you are suggesting we include the study of the 18th century music of Africa. Something I would expect might occur in a comparative music course.


To the extent that this whole argument is about promoting "diversity," it is off the mark. "Cultural diversity" should not really be the point (although diversity might be a by-product of a more modern approach).

Music theory needs to have a common ground with CP and more modern thinking. Things like "German Neapolitan 6ths" (or whatever they call it) are so specialized (and ultimately _alienating_ to many people) that they only apply to CP music and are irrelevant to more modern musical thinkers, whether they are 'classical' modernists or jazzers.

This whole argument against "diversity" is off the mark. Music theory should be taught in a more logical, less specialized way, which would be understandable by all musical thinkers, including modern and jazz.

Music has logical principles which can be expressed in less specialized and academic, elitist ways.


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Apologies for the digression here. If CP is practised, mastered and internalised in an appropriate and pertinent way by the composer, the outcome can be quite the opposite to the above and provide musical instincts that develop the composer and give them the foundation to progress upon even further. My point being that via the learning, the composer is also musically finding themselves. They must also have a sense of adventure in order to not be hidebound by CP once it's been assimilated and a good composer with something worth pursuing will naturally do this regardless.


I have nothing against all the details and specialized quirks of CP 18th century theory _per se;_ I just think it needs to be revised and updated conceptually to present a more updated (and thus inclusive) approach.


----------



## millionrainbows

julide said:


> Did anyone claim "european classical music" -oh i shudder to call it that- was superior...?


This attitude is somewhat implicitly assumed in the classical music world, and more explicitly exemplified by the musicologist Theodore Adorno (né _Wiesengrund_), whose views about jazz music and its cultural heritage are almost unpublishable).


----------



## norman bates

Phil loves classical said:


> Pop music is the most popular musical genre of today, and does use common practice harmony, while there is nothing in it that goes beyond the Classical masters in terms of scope (an understatement). So studying the chord progressions from Taylor Swift is less illuminating than from the masters.
> 
> Classical is more fundamental than Jazz in that Jazz uses a lot of chord extensions which were built from the foundations of common practice harmony, so it makes sense to study Bach, Telemann before Coltrane and others.


there's a famous video of Alex Hoffman, a jazz sax player, who few years ago become famous saying that Wayne Shorter (one of the most brilliant jazz composers ever) was a terrible musician and composer basically because his music didn't respected the rules of common practice harmony. And he used that argument against a lot of jazz.

I'll put it here in the remote case you're interested, but it's an hour long video.





But it's not necessary to watch it. The point that while his judgement on Shorter is just laughable, he's right on one thing: a lot of modern jazz doesn't follow the rules of common practice harmony. And onestly doesn't sound at all like it (I even opened a thread years ago asking if there were classical music that sounded similar to what guys like Shorter, Andrew Hill and similar musicians were doing, and sadly the thread didn't bring me the suggestions I hoped to find). 
He also shows in that video exactly what the video of Adam Neely is about: basically a musician judging a certain music inferior because it doesn't follow that fixed sets of rules.


----------



## JAS

^^^ but not necessarily because of race.


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> ^^^ but not necessarily because of race.


well, I don't think that Hoffman is racist. But he basically supports the idea that the cp tradition is superior? Why? Just because it is. And that way of thinking has probably something to do with racism. And I'm saying this as someone who thinks that politically correctness is doing a lot of bad things lately (the questionable Academy award decision about giving Oscars only to movies that achieve criteria of inclusion is the last one).


----------



## JAS

^^^ A preference with strong cultural roots is not necessarily racist. Too many people are far too quick to make such a charge, which merely cheapens it when it really applies. Saying that an architect who designs glass boxes is a lousy architect because you prefer Victorian design and he lacks the "right" level of ornamentation may be foolish, but to say that it is racist, even a little bit is just as bad, in terms of bad though processes. (It would be perfectly fine to say that such an architect would not be one that you would hire due to the distinction of tastes, and it is also fine to have and express that difference for what it is.)


----------



## BabyGiraffe

norman bates said:


> The point that while his judgement on Shorter is just laughable, he's right on one thing: a lot of modern jazz doesn't follow the rules of common practice harmony. And onestly doesn't sound at all like it (I even opened a thread years ago asking if there were classical music that sounded similar to what guys like Shorter, Andrew Hill and similar musicians were doing, and sadly the thread didn't bring me the suggestions I hoped to find).


Well, Schenker thought that his contemporary music was garbage and this garbage music has more in common with modern jazz than with CP (considering how many jazz arrangers actually studied and imitated impressionist and late romantic composer).
If you are looking for albums, check the stuff that got nominated for Grammy over the years in the category - "instrumental jazz albums". There are some good ones with orchestra.

About jazz vs CP - of course, they have nothing in common. It's like saying that CP style is garbage, because it doesn't sound like medieval music. What was that idiom: Comparing apples and oranges, right?


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> ^^^ A preference with strong cultural roots is not necessarily racist. Too many people are far to quick to make such a charge, which merely cheapens it when it really applies. Saying that an architect who designs glass boxes is a lousy architect because you prefer Victorian design and he lacks the "right" level of ornamentation may be foolish, but to say that it is racist, even a little bit is just as bad, in terms in bad though processes.


well... actually the some of the most important names in modern architecture were big racists and/or guys who collaborated with/admired nazism ( Adolf Loos, Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe, Philip Johnson), so I'm not sure it's a good example. 
But jokes apart, I think there's a difference between having strong cultural roots and saying "this tradition is superior"* like it's an axiom that doesn't even need strong justifications. 
And I'm not for extreme relativism or for putting all music at the same level. But in the latter* to some degree I see some implications that for many people (not necessarily for all, and maybe not even for the majority) have to do with racism.


----------



## JAS

norman bates said:


> . . . I think there's a difference between having strong cultural roots and saying "this tradition is superior" like it's an axiom that doesn't even need strong justifications.
> And I'm not for extreme relativism or for putting all music at the same level. But in the latter to some degree I see some implications that for many people (not necessarily for all, and maybe not even for the majority) have to do with racism.


While I agree that there might be a difference, I don't think that racism is the right name for that difference. We all tend to think our own tastes are superior. (If we didn't, we might have different tastes.)

If someone does not want to eat seal meat, that does not make that person a racist against Eskimos (or Inuits). That person might actually be such a racist, if pressed on other points, but not merely on that, or even a number of similar preferences. Likewise, if someone thinks that eating witchetty grubs is gross, and doesn't really even want to consider it, that does name make that person racist against Aboriginal Australians. It would be different, I think, if the reason for not wanting to eat grubs was because they were a common food source of the Aboriginal Australians.


----------



## Phil loves classical

norman bates said:


> there's a famous video of Alex Hoffman, a jazz sax player, who few years ago become famous saying that Wayne Shorter (one of the most brilliant jazz composers ever) was a terrible musician and composer basically because his music didn't respected the rules of common practice harmony. And he used that argument against a lot of jazz.
> 
> I'll put it here in the remote case you're interested, but it's an hour long video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not necessary to watch it. The point that while his judgement on Shorter is just laughable, he's right on one thing: a lot of modern jazz doesn't follow the rules of common practice harmony. And onestly doesn't sound at all like it (I even opened a thread years ago asking if there were classical music that sounded similar to what guys like Shorter, Andrew Hill and similar musicians were doing, and sadly the thread didn't bring me the suggestions I hoped to find).
> He also shows in that video exactly what the video of Adam Neely is about: basically a musician judging a certain music inferior because it doesn't follow that fixed sets of rules.


I couldn't find the patience to sit through the video, but i'll take your word on it. I don't agree with Alex Hoffmann that common practice harmony is superior. But I do agree that Wayne Shorter sucks from what I've heard. I find him very inconsistent in any sort of coherent pattern and doesn't go nearly as deep as the Modern and Avante Garde Classical greats or Eric Dolphy who are also outside of common practice tonality. They were consistent in their patterns/techniques and went a lot further using them. Shorter sounds very shallow and superficial to me. But I shouldn't continue this vein in a Music Theory subforum.






Compare that with:


----------



## norman bates

Phil loves classical said:


> But I do agree that Wayne Shorter sucks from what I've heard.


ok, we can stop the discussion here, you don't know what you're talking about.



Phil loves classical said:


> He doesn't go nearly as deep as the Modern and Avante Garde Classical greats or Eric Dolphy who are also outside of common practice tonality. They were consistent in their patterns/techniques and went a lot further using them. Shorter sounds very shallow and superficial to me. But I shouldn't continue this vein in a Music Theory subforum.


"shallow and superficial" Shorter. What I have to read. Ok, that's a demonstration that even fans of classical music could say the most ridiculous things. This is worth of the "Sibelius worst composer ever".


----------



## Bwv 1080

LOL, Shorter is the greatest living Jazz composer, hands down. Its like saying Beethoven sucks


----------



## Phil loves classical

norman bates said:


> ok, we can stop the discussion here, you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> "shallow and superficial" Shorter. What I have to read. Ok, that's a demonstration that even fans of classical music could say the most ridiculous things. This is worth of the "Sibelius worst composer ever".


I only heard his later stuff I should probably clarify. BUt yeah, that's how I feel of his later stuff.


----------



## JAS

Shorter must be more shallow than longer.


----------



## julide

Bwv 1080 said:


> LOL, Shorter is the greatest living Jazz composer, hands down. Its like saying Beethoven sucks


I'm not familiar with his work but i found speak no evil dull and too cool for my taste. I love harmonically adventurous jazz like anthony braxton's...... Also is anyone familiar with Micheal Formanek's The Distance i found that album great and he was influenced by messieans organ music among other things. I also enjoy Tim Berne.


----------



## Phil loves classical

julide said:


> I'm not familiar with his work but i found speak no evil dull and too cool for my taste. I love harmonically adventurous jazz like anthony braxton's...... Also is anyone familiar with Micheal Formanek's The Distance i found that album great and he was influenced by messieans organ music among other things. I also enjoy Tim Berne.


He did Speak No Evil? I forgot I did listen to that and liked it. I guess he got more shallow as his career got longer . I liked what I heard of Anthony Braxton.


----------



## norman bates

julide said:


> I'm not familiar with his work but i found speak no evil dull and too cool for my taste. I love harmonically adventurous jazz like anthony braxton


 Shorter is one of the most harmonically adventurous and original jazz musicians ever. The difference is that unlike Braxton he often (besides albums like All seeing eye and some of his recent stuff) doesn't use harsh atonality. In that actually Braxton's music is more in line with the sound of many 20th century composers. 
And Speak no evil is a masterpiece, but I can see why it's not for everybody. His best music is contemplative and subdued like certain japanese architecture and art (or the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, to use a western example), with peculiar atmospheres that are serene but with a hidden underlying tension. It's about subtlety and spirituality but in a lot more quiet and oblique way than his friend Coltrane, and not like just non stop dissonant and avantgarde assault like (in different ways obviously) Braxton or Cecil Taylor or a lot of free jazz music.

Teru





Sanctuary





Footprints





Dear Sir





Iris


----------



## julide

norman bates said:


> Shorter is one of the most harmonically adventurous and original jazz musicians ever. The difference is that unlike Braxton he often (besides albums like All seeing eye) he doesn't use harsh atonality. In that actually Braxton's music is more in line with the sound of many 20th century composers.
> And Speak no evil is a masterpiece, but I can see why it's not for everybody. His best music is contemplative and subdued like certain japanese architecture and art, with peculiar atmospheres that are serene but with a hidden underlying tension. It's about subtlety and spirituality but in a lot more quiet and oblique way than his friend Coltrane, and not like just non stop dissonant and avantgarde assault like Braxton or Cecil Taylor.


I will listen more of Shorter's works if i catch the jazz bug again. I was thinking more of braxton quartets' willisau and not for alto. The former is very mature and subdued.


----------



## Bwv 1080

julide said:


> I'm not familiar with his work but i found speak no evil dull and too cool for my taste. I love harmonically adventurous jazz like anthony braxton's...... Also is anyone familiar with Micheal Formanek's The Distance i found that album great and he was influenced by messieans organ music among other things. I also enjoy Tim Berne.


Shorter at his most out


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ That one's impressive.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> ^^^ but not necessarily because of race.


No; the "racial bias" issue is just _a symptom or result_ of this kind of CP exclusive thinking. As has been said, much of this is unconscious to the dominant status quo elite.

In just the same way, white people don't have to defend their whiteness; heterosexuals don't have to defend their sexuality.


----------



## EdwardBast

Phil loves classical said:


> Shorter sounds very shallow and superficial to me. But I shouldn't continue this vein in a Music Theory subforum.


Oh Phil! How wrong:


----------



## Phil loves classical

Ok, I take back what I said about Shorter. I still find his later stuff sucks.


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> Ok, I take back what I said about Shorter. I still find his later stuff sucks.


Don't tell him that to his face.


----------



## norman bates

Phil loves classical said:


> Ok, I take back what I said about Shorter. I still find his later stuff sucks.


I don't know what you heard about his later stuff, but High life for instance is (even with its sound that could definitely be an aquired taste, let put it this way) an amazing album.


----------



## UrbanK

I think he seems much too satisfied with himself. If you hold his priors, all his conclusions are painfully obvious. The same is true if you don't hold his priors but know his priors - you then just don't agree with his conclusions. Most people in current world are aware of the particular set of priors he holds or can guess them after max 20s of his video. So the video is kind of pointless.


----------



## starthrower

Calling Wayne Shorter shallow is one of the most ignorant comments I've read on this forum.


----------



## basseux

I never seen a jazzman put more though in playing a single note out of nowhere than Wayne Shorter.

Saying he is shallow is really absurd 

He prefers not to play than play useless stuffs.


----------



## Amadea

I do agree. Just look at how many consider any classical composer superior to jazz composers or blues men or rockers just basing on the "music theory" (harmonic style of 18th century composers). Maybe I wouldn't say the theory itself is racist, the problems are: 1) how it is taught (like it's THE one and only music theory) 2) The way it is used as model to describe every other music, therefore the other genres look obviously inferior! There's no explanation of "licks" in classic music theory, or jazz harmony. Personally, as a white european person, classical music lover and beginner cellist who loves also jazz and rock and blues, I have no problems putting Beethoven, Robert Johnson, Jimi Hendrix and Miles Davis on the same pedestal! They deserve it. I can't say anything about asian music because I don't know it, but surely enough there are other names to add. Many classical music listeners have biases towards music of other cultures assuming theirs is superior: that is a racist attitude. "You're listening to Classical FM, the World's greatest music!" I think that sums it up.


----------



## EdwardBast

Amadea said:


> I do agree. Just look at how many consider any classical composer superior to jazz composers or blues men or rockers just basing on the "music theory" (harmonic style of 18th century composers). *Maybe I wouldn't say the theory itself is racist, the problems* are: 1) how it is taught (like it's THE one and only music theory) 2) The way it is used as model to describe every other music, therefore the other genres look obviously inferior! There's no explanation of "licks" in classic music theory, or jazz harmony. Personally, as a white european person, classical music lover and beginner cellist who loves also jazz and rock and blues, I have no problems putting Beethoven, Robert Johnson, Jimi Hendrix and Miles Davis on the same pedestal! They deserve it. I can't say anything about asian music because I don't know it, but surely enough there are other names to add. Many classical music listeners have biases towards music of other cultures assuming theirs is superior: that is a racist attitude. "You're listening to Classical FM, the World's greatest music!" *I think that sums it up*.


So you wouldn't say music theory itself is racist but you agree that it's racist - Nice summary


----------



## Amadea

EdwardBast said:


> So you wouldn't say music theory itself is racist but you agree that it's racist - Nice summary


I do agree with the video, which doesn't say the theory itself is racist as far as I remember. It's racist how it is used as a model for every music and to explain classical music's superiority compared to other genres. THAT is racist. I think you didn't get what I said. Or what the video said. Have you watched it fully?


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> Ok, I take back what I said about Shorter. I still find his later stuff sucks.


What later stuff? He went through a period of fusion jazz that I don't particualrly care for, but his current acoustic quartet, been together now about 20 years, has produced some of the most dynamic and superb jazz of any.

_Alegría_ is an album by saxophonist *Wayne Shorter* released on Verve Records in 2003. It is the second album to feature the 'Footprints Quartet' of *Shorter*, *Danilo Perez*, *John Patitucci* and *Brian Blade*.






Wayne Shorter is one of a handful of jazz musicians whose playing and composing are of the highest order. His sound on the sax is unique as is his soloing style. He is right up there with Rollins and Coltrane as an influential voice.

He is also on a par with Mingus and Monk with his writing; his jazz originals display an acute intelligence and unique compositional style.

With his playing and writing, he has impacted every group of which he's been a member, Art Blakey, Miles Davis and Weather Report. However, in the wake of his time with Weather Report he continued in the fusion jazz style, which over the course of WR's career, their music became less and less jazz and interesting, IMO, as Joe Zawinul and Jaco Pastorius became the dominant members.

But since he's had his "Footprints" quartet, formed around 2000, he has once again produced album after album of some of the best jazz of the 21st century and beyond.


----------



## EdwardBast

Amadea said:


> I do agree with the video, which doesn't say the theory itself is racist as far as I remember. *It's racist how it is used as a model for every music and to explain classical music's superiority compared to other genres.* THAT is racist. I think you didn't get what I said. Or what the video said. Have you watched it fully?


Where does this happen (other than TC?)? Classical theory is taught the way it is because conservatories and large music departments are de facto professional schools in which musicians need to understand the music they're studying as it was understood by those who composed it. Since classical theory also has great explanatory power for just about all other western music using standard notation (jazz, movie sound tracks, pop, Broadway), it has practical applications for a wide range of professional musicians.

If one is studying music as part of a liberal arts program, then one might expect a broader view of theory with explanatory power for oral traditions and non-western musics - although one wonders about the chances of teaching theory to those who don't play music in a serious way.


----------



## Chopin Fangirl

Yet this is specifically talking about classical music. Is it racist to learn, say, Spanish grammar and not see French grammar?


----------



## Amadea

EdwardBast said:


> Where does this happen (other than TC?)? Classical theory is taught the way it is because conservatories and large music departments are de facto professional schools in which musicians need to understand the music they're studying as it was understood by those who composed it. Since classical theory also has great explanatory power for just about all other western music using standard notation (jazz, movie sound tracks, pop, Broadway), it has practical applications for a wide range of professional musicians.
> 
> If one is studying music as part of a liberal arts program, then one might expect a broader view of theory with explanatory power for oral traditions and non-western musics - although one wonders about the chances of teaching theory to those who don't play music in a serious way.


The video says it all guys. Just watch it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> What later stuff? He went through a period of fusion jazz that I don't particualrly care for, but his current acoustic quartet, been together now about 20 years, has produced some of the most dynamic and superb jazz of any.
> 
> _Alegría_ is an album by saxophonist *Wayne Shorter* released on Verve Records in 2003. It is the second album to feature the 'Footprints Quartet' of *Shorter*, *Danilo Perez*, *John Patitucci* and *Brian Blade*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne Shorter is one of a handful of jazz musicians whose playing and composing are of the highest order. His sound on the sax is unique as is his soloing style. He is right up there with Rollins and Coltrane as an influential voice.
> 
> He is also on a par with Mingus and Monk with his writing; his jazz originals display an acute intelligence and unique compositional style.
> 
> With his playing and writing, he has impacted every group of which he's been a member, Art Blakey, Miles Davis and Weather Report. However, in the wake of his time with Weather Report he continued in the fusion jazz style, which over the course of WR's career, their music became less and less jazz and interesting, IMO, as Joe Zawinul and Jaco Pastorius became the dominant members.
> 
> But since he's had his "Footprints" quartet, formed around 2000, he has once again produced album after album of some of the best jazz of the 21st century and beyond.


I'm obviously the minority opinion here. And sucks is probably strong. I was mainly going with the vibe of the original video of him sucking. After his fusion period I think in the 70's I don't think he was the same as before to put it nicely.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> What later stuff? He went through a period of fusion jazz that I don't particualrly care for, but his current acoustic quartet, been together now about 20 years, has produced some of the most dynamic and superb jazz of any.
> 
> _Alegría_ is an album by saxophonist *Wayne Shorter* released on Verve Records in 2003. It is the second album to feature the 'Footprints Quartet' of *Shorter*, *Danilo Perez*, *John Patitucci* and *Brian Blade*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne Shorter is one of a handful of jazz musicians whose playing and composing are of the highest order. His sound on the sax is unique as is his soloing style. He is right up there with Rollins and Coltrane as an influential voice.
> 
> He is also on a par with Mingus and Monk with his writing; his jazz originals display an acute intelligence and unique compositional style.
> 
> With his playing and writing, he has impacted every group of which he's been a member, Art Blakey, Miles Davis and Weather Report. However, in the wake of his time with Weather Report he continued in the fusion jazz style, which over the course of WR's career, their music became less and less jazz and interesting, IMO, as Joe Zawinul and Jaco Pastorius became the dominant members.
> 
> But since he's had his "Footprints" quartet, formed around 2000, he has once again produced album after album of some of the best jazz of the 21st century and beyond.


I'm obviously the minority opinion here. And sucks is probably strong. I was mainly going with the vibe of the original video of him sucking. After his fusion period I think in the 70's I don't think he was the same as before to put it nicely. Either too conventional, or his more original side isn't convincing to me.


----------



## starthrower

Whenever Wayne Shorter blows a few notes on tenor or soprano sax I'm immediately convinced of his identity. I can't think of too many other jazz improvisors in that class other than Coltrane and Eric Dolphy. I find all of Shorter's Blue Note albums satisfying. And his contributions to the bands if Art Blakey, and Miles Davis are enormous. With Weather Report his more subtle and abstract approach fit better with the first couple of albums. After that Zawinul's input seemed to dominate. But Wayne still contributed many beautiful compositions to the band's book. Miles said all of Shorter's compositions were perfect and he didn't need to change a thing.


----------



## Festus

Along the same lines, we have this.

Music Prof Politicizes Music To Make It 'Equal.' What Happened to Making It Great?
By TOM GILSON Published on May 5, 2021

Tom Gilson
Chris White, assistant professor of music theory at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, doesn't know Beethoven's full name, but he insists we use it anyway. Calling him by his last name alone is racist and a sexist language maneuver. And it creates the impression that other composers aren't on the same musical plane as he was.

You probably think you misread that. Go ahead, re-read it, I don't mind, but it isn't going to make any more sense the second time. Don't blame me, though; I'm just passing on what White said.

read further here:

https://stream.org/music-prof-politicizes-music-to-make-it-equal-what-happened-to-making-it-great/


----------



## SanAntone

> Music Prof Politicizes Music To Make It 'Equal.' What Happened to Making It Great?


I'm all for it. Too many composers have been overlooked as the composers we have celebrated for centuries have dominated recordings and performances. I learned the name Edmond Dédé today and am listening to selections from his opera "Morgiane" - it is wonderful music.

I don't need to hear more Beethoven but would leap at the chance to hear music by more unknown composers.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Amadea said:


> I do agree with the video, which doesn't say the theory itself is racist as far as I remember. It's racist how it is used as a model for every music and to explain classical music's superiority compared to other genres. THAT is racist. I think you didn't get what I said. Or what the video said. Have you watched it fully?


Are you 15 y/o ??


----------



## Amadea

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Are you 15 y/o ??


No I am not, I'm actually 26, like my profile says. May I ask you if you watched the video fully and considered all the implications of it? Otherwise, the discussion is pointless. The title of the video changed into "Music Theory and White Supremacy" and the video itself doesn't say the music theory itself is racist, rather the way it is taught, how the Schenkerian analysis which is widely taught in USA can be used to prove classical's music superiority to other types of music (non-european music) such as blues, jazz, rock, asian music, etc. being Schenker racist himself. I explained it poorly but the video explains better. I think it is something to think about. I often see classical music lovers and even musicians talking about the superiority of classical music basing exactly on "music theory" (the style of european composers) and I think it's wrong. Sorry, what exactly is so "teenish" about what I said? It should be pretty obvious that if you judge blues with the canons you judge Beethoven then blues is gonna look like trash music. But apparently, many don't get that is the wrong approach to music in general.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Sad truth, but social inequalities equate to musical inequalities. Beethoven was a better composer than any woman or non-European could have been at the time because he had the opportunity to thrive in the inner circles of Viennese music scene. I am sure plenty of women or non-Europeans had equal latent ability, but sadly never had the opportunity to learn and grow in their art, so it never developed


----------



## SanAntone

Bwv 1080 said:


> Sad truth, but social inequalities equate to musical inequalities. Beethoven was a better composer than any woman or non-European could have been at the time because he had the opportunity to thrive in the inner circles of Viennese music scene. I am sure plenty of women or non-Europeans had equal latent ability, but sadly never had the opportunity to learn and grow in their art, so it never developed


Non-European musicians were writing music, just not in the same tradition as Beethoven; and had been active long before Beethoven. They were highly skilled and grew in their art, and were respected in their communities. But were sadly ignored because their tradition was oral and as non-Western societies, they were perceived by the West as on a lower scale of sophistication.


----------



## Bwv 1080

SanAntone said:


> Non-European musicians were writing music, just not in the same tradition as Beethoven; and had been active long before Beethoven. They were highly skilled and grew in their art, and were respected in their communities. But were sadly ignored because their tradition was oral and as non-Western societies, they were perceived by the West as on a lower scale of sophistication.


Sure, but I am referring to succeeding within the European tradition, writing Western classical music


----------



## SanAntone

Bwv 1080 said:


> Sure, but I am referring to succeeding within the European tradition, writing Western classical music


Why would they want to do that?


----------



## Bwv 1080

SanAntone said:


> Why would they want to do that?


Quite a few women and non-whites tried in the 18th and 19th centuries


----------



## Subutai

millionrainbows said:


> If you use the term "racist" then you are biasing the argument. It should be culturally/socially biased, not "racist."


Couldn't agree more. There was a television programme on recently called 'Is Covid Racist'. We all know what they're referring to but racist? It makes headlines and sadly that's the bottom line.


----------



## SanAntone

Bwv 1080 said:


> Quite a few women and non-whites tried in the 18th and 19th centuries


Their choice; but you sound like you think working in European classical music ought to be what all musicians should aspire to.

I disagree.

All musical traditions have value and non-Western cultures have produced some of the finest music of any, certainly the equal of Western classical music. I advocate for more music from as wide a variety of cultures as possible.


----------



## Bwv 1080

SanAntone said:


> Their choice; but you sound like you think working in European classical music ought to be what all musicians should aspire to. .


That is your projection, not what I said. So I will leave you alone to argue with my strawman


----------



## Red Terror

Bwv 1080 said:


> That is your projection, not what I said. So I will leave you alone to argue with my strawman


Enter strawman..


----------



## SanAntone

Bwv 1080 said:


> Sad truth, but social inequalities equate to musical inequalities. *Beethoven was a better composer than any woman or non-European could have been at the time* because he had the opportunity to thrive in the inner circles of Viennese music scene. I am sure plenty of women or non-Europeans had equal latent ability, but sadly never had the opportunity to learn and grow in their art, so it never developed





Bwv 1080 said:


> Sure, but I am referring to succeeding within *the European tradition, writing Western classical music*





Bwv 1080 said:


> Quite *a few women and non-whites tried in the 18th and 19th centuries*





SanAntone said:


> Their choice; but you sound like you think working in European classical music ought to be what all musicians should aspire to.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> All musical traditions have value and non-Western cultures have produced some of the finest music of any, certainly the equal of Western classical music. I advocate for more music from as wide a variety of cultures as possible.





Bwv 1080 said:


> That is your projection, not what I said. So I will leave you alone to argue with my strawman


As anyone can see from your posts, I was not projecting anything. Your posts were describing your idea that the Western classical tradition ought to be what all musicians aspire to join. I was arguing for the validity of their own culture and tradition.

I was responding to your words, not any strawman.


----------



## Bwv 1080

SanAntone said:


> As anyone can see from your posts, I was not projecting anything. Your posts were describing your idea that the Western classical tradition ought to be what all musicians aspire to join. I was arguing for the validity of their own culture and tradition.
> 
> I was responding to your words, not any strawman.


If you really believe that from the posts above, there is no point discussing anything further with you


----------



## SanAntone

Bwv 1080 said:


> If you really believe that from the posts above, there is no point discussing anything further with you


Are you denying what you wrote? You repeated more than once a desire for non-Western musicians to pursue composing in the European classical music.

Why?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Amadea said:


> No I am not, I'm actually 26, like my profile says. May I ask you if you watched the video fully and considered all the implications of it? Otherwise, the discussion is pointless. The title of the video changed into "Music Theory and White Supremacy" and the video itself doesn't say the music theory itself is racist, rather the way it is taught, how the Schenkerian analysis which is widely taught in USA can be used to prove classical's music superiority to other types of music (non-european music) such as blues, jazz, rock, asian music, etc. being Schenker racist himself. I explained it poorly but the video explains better. I think it is something to think about. I often see classical music lovers and even musicians talking about the superiority of classical music basing exactly on "music theory" (the style of european composers) and I think it's wrong. Sorry, what exactly is so "teenish" about what I said? It should be pretty obvious that if you judge blues with the canons you judge Beethoven then blues is gonna look like trash music. But apparently, many don't get that is the wrong approach to music in general.


No worries; I was just poking at you.

I have watched the full video; I think he and his interviewee make some interesting points which get at fundamental flaws in music education and the public perception of music theory. The whole way we think about, use, and teach music theory must be rethought IMO.

You just sounded like a 15 y/o, that's all. Maybe English isn't your first language (if so, you speak it quite well) and you've only been exposed to it for 15 years. I'm sorry for making fun of your rhetoric.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

SanAntone said:


> Are you denying what you wrote? You repeated more than once a desire for non-Western musicians to pursue composing in the European classical music.
> 
> Why?


He never even said that once.


----------



## SanAntone

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> He never even said that once.


He wrote several posts about non-Westerns pursuing European classical music and in response to my saying that they had their own traditions to pursue.

Why else would he continue to suggest that non-Westerns pursue European classical music unless he thought that was a more worthwhile music for them to work in?


----------



## Nereffid

*Thread temporarily closed for repairs.*


----------

