# Schenker gets cancelled



## Bwv 1080

UNT theory prof and editor of Schenkerian analysis journal under fire for defending Schenker (the Jew whose wife was murdered in the Holocaust) and Schenkerian analysis charges of white supremacy.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...2NKULq6EimmyvCT-f3cJBaQqehcFACdI_FA20ISHygWXU

Jackson's response that led the mob to call for his head is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dTOWwlIsuiwsgAa4f1N99AlvG3-ngnmG/view


----------



## Vasks

Cancel Culture is totally nuts. Almost always based on assumptions created by false or partial information rather than historical knowledge.

I took two Schenkerian analysis courses and not once did we explore the man himself. What's next? Get rid of solfege because Guido d'Arezzo might have been a slave owner?


----------



## RubberDuckie

GASP

I will do some reading on this before posting any comment... but it does bring back memories of sitting in a classroom staring at the barebone of tonal music while wondering "why is this even necessary?" I did it just to fulfill a requirement. ^^


----------



## En Passant

Vasks said:


> Cancel Culture is totally nuts. Almost always based on assumptions created by false or partial information rather than historical knowledge.
> 
> I took two Schenkerian analysis courses and not once did we explore the man himself. What's next? Get rid of solfege because Guido d'Arezzo might have been a slave owner?


I agree, I feel that the majority of political discourse today is based on projection and preconceived notions (often false or exaggerated). Perhaps it was always this way to some degree but there seems to be an ever decreasing amount of good faith and empathy today.

Certainly when it comes to historical figures I believe we cannot judge them by todays standards. I'd like to divorce someone's work from the creator; Sadly society seems to be taking the opposite view.


----------



## EdwardBast

Bwv 1080 said:


> UNT theory prof and editor of Schenkerian analysis journal under fire for defending Schenker (the Jew whose wife was murdered in the Holocaust) and Schenkerian analysis charges of white supremacy.
> 
> https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...2NKULq6EimmyvCT-f3cJBaQqehcFACdI_FA20ISHygWXU
> 
> Jackson's response that led the mob to call for his head is here:
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dTOWwlIsuiwsgAa4f1N99AlvG3-ngnmG/view


I read Tim Jackson's whole essay and part of Philip Ewell's article to which he was responding. I knew and corresponded with Jackson briefly in the late 90s, which is why I was interested enough to read his whole response.

First of all, the gradual cancellation of Schenkerian theory, especially in its orthodox manifestation, has been going on since at least 1980. Given its current diminished status and lack of centrality in academia, and, as Vasks points out, the irrelevance of Schenker's personal beliefs, I think Ewell's attacks on Schenker's putative racism are cheap shooting and lame. But boy did Jackson step in it in the second half of his response when he plays what-about with hip-hop artists and condescendingly instructs African Americans on what they and their families need to do to achieve greater representation in academic music theory. This affair is a total $hi†show from both sides, but I'm not surprised they're after Jackson's head. I _am_ surprised that such a good musician and scrupulous scholar could be so tone-deaf (figuratively speaking).

Ugh!


----------



## DavidA

We have the usual nonsense from the so-called ‘schools of learning’ with this kind of unreasoned facile mob rule replacing intellectual discussion. Mind you we had it in my day - just not so widespread.


----------



## amfortas

EdwardBast said:


> I read Tim Jackson's whole essay and part of Philip Ewell's article to which he was responding. I knew and corresponded with Jackson briefly in the late 90s, which is why I was interested enough to read his whole response.
> 
> First of all, the gradual cancellation of Schenkerian theory, especially in its orthodox manifestation, has been going on since at least 1980. Given its current diminished status and lack of centrality in academia, and, as Vasks points out, the irrelevance of Schenker's personal beliefs, I think Ewell's attacks on Schenker's putative racism are cheap shooting and lame. But boy did Jackson step in it in the second half of his response when he plays what-about with hip-hop artists and condescendingly instructs African Americans on what they and their families need to do to achieve greater representation in academic music theory. This affair is a total $hi†show from both sides, but I'm not surprised they're after Jackson's head. I _am_ surprised that such a good musician and scrupulous scholar could be so tone-deaf (figuratively speaking).
> 
> Ugh!


Oh my God. I see what you mean about Jackson stepping in it! "Ewell's denunciation of Schenker and Schenkerian analysis may be seen as part and parcel of the much broader current of Black anti-Semitism." And then to elaborate at length from there . . . what sort of reaction did Jackson *expect*?


----------



## Guest

Vasks said:


> Cancel Culture is totally nuts. Almost always based on assumptions created by false or partial information rather than historical knowledge.
> 
> I took two Schenkerian analysis courses and not once did we explore the man himself. What's next? Get rid of solfege because Guido d'Arezzo might have been a slave owner?


Quite possibly; dangerous, resentful people want to destroy all the underpinnings of the success of other people - no matter who, why or how. This cohort is no different to the bolsheviks or nazis - this was their stock in trade. That and 'Pravda truths".


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> We have the usual nonsense from the so-called 'schools of learning' with this kind of unreasoned facile mob rule replacing intellectual discussion. Mind you we had it in my day - just not so widespread.


Mob rule. And a lot of it in universities. As a friend said about it all; these people are using their voices to get what they want just as they did when they were children. I think it's more dangerous than that. At the moment the only thing missing is the uniforms!!

Leave Schenker alone; he's decomposing.


----------



## millionrainbows

Christabel said:


> Quite possibly; dangerous, resentful people want to destroy all the underpinnings of the success of other people - no matter who, why or how. This cohort is no different to the bolsheviks or nazis - this was their stock in trade. That and 'Pravda truths".


Yes, and soon people will realize that the only truth is the collective truth of the State.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, and soon people will realize that the only truth is the collective truth of the State.


Sends a shiver down the spine, doesn't it!!! We've seen it all before and there are always lots of body bags. As my Polish friend and physician says 'it only takes a few thousand idiots to start a revolution'. He lived under Communism in Poland, abandoning that country for Australia in 2000.

The dead should be left in peace, unless they were evil.


----------



## EdwardBast

Christabel said:


> Sends a shiver down the spine, doesn't it!!! We've seen it all before and there are always lots of body bags. As my Polish friend and physician says 'it only takes a few thousand idiots to start a revolution'. He lived under Communism in Poland, abandoning that country for Australia in 2000.


Yes, if Schenkerian analysis goes, can the body bags be far behind? 

"First they came for the Schenkerian's, and I said nothing …"


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, if Schenkerian analysis goes, can the body bags be far behind?
> 
> "First they came for the Schenkerian's, and I said nothing …"


The march continues - Schenker is just a _tiny_ fragment of that disgusting white patriarchy. Another tiny domino to knock over on the long march. Cue envy and hatred.

"I destroy the joint because it doesn't allow me to grow rich".


----------



## EdwardBast

… Then they came for the neo-Riemannians. I wasn't a neo-Riemannian, so I said nothing. After that they came for the set theorists and still I kept my yap shut, for I am not a set theorist. Next they came for the post-structuralists, but since I was not a post-structuralist I just sort of whistled and shuffled my feet and let them drag the sorry post-structuralists away. Won't miss that bunch of slackers. A few days later they came for the feminist theorists, and while I _am_ a feminist, I don't theorize about it, so I didn't lose any sleep. I must admit I got a little nervous when they came for the semioticians, for in my youth I did carelessly quote Peirce a couple of times. Just to impress people really. But they passed me by and now I feel untouchable. Invincible even. I got a good chuckle when they tried to round up the musical narrative theorists. Good luck with that! Like herding a bunch of cats, what with all the formalists, and New Critical theorists, and radical constructionists going in different directions. Then they came for …

(seven pages later)

… Finally they came for me, but by that time they were pretty bedraggled from persecuting, arresting and reeducating multitudes who, frankly, were barely educable in the first place. A grim looking fellow holding a big cancel stamp dripping red ink cornered me in a dark alley and said: "What the hell is a crypto-anarchist deconstructionist anyway?" I took a deep breath and began with a brief historical overview of the movement but before I could even get through the introduction the guy heaved a big sigh, dropped his stamp on the pavement and, slowly shaking his head, said: "Man, I have to get a life." He shuffled off into the night with his formerly zealous totalitarian buddies until his peg-leg got woodworm and broke into three.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> … Then they came for the neo-Riemannian's. I wasn't a neo-Riemannian, so I said nothing. After that they came for the set theorists and still I kept my yap shut, for I am not a set theorist. Next they came for the post-structuralists, but since I was not a post-structuralist I just sort of whistled and shuffled my feet and let them drag the sorry post-structuralists away. Won't miss that bunch of slackers. A few days later they came for the feminist theorists, and while I _am_ a feminist, I don't theorize about it, so I didn't lose any sleep. I must admit I got a little nervous when they came for the semioticians, for in my youth I did carelessly quote Peirce a couple of times. Just to impress people really. But they passed me by and now I feel untouchable. Invincible even. I got a good chuckle when they tried to round up the musical narrative theorists. Good luck with that! Like herding a bunch of cats, what with all the formalists, and New Critical theorists, and radical constructionists going in different directions. Then they came for …
> 
> (seven pages later)
> 
> … Finally they came for me, but by that time they were pretty bedraggled from persecuting, arresting and reeducating multitudes who, frankly, were barely educable in the first place. A grim looking fellow holding a big cancel stamp dripping read ink cornered me in a dark alley and said: "What the hell is a crypto-anarchist deconstructionist anyway?" I took a deep breath and began with a brief historical overview of the movement but before I could even get through the introduction the guy heaved a big sigh, dropped his stamp on the pavement and, slowly shaking his head, said: "Man, I have to get a life." He shuffled off into the night with his formerly zealous totalitarian buddies until his peg-leg got woodworm and broke into three.


Take the rest of the week off!!!!


----------



## Rogerx

RubberDuckie said:


> GASP
> 
> I will do some reading on this before posting any comment... but it does bring back memories of sitting in a classroom staring at the barebone of tonal music while wondering "why is this even necessary?" I did it just to fulfill a requirement. ^^


May I join you??????


----------



## Guest

Bwv 1080 said:


> UNT theory prof and editor of Schenkerian analysis journal under fire for defending Schenker (the Jew whose wife was murdered in the Holocaust) and Schenkerian analysis charges of white supremacy.





> At the University of North Texas, the Mob Comes Calling for a Music Theorist


I must say, that's a fairly uninterested mob in the photo at the head of the National Review article. In fact, I wouldn't describe them as a mob at all.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> I must say, that's a fairly uninterested mob in the photo at the head of the National Review article. In fact, I wouldn't describe them as a mob at all.


I felt it was a random photo of university students. It only takes half a dozen very deranged people to cancel others, not a huge university campus.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> I felt it was a random photo of university students.


Yes, of course it was. So I wondered about the use of the word 'mob'. There is no mob. The word is being used deliberately provocatively, as calculated as the pejorative 'cancel culture'. All rational analysis ends when you can just bandy loaded terms, and the articles in question can't help themselves.

I understand why it's of interest here, but I don't think it'll make waves in the wider world, though there are other controversies at this particular university that are of more general interest. Evidently, an active student union (or whatever it is called on this campus.)


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Yes, of course it was. So I wondered about the use of the word 'mob'. There is no mob. The word is being used deliberately provocatively, as calculated as the pejorative 'cancel culture'. All rational analysis ends when you can just bandy loaded terms, and the articles in question can't help themselves.
> 
> I understand why it's of interest here, but I don't think it'll make waves in the wider world, though there are other controversies at this particular university that are of more general interest. Evidently, an active student union (or whatever it is called on this campus.)


I think you are not aware of mob activity these days which tends to load onto things like Twitter and other internet sites. We had the mob in my day at university which wanted to prevent people they didn't approve of from speaking but now it's got far worse. It's not bandying terms but a real sad fact that intellectual reasoning is being quashed. The 'cancel culture' is very real over here I can tell you. Certain members of the student union want to quash views they do not agree with. Simple as that. Which of course rather defeats one of the objectives of the University which is to share different views on a variety of subjects.


----------



## JAS

It is one thing to honor freedom of speech and quite another to allow someone (or a constant stream of someones) spouting nonsense (especially hateful or incendiary nonsense) a platform and a sense of legitimacy. I often think an opportunity to respond is better than silencing them by denying the speech entirely, but that can be a tricky line in some cases.

Edit: For the most part, I also don't like zero tolerance (except for extreme matters). Human beings (being human) make mistakes, and especially for things that are complicated or require more information than they might have in the moment.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I think you are not aware of mob activity these days which tends to load onto things like Twitter and other internet sites. We had the mob in my day at university which wanted to prevent people they didn't approve of from speaking but now it's got far worse. It's not bandying terms but a real sad fact that intellectual reasoning is being quashed. The 'cancel culture' is very real over here I can tell you. Certain members of the student union want to quash views they do not agree with. Simple as that. Which of course rather defeats one of the objectives of the University which is to share different views on a variety of subjects.


I have to agree with this and poor old Schenker is just a small 'player' in the much darker picture. We have cheese brands now cancelled because of the name "****" - which was the Dutch owner's name!! People are boycotting the brand because the company has caved in. There's a backlash starting off this and not before time.

Reminds me of King Lear talking about 'our darker purpose'!!


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> It is one thing to honor freedom of speech and quite another to allow someone (or a constant stream of someones) spouting nonsense (especially hateful or incendiary nonsense) a platform and a sense of legitimacy. I often think an opportunity to respond is better than silencing them by denying the speech entirely, but that can be a tricky line in some cases.
> 
> Edit: For the most part, I also don't like zero tolerance (except for extreme matters). Human beings (being human) make mistakes, and especially for things that are complicated or require more information than them might have in the moment.


It's heartening to read sensible comments like this.


----------



## Guest

...............


----------



## EdwardBast

Okay, a serious opinion on the issues raised by the controversy:

One doesn't have to be radical or intolerant of contrary views to see that Professor Jackson's response to Ewell was way over the top and that some kind of censure or negative consequences would inevitably follow for him. Ewell's provocation would have been better handled by simply putting Schenker's unfortunate peripheral remarks on race in historical context, as Jackson began by doing, while restating the value of his analytical method. It's clear Jackson's identification with Schenker and his American diaspora has deep ethnic and cultural roots and that he took Ewell's attack to heart, as an assault on a personal hero. He responded in a way he must have known would cut Ewell and others just as deeply and personally. Unfortunate all around. To paraphrase _imPOTUS americanus'_ recent remark: I wish Jackson well.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I think you are not aware of mob activity these days which tends to load onto things like Twitter and other internet sites. We had the mob in my day at university which wanted to prevent people they didn't approve of from speaking but now it's got far worse. It's not bandying terms but a real sad fact that intellectual reasoning is being quashed. The 'cancel culture' is very real over here I can tell you. *Certain members of the student union want to quash views they do not agree with. Simple as that. *Which of course rather defeats one of the objectives of the University which is to share different views on a variety of subjects.


Setting aside what I might or might not be aware of , if this matter is as simple as you assert, there would be no need to invent new terminology to label it. Nor would the report in the National Review feel compelled to refer to 'the mob'. They could have simply reported the story as you describe it.

I'm also not clear why it is thought - quite commonly, apparently - that universities (or "seats of learning" as they are sometimes pretentiously called) are supposed to be free of the bias, prejudice, bigotry, jealousies, anger, pettiness and racism that are to be found in the rest of society and in all other institutions. We might all wish they were, and that they could be places where everyone can speak their mind freely and those who object or feel upset or aggrieved by that free speech are also able to reply with comparable vigour, and with the same risk of causing offence.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Setting aside what I might or might not be aware of , if this matter is as simple as you assert, there would be no need to invent new terminology to label it. Nor would the report in the National Review feel compelled to refer to 'the mob'. They could have simply reported the story as you describe it.
> 
> I'm also not clear why it is thought - quite commonly, apparently - that universities (or "seats of learning" as they are sometimes pretentiously called) are supposed to be free of the bias, prejudice, bigotry, jealousies, anger, pettiness and racism that are to be found in the rest of society and in all other institutions. We might all wish they were, and that they could be places where everyone can speak their mind freely and those who object or feel upset or aggrieved by that free speech are also able to reply with comparable vigour, and with the same risk of causing offence.
> 
> Meanwhile, back in the real world...


You talk about the real world but don't you ever realise what's going on in there? People wanting to quash views which are not theirs? You might think it's not sad but I do. You obviously don't live in the same real world as I do where even such worthies as Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell have been de-platformed' at universities because they dared to utter something un-PC. Of course it goes back many years to a certain subversive influence in universities which was there over 50 years ago when I was there. Quash freedom of speech and you have the system. I think this is somewhat disturbing even if you don't in the real world


----------



## millionrainbows

Here is a link to the actual speech by Ewell.





At the end, he suggests a couple of semesters of "non-white" music theory which would include ideas from other non-white cultures. I see nothing wrong with that idea.

In fact, I've seen _in this very music forum_ a resistance to ideas which go against the grain. In particular, my blog and thread discussions about the instability of the major scale, which is derived from *George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Gravity* (he is black), was _very vehemently protested and scoffed at _by two prominent music theory 'experts' on this forum. I've also seen *jazz theory* scoffed at and ridiculed.



EdwardBast said:


> Saying a C major scale is harmonically unstable is absurd, by which I mean it doesn't even make enough sense to be incorrect. A C major scale is not a harmonic phenomenon. Saying there are "non harmonic" tones in a C major scale that "need resolving" is also a nonsensical statement. Any tone in a major scale can be a harmonic tone and any tone can be a non-harmonic tone. These terms have no meaning as you have used them because they only have meaning in specific contexts, which your statements have not provided. Harmonic tones often require resolution. The tonic note in C major can be a nonharmonic tone requiring resolution. Even a sympathetic reading of your statement suggests you don't know what the term nonharmonic tone means.


...and these are George Russell's ideas that are being dismissed. Do I detect a bias here in favor of the status quo power system?

What is going on here is an attempt at a literal re-writing of music theory's history. Is this too radical for you? It will take away some of your power as a 'conservative academic' theorist, and force you to look at fundamental assumptions differently.

I stand behind everything I have said about music theory and the need to "think outside the box."


Why Is C Major Called A "Diatonic" Scale"? What Does "Diatonic" Mean?
Is the Perfect Fourth a Dissonance? If So, Why?
https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/millionrainbows/3212-c-major-scale-inherently.html


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> You talk about the real world but don't you ever realise what's going on in there? People wanting to quash views which are not theirs? You might think it's not sad but I do. You obviously don't live in the same real world as I do where even such worthies as Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell have been de-platformed' at universities because they dared to utter something un-PC. Of course it goes back many years to a certain subversive influence in universities which was there over 50 years ago when I was there. Quash freedom of speech and you have the system. I think this is somewhat disturbing even if you don't in the real world


You make valid arguments here. Dr. Greer is an antagonist but a highly intelligent one to be sure. The very least that can be said about it is that a bastion of learning and free and open thought such as a university ought to uphold at least some basic tenants of freedom of expression!! But it all depends on who you are and whether or not your ideas are 'acceptable'. Let's ask Dr. Jordan Peterson, Lindsay Shepherd and Doctors Eric and Bret Weinstein about their experiences!!!!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> You talk about the real world but don't you ever realise what's going on in there?


Yes.



DavidA said:


> You might think it's not sad but I do*.*


No, it's not 'sad'...or at any rate, that's not the word I would use to indicate my dissatisfaction at such a state of affairs.



DavidA said:


> You obviously don't live in the same real world as I do


Obviously not! :lol:



DavidA said:


> Of course it goes back many years to a certain subversive influence in universities which was there over 50 years ago when I was there.


And well before the time you were there. I'm quite sure that there has always been censorship, or attempts at censorship at _some_ universities for as long as universities have been open - whether by the authorities themselves, intolerant of any unorthodox opinion, or by 'subversives' wanting to 'subvert' the orthodoxy.



DavidA said:


> I think this is somewhat disturbing *even if you don't in the real world*


Even if I don't what?

Just to be clear, the 'real world' I was referring to is the same real world where there are unacceptable attempts at suppression of free speech. That was what my post said - in a roundabout way, I suppose. I wanted to add the point that universities are the same as other places where human frailty is on display, and we shouldn't somehow expect them to be free from those frailties.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> I'm also not clear why it is thought - quite commonly, apparently - that universities (or "seats of learning" as they are sometimes pretentiously called) are supposed to be free of the bias, prejudice, bigotry, jealousies, anger, pettiness and racism that are to be found in the rest of society and in all other institutions. We might all wish they were, and that they could be places where everyone can speak their mind freely and those who object or feel upset or aggrieved by that free speech are also able to reply with comparable vigour, and with the same risk of causing offence.
> 
> Meanwhile, back in the real world...


Naturally I cannot and will not speak about American or British universities because I don't know about what goes on inside them apart from what I read in the various media. But I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence, bearing in mind that freedom of speech isn't actually unlimited anyway. But your comment about 'bias, prejudice and bigotry' caught my eye since this is an accusation which has been levelled at universities for some time now - and not without good cause. It is alarming to think that tenured staff are able so easily to instill bias, prejudice and bigotry through their courses to the students. There are plenty of reported examples of this and, of course, my own experience of 6 years full time university found me having to listen to ideological codswallop from lecturers and professors. I was mature enough at the time to stand up to them, and my children did when it was their turn. But I would finally say this: *IF* the taxpayer is funding an organization that organization has a statutory obligation to present information in as balanced and free a manner as possible, allowing for varying interpretations on a particular text or alternate ideology and that it does involve academic inquiry. The best option is always to offer a contested view and have that interrogated by students. We see so precious little of it, I'm afraid and, rather disturbingly, much of what passes for *certain courses* is unadulterated dogma.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vasks said:


> Cancel Culture is totally nuts. Almost always based on assumptions created by false or partial information rather than historical knowledge.
> 
> I took two Schenkerian analysis courses and not once did we explore the man himself. What's next? Get rid of solfege because Guido d'Arezzo might have been a slave owner?


How about a semester of jazz theory, including George Russell's ideas? It wouldn't ruin you.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> How about a semester of jazz theory, including George Russell's ideas? It wouldn't ruin you.


How about answering the questioner honestly?


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> ...I think Ewell's attacks on Schenker's putative racism are cheap shooting and lame.


But Ewell was talking about more than Schenker. Did you get any of that?

It's not just Schenker, but also the way his views are marginalized or considered peripheral, without looking at the real infrastructure of the whole paradigm.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Yes.
> 
> No, it's not 'sad'...or at any rate, that's not the word I would use to indicate my dissatisfaction at such a state of affairs.
> 
> Obviously not! :lol:
> 
> And well before the time you were there. I'm quite sure that there has always been censorship, or attempts at censorship at _some_ universities for as long as universities have been open - whether by the authorities themselves, intolerant of any unorthodox opinion, or by 'subversives' wanting to 'subvert' the orthodoxy.
> 
> Even if I don't what?
> 
> Just to be clear, the 'real world' I was referring to is the same real world where there are unacceptable attempts at suppression of free speech. That was what my post said - in a roundabout way, I suppose. I *wanted to add the point that universities are the same as other places where human frailty is on display, and we shouldn't somehow expect them to be free from those frailties.*


*
*
I suppose I wanted to make the point that I do expect universities to be places where we can discuss ideas freely rather than what they are becoming at the moment, places where discussion is discouraged in favour of'safe spaces' and political correctness. To me university is where young people should be Hearing and exchanging ideas. Just to say welcome to the real world seems a bit defeatist


----------



## millionrainbows

Christabel said:


> How about answering the questioner honestly?


The question was an exaggeration: _What's next? Get rid of solfege because Guido d'Arezzo might have been a slave owner?

_No, of course not, but how about including the fact of slave ownership in the study of Guido d'Arezzo?

A lot of paradigms are being questioned, which the priviedged seem to think are non-existent or marginal. The fact is, they're just invisible to them.

...And all these priviledged assumptions add up to the state of white music theory today: definitely biased towards the major/minor diatonic system, with its 1-2-4-8-16 time signature note values which cannot clearly notate the simplest jazz or blues beat, or division of 3, in the signature itself.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> . . . In fact, I've seen _in this very music forum_ a resistance to ideas which go against the grain.


Going against the grain is not necessarily noble, and going with the grain is not necessarily bad or wrong-headed. (I can see why you might tend to feel otherwise.)


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> But Ewell was talking about more than Schenker. Did you get any of that?
> 
> It's not just Schenker, but also the way his views are marginalized or considered peripheral, without looking at the real infrastructure of the whole paradigm.


Of course I got that. I've rejected the framework of Schenker's theory on theoretical and philosophical grounds for as long as I've known about it. That his hierarchical theories are echoed in his social and racial theories doesn't surprise me and it adds little to my distaste for him as a theorist. I'm not sure where Ewell has been hanging out, but I haven't seen Schenkerian analysis taken as seriously as he describes it for decades, which is why its strict practice is relegated to specialized niche journals like the one Jackson edits. Schenkerian theory is an easy target and has been for a long time.

I'm all for tailoring theory studies to the needs of students. Those specializing in jazz performance should be able to study jazz theory as part of their core curriculum, at the least the couple of semesters Ewell recommends. Those on a classical performance or composition track should spend those semesters on advanced theory topics geared to their core repertoires.

Liberal arts courses in music are another matter altogether and to the extent they dabble in theory at all, they should, IMO, dabble in a broad spectrum of ideas from different cultures.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> The question was an exaggeration: _What's next? Get rid of solfege because Guido d'Arezzo might have been a slave owner?
> 
> _No, of course not, but how about including the fact of slave ownership in the study of Guido d'Arezzo?
> 
> A lot of paradigms are being questioned, which the priviedged seem to think are non-existent or marginal. The fact is, they're just invisible to them.
> 
> ...And all these priviledged assumptions add up to the state of white music theory today: definitely biased towards the major/minor diatonic system, with its 1-2-4-8-16 time signature note values which cannot clearly notate the simplest jazz or blues beat, or division of 3, in the signature itself.


Sigh. A bit like the white privilege of those fighter pilots from many nations who died over England and Europe in the Battle of Britain. Sorry mate; yours is a tired old tic about all this 'privilege' garbage. And insulting to millions of white people who lived in poverty and died at the drop of a hat from some pandemic or other. Grow up please.

The harder I worked the more 'privilege' I enjoyed. And the luckier I became.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Here is a link to the actual speech by Ewell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end, he suggests a couple of semesters of "non-white" music theory which would include ideas from other non-white cultures. I see nothing wrong with that idea.
> 
> In fact, I've seen _in this very music forum_ a resistance to ideas which go against the grain. In particular, my blog and thread discussions about the instability of the major scale, which is derived from *George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Gravity* (he is black), was _very vehemently protested and scoffed at _by two prominent music theory 'experts' on this forum. I've also seen *jazz theory* scoffed at and ridiculed.
> 
> ...and these are George Russell's ideas that are being dismissed. Do I detect a bias here in favor of the status quo power system?
> 
> What is going on here is an attempt at a literal re-writing of music theory's history. Is this too radical for you? It will take away some of your power as a 'conservative academic' theorist, and force you to look at fundamental assumptions differently.
> 
> I stand behind everything I have said about music theory and the need to "think outside the box."
> 
> 
> Why Is C Major Called A "Diatonic" Scale"? What Does "Diatonic" Mean?
> Is the Perfect Fourth a Dissonance? If So, Why?
> https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/millionrainbows/3212-c-major-scale-inherently.html


We've had this discussion several times. Anyone can read what we said and I've nothing more to add to it. As for thinking "outside the box:" Thinking outside the box requires being able to find the box and knowing what's in it.


----------



## Guest

A neat little piece of casuistry.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> We've had this discussion several times. Anyone can read what we said and I've nothing more to add to it. As for thinking "outside the box:" Thinking outside the box requires being able to find the box and knowing what's in it.


Unfortunately, I had to provide all the substance in this 'discussion.' Your complete rejection of ideas, without going into details or specifics, comes across like a rejection of someone who is entrenched in a paradigm, and doesn't want to even consider questioning it. It's not going to have any credibility unless you actually deal with the ideas being presented, which you haven't done yet. That's what this thread is uncovering: a resistance to the paradigm of music theory to which Prof. Ewell is referring.


----------



## Vasks

Do you realize that the average entering freshman music major is quite unprepared to understand traditional tonal music? That it takes the first four semesters to get them up to an acceptable level? Do you realize that the curriculum at almost all American universities is determined by guidelines from NASM (National Association Schools of Music) and that the schools themselves have strict limits to the total number of hours a student can take? That the number of required courses they must take highly limits the number of electives they can take? Adding more diverse classes is not feasible. Offering those as electives is a great idea, but again, for most, they can't take many electives due to an upper limit of credit hours they're allowed to take.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vasks said:


> Do you realize that the average entering freshman music major is quite unprepared to understand traditional tonal music? That it takes the first four semesters to get them up to an acceptable level? Do you realize that the curriculum at almost all American universities is determined by guidelines from NASM (National Association Schools of Music) and that the schools themselves have strict limits to the total number of hours a student can take? That the number of required courses they must take highly limits the number of electives they can take? Adding more diverse classes is not feasible. Offering those as electives is a great idea, but again, for most, they can't take many electives due to an upper limit of credit hours they're allowed to take.


Then I think that some modifications to the way music theory is taught would be in order. It needs to be more inclusive, less rigid. If it produces thinkers like the ones I have had to deal with in this theory forum, then it is a failure.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Then I think that some modifications to the way music theory is taught would be in order. It needs to be more inclusive, less rigid. If it produces thinkers like the ones I have had to deal with in this theory forum, then it is a failure.


Have you been through a theory program? Taught any theory? Which music programs have you found to be too rigid?


----------



## Bwv 1080

millionrainbows said:


> Then I think that some modifications to the way music theory is taught would be in order. It needs to be more inclusive, less rigid. If it produces thinkers like the ones I have had to deal with in this theory forum, then it is a failure.


Yes, what Theory programs are lacking is Chord Scale Theory analysis of Mozart


----------



## Vasks

millionrainbows said:


> Then I think that some modifications to the way music theory is taught would be in order.


Yes, to include other things, modifications would have to occur. But to do so means to cut out something to make room for those other ideas to be taught. Because, as I indicated at most schools, you can't add required new courses. It means you'd have to change an existing course's topics or eliminate an existing course to add a new one. So it boils down to what gets dropped.


----------



## philoctetes

Vasks said:


> Yes, to include other things, modifications would have to occur. But to do so means to cut out something to make room for those other ideas to be taught. Because, as I indicated at most schools, you can't add required new courses. It means you'd have to change an existing course's topics or eliminate an existing course to add a new one. So it boils down to what gets dropped.


I'm gathering from some comments that jazz theory is entangled with cancel culture and represents some kind of mob violence to classical music theory. Is that the impression y'all wanna make?


----------



## EdwardBast

In the music programs with which I've studied and taught, jazz theory wasn't a thing in any formal curricular sense. Everyone did the same required four term theory sequence geared toward classical music, supplemented by a couple of elective courses. The jazz players I knew in these programs picked up jazz theory in lessons, ensembles, and by other means. I've heard no controversy about this way of doing things, but times change. Maybe there is now?


----------



## Bwv 1080

I took jazz theory in the early 90s, but that was UNT which has a large Jazz school

They ought to tack on Jazz theory, without the CST BS, onto traditional theory, as you need it to get alot of 20th cent music


----------



## amfortas

Christabel said:


> Sigh. A bit like the white privilege of those fighter pilots from many nations who died over England and Europe in the Battle of Britain. Sorry mate; yours is a tired old tic about all this 'privilege' garbage. And insulting to millions of white people who lived in poverty and died at the drop of a hat from some pandemic or other. Grow up please.
> 
> The harder I worked the more 'privilege' I enjoyed. And the luckier I became.


Here in the U.S., at least, white people have always enjoyed privilege over black people; even poor whites have had it better than blacks of similar economic status. It's not even a question.

Sorry, off the thread topic. If need be, we can take the discussion elsewhere.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vasks said:


> Yes, to include other things, modifications would have to occur. But to do so means to cut out something to make room for those other ideas to be taught. Because, as I indicated at most schools, you can't add required new courses. It means you'd have to change an existing course's topics or eliminate an existing course to add a new one. So it boils down to what gets dropped.


No, I don't think it's a matter of quantity or time; I think it's a matter of attitudes changing.


----------



## millionrainbows

philoctetes said:


> I'm gathering from some comments that jazz theory is entangled with cancel culture and represents some kind of mob violence to classical music theory. Is that the impression y'all wanna make?


Yes, that impression would be fine with me.


----------



## EdwardBast

Bwv 1080 said:


> I took jazz theory in the early 90s, but that was UNT which has a large Jazz school
> 
> They ought to tack on Jazz theory, without the CST BS, onto traditional theory, as you need it to get alot of 20th cent music


I'm curious about what this "tack on" would comprise. Generally, basic harmony courses don't get into, or at least not much into, 20thc music, do they? They certainly don't get into neo-Riemannian analysis of extended tonal music or the vocabulary necessary to analyze Debussy, Prokofiev, Strauss or early Schoenberg, do they? Wouldn't that be where the important parallels with jazz harmony lie? Wouldn't parallels be at a level beyond that covered in basic harmony classes? Or are you saying that extended tonal vocabulary, classical or jazz, should be covered in freshman and sophomore theory classes? Or do you mean tacked on as part of a requirement for third year?


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> I'm curious about what this "tack on" would comprise. Generally, basic harmony courses don't get into, or at least not much into, 20thc music, do they? They certainly don't get into neo-Riemannian analysis of extended tonal music or the vocabulary necessary to analyze Debussy, Prokofiev, Strauss or early Schoenberg, do they? Wouldn't that be where the important parallels with jazz harmony lie? Wouldn't parallels be at a level beyond that covered in basic harmony classes? Or are you saying that extended tonal vocabulary, classical or jazz, should be covered in freshman and sophomore theory classes?


I think it could be accomplished by dropping some of the rigidity, putting classical theory in its proper context (not as an end-all), and explaining a more chordal approach, which would not really be at odds with classical theory.

Not neo-Reinmann, but at least flexible like the "Geometry of Music" book by Dmitri Tymoczko (an overview or just an intro). This could easily be accomplished in the last semester of study, where modern concepts are touched-on anyway. I'm sure there will be new writers like Dmitri Tymoczko who will come out with new theory textbooks which could do this.


----------



## Bwv 1080

EdwardBast said:


> I'm curious about what this "tack on" would comprise. Generally, basic harmony courses don't get into, or at least not much into, 20thc music, do they? They certainly don't get into neo-Riemannian analysis of extended tonal music or the vocabulary necessary to analyze Debussy, Prokofiev, Strauss or early Schoenberg, do they? Wouldn't that be where the important parallels with jazz harmony lie? Wouldn't parallels be at a level beyond that covered in basic harmony classes? Or are you saying that extended tonal vocabulary, classical or jazz, should be covered in freshman and sophomore theory classes? Or do you mean tacked on as part of a requirement for third year?


The theory classes I took had sections on 20th century

when in 2nd year the class goes into Debussy and impressionism, just keep going into Jazz harmony, with extensions, altered dominants, tritone subs, backdoor ii-Vs, etc

Another option would be to teach Jazz harmony in parallel with trad in teaching basic functional harmony


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> Another option would be to teach Jazz harmony in parallel with trad in teaching basic functional harmony


That's a good idea


----------



## millionrainbows

Did everybody simply lose interest, or is the _reality_ of what this thread is uncovering a little uncomfortable for the "theory savvy" members here?


----------



## Kilgore Trout

millionrainbows said:


> Did everybody simply lose interest, or is the _reality_ of what this thread is uncovering a little uncomfortable for the "theory savvy" members here?


My guess is that no one with actual knowledge of music has any desire to deal with all the ******** in this thread, because it would obviously be a massive waste of time.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> Did everybody simply lose interest, or is the _reality_ of what this thread is uncovering a little uncomfortable for the "theory savvy" members here?


I simply lost interest.


----------



## millionrainbows

Kilgore Trout said:


> My guess is that no one with actual knowledge of music has any desire to deal with all the ******** in this thread, because it would obviously be a massive waste of time.





EdwardBast said:


> I simply lost interest.


"Looking at the man in the mirror is a waste of time."

That's it! Stay positive! :lol:

I leave it now to new, unjaded member Wes Lachot to come rescue the thread.


----------



## Wes Lachot

millionrainbows said:


> ...
> 
> I leave it now to new, unjaded member Wes Lachot to come rescue the thread.


Okay, I've been called worst things than "unjaded", and it's actually not a bad description, I'm told, so I'll take the bait. But mainly to say this:

There are obviously a lot of smart, passionate students of music theory on this forum, and I say "students" in the deepest meaning of the word, because even the best teachers are constantly learning, I think it's fair to say. It's so easy to take things the wrong way when the words are in type without vocal intonation, and even the most self-assured among us can become defensive under the wrong set of circumstances. I mean, it's possible for someone's retorical point to be right while their attitude is wrong-headed; you know what I mean.

I just found this forum and am happy to know that there is a place where folks can discuss music theory in a meaningful way, in public. It's like going to a friend's Christmas party and accidentally ending up in a conversation with a composer or something like that--it doesn't happen often enough, but I love it when it does. If I am so lucky (and have been from time to time) I try, at least, to be all ears and not step on toes, always mindful that there is plenty to learn here, even if the person hates Bill Evans or Brahms (two of my faves) or thinks the Beatles are rudimentary nonsense. I don't want to end the conversation on a "bad note" and wind up back over at the punch bowl too soon. Maybe the person's got some new take on counterpoint or something I need brushing up on. Maybe they can help me to hear Bartok in a different way, and so on. So I know forums can heat up and get testy from time to time (I moderated an acoustics forum years ago), but it seems the smaller our sliver of the world is (and music theory is a pretty tiny sliver), the more responsibility folks have to keep the party happy, because there really aren't a lot of other public parties for nerds like us, at least not that I am aware of.

Now what was this thread about again? Oh yeah, Shenkerian analysis. I think EdwardBast said it well, and I quote him the old fashioned way (slightly tech-challenged here):

"I haven't seen Schenkerian analysis taken as seriously as he describes it for decades, which is why its strict practice is relegated to specialized niche journals like the one Jackson edits. Schenkerian theory is an easy target and has been for a long time."

That doesn't mean that the idea is wholly without validity, although I do find it a little depressing to think that all tonal music reduces down to something like a highly decorated version of "Happy Birthday" (no cake for me, please). Any theory that seeks to reduce things down to their barest essentials is attractive to those with an eye for pattern, but when it all reduces down to nothingness and simply vanishes into thin air, like cotton candy, so that there's no longer any pattern there except the one the magician wants us to see, I say hold the cotton candy as well.

Now I have to go and write a piece of music that proves Schenker right. That's just how my mind works...


----------



## Vasks

Wes Lachot said:


> That doesn't mean that the idea is wholly without validity, although I do find it a little depressing to think that all tonal music reduces down to something like a highly decorated version of "Happy Birthday" (no cake for me, please). Any theory that seeks to reduce things down to their barest essentials is attractive to those with an eye for pattern


Nice, cogent post, Wes.

But the most important and relevant part of Schenker analysis is not the fundamental background (Ursatz) but the middle ground. It provides a wealth of information that can even help performers to bring out the salient features that this level reveals.


----------



## Wes Lachot

Vasks said:


> Nice, cogent post, Wes.
> 
> But the most important and relevant part of Schenker analysis is not the fundamental background (Ursatz) but the middle ground. It provides a wealth of information that can even help performers to bring out the salient features that this level reveals.


Yes, I completely agree with you there, Vasks. Thank you for reeling in my hyperbolic tendencies so quickly and effectively!


----------



## EdwardBast

Vasks said:


> Nice, cogent post, Wes.
> 
> But the most important and relevant part of Schenker analysis is not the fundamental background (Ursatz) but the middle ground. It provides a wealth of information that can even help performers to bring out the salient features that this level reveals.


To be sure, Schenkerian theory yielded useful concepts and general methods, like recognizing the difference between relatively insignificant local events and the more important middle-ground harmonies and motions they prolong, for example. But the few useful ideas should, IMO, have been extracted long ago from the morass of organicist nonsense and fetishistic graphing conventions that make the whole more like religious ritual than musical analysis. Taking a hierarchical, reductive approach to tonal-harmonic structure is a good idea. It's a much better idea freed from the rest of Schenker's rigmarole.


----------



## Wes Lachot

EdwardBast said:


> To be sure, Schenkerian theory yielded useful concepts and general methods, like recognizing the difference between relatively insignificant local events and the more important middle-ground harmonies and motions they prolong, for example. But the few useful ideas should, IMO, have been extracted long ago from the morass of organicist nonsense and fetishistic graphing conventions that make the whole more like religious ritual than musical analysis. Taking a hierarchical, reductive approach to tonal-harmonic structure is a good idea. It's a much better idea freed from the rest of Schenker's rigmarole.


That sounds like a reasonable approximation of the way I see it. I've been looking for a reasonable explanation, because now I can tell my therapist I've moved on from my love-hate relationship with Schenker, which she thinks is just another in a string of unhealthy relationships.

Having said that, anything that lets us see the parts in relationship to the whole, in the quest for organic unity, is a good thing, and Schenker can help with that. All things in moderation, anyone?


----------



## Vasks

EdwardBast said:


> But the few useful ideas should, IMO, have been extracted long ago from the morass of organicist nonsense and fetishistic graphing conventions that make the whole more like religious ritual than musical analysis.


I assume you mean like trying to decide whether a little black note head should get a stem or not...LOL!!


----------



## EdwardBast

Vasks said:


> I assume you mean like trying to decide whether a little black note head should get a stem or not...LOL!!


Yeah, that sort of thing. And implied notes that don't actually exist. And interruption form. And fudging out of existence parallel octaves in middle-ground graphs. And the whole a$$-backwards idea of starting out with a known structure one is destined to find and then finding it.


----------



## mikeh375

I never did Schenker, perhaps that was a blessing reading through this.


----------



## millionrainbows

I like the idea of reduction, so I'm sympathetic to Schenker. I had a theory teacher who gave us a brief introduction.


----------

