I came across this gem in my google feed last night:
https://nmbx.newmusicusa.org/its-time-to-let-classical-music-die/
https://nmbx.newmusicusa.org/its-time-to-let-classical-music-die/
"Western classical music is not about culture. It's about whiteness. It's a combination of European traditions which serve the specious belief that whiteness has a culture-one that is superior to all others. Its main purpose is to be a cultural anchor for the myth of white supremacy. In that regard, people of color can never truly be pioneers of Western classical music. The best we can be are exotic guests: entertainment for the white audiences and an example of how Western classical music is more elite than the cultures of people of color."
You said, "The same things go on here in Korea that go on in the west." If a predominance of Korean culture in Korea's curricula be not ascribed to Korean racism, then the same thing is not going on. The question is not whether Koreans value diversity or to what degree they possess it, but whether Koreans ascribe the mere predominance of their own culture in their own nation to racism. By all means, point out the supposed non sequiturs and I shall be pleased to show the connections between the statements.In a post full of non-sequiturs, this seems like the one to address first. What difference would this make even if it were true?
Yes, Korea is one of the most deeply Westernized nations in East Asia, which is why I would never have adduced it as an example of the phenomenon to which I'm referring. However, the internalized self-criticism (one might almost say self-hatred) that the West displays towards its own culture and which, to some extent, it has passed on to some other nations is different from the traditional attitudes of non-Western nations. To shift the perspective: Whether Koreans would regard a total predominance of their own culture in their country as racist, I'm quite certain that Westerners would not regard it as such. On the other hand, a great many Western intellectuals regard Western predominance in the West as racist.Korean traditional culture does not dominate Korean musical education or culture. Western music does. Korean music is seen as something that has to be preserved.
It would be different from the West, where a predominance of Western culture within Western curricula is routinely ascribed to racism.But you're saying it would totally different if Koreans didn't accuse each other of being racist. Why would that be?
In my experience, this does not happen. It's not the predominance, it's the refusal to allow a more inclusive curriculum.It would be different from the West, where a predominance of Western culture within Western curricula is routinely ascribed to racism.
However many we are or how long so ever we endure, we are still finite, and so selection is still required. In choice of matter for study, it will be found that some things are more excellent than others. The time of life being short, we ought to select those things rather than the less excellent. This requires a process of selection and exclusion. What could be more obvious than this?There are a lot of us. Adding all our time up, there is even time for this argument, apparently.
If I imply that, you imply something else. Namely, that certain western perspectives are inferior to non-western, and therefore the time spent studying the one should be used studying the other. This is quite a shocking form of chauvinism. But imagining these cultures equal, we are, apparently, by studying them in tandem, to arrive at the most equal state of equilibrium conceivable, and every hill shall be made low and the rough places plain. Yet if they be equal independently, why then combine? We gain by associating with our superiors, not with our equals. Every one is perfectly equal to himself, so that by this reasoning a man would have his best conversations alone. Then why not save these cultures the trouble of such an unprofitable association of mere equals?that western culture is "the best" and that other cultures are perhaps "of high worth" but yet of so little worth that the brevity of human life means that we all should disregard them altogether.
Does one ever hear western intellectuals berating Japan for being too monolithic? Certainly not. Homogeneity in non-western cultures is routinely excused as pure or natural, but a faint trace of the same in the west would be intolerable to them."The West" simply does not "readily excuse other cultures' lack of diversity."
I'd assume so. The value of tolerance and diversity is applied everywhere, by essentially everyone who values it, so i don't why Japan would be exceptional - though Japan is actually more multicultural than you seem to think. More to the point, I'd assume that Japanese intellectuals lament resistance to diversity and tolerance within their own culture. Again, I'm personally familiar with the Korean situation, in which that definitely happens.Does one ever hear western intellectuals berating Japan for being too monolithic? Certainly not.
Maybe some do, but western intellectuals lament it very little or not at all.More to the point, I'd assume that Japanese intellectuals lament resistance to diversity and tolerance within their own culture.
Active bloody persecution is one thing. The mere fact of passively being monolithic is another. This latter I seldom if ever see derogated.How have western intellectuals responded to the Burmese treatment of the Rohingya? Or to intolerance in various African societies? Or to China's treatment of Uyghurs and Tibetans? Or to Vietnamese treatment of the Montagnards? Or to the treatment of indigenous peoples in Guatemala and Bolivia and Brazil? Or to religious and caste persecution in India? I really cannot think of a case in which liberal western intellectuals have sided with intolerance in another society, at least since the 1980s, if not earlier.
What idea do you have in mind? In geopolitical terms, being negatively criticized usually means you're on top. It's nothing to be regretted in itself.People should always be suspicious of an idea that means poor us, we're the only ones that are criticized. It's so unfair. Etc. That kind of thing is almost never true - and probably amounts to projection.
Because it's not right in front of them.Maybe some do, but western intellectuals lament it very little or not at all.
They're just points on a spectrum, points that have moved over time. And what you see "derogated" or not depends on where you look. I'm sure you rarely see anything about Korean culture "derogated" because you're not paying attention. If you long to see something derogated, look where that would be happening.Active bloody persecution is one thing. The mere fact of passively being monolithic is another. This latter I seldom if ever see derogated.
I can't believe you actually think this. People "on bottom" are constantly "negatively criticized" people on top.What idea do you have in mind? In geopolitical terms, being negatively criticized usually means you're on top. It's nothing to be regretted in itself.
Do you realise that the Caracas opera (in Venezuela) opened in 1783?(...)
Western Classical music is culturally biased, because of its roots. That's why Gustav Dudamel wants to be a conductor, so his country can be "Westernized" and enter the 21st century. Who cares about pan flutes and corn?
Neither classical music nor music theory should be called racist. Classical music is a loose aggregation of diverse musical styles and is a Western tradition in origin, if no longer in practice. Western musical theory attempts to describe the compositional procedures within that tradition. There's nothing racist about it, except to those who define "racist" as synonymous with "white" or "Western."I think that the conversation has been flawed up to this point. The OP, "Did you know that Classical Music is Inherently Racist?" should be clarified into "Did you know that Music Theory is Inherently Racist." This does not alter anything about Classical Music, since music theory is based on the concepts of Western Classical music.
Jazz does have its own procedures. It's reasonable to regard jazz theory as distinct from, though partly inclusive of, traditional classical theory.The concentration on "racism" is misplaced, and will never be resolved, as has been seen thus far. The concentration should be on an objectification of music theory, which at present is based on Western concepts. Thus, "Jazz Theory" is seen as a separate category, with its own procedures, nomenclature, and ideas.
A theory of ALL music would be hopelessly unwieldy, or else so generalized as to be virtually useless. Kinds of music differ too much, and in basic ways. Lumping dissimilar things is not a good path to knowledge or guide to practice, and doesn't make anything more "objective" (Whatever that means. And what's this about the quadrivium? Are we in the Middle Ages?) Traditional Western music theory (by which we really mean mostly common practice tonal harmony) won't teach us to improvise jazz or an Indian raga, but why should it? We can study those forms of music if we wish (Indian music, I know, has quite an elaborate theory which scarcely has more to do with Western harmonic theory thanA truly objective and inclusive "Music Theory" would include all approaches, and be capable of explaining any musical system and practice. After all, after the stylistic veneer is stripped, music is part of the quadrivium, and should be seen more objectively. Any cultural accoutraments are not essentials, but I'm sure the academics will not bear to approach music in the objective manner; their "truth" is their paradigm, and their definition. John Cage is resisted for this reason; their music must fit a strict definition. Music is not "something larger" than them; it is defined as a "costume" to adorn their egos, their conception of themselves, and their identity.
If you're saying that they departed from the common harmonic practice with which music students traditionally begin their studies, you're not saying anything unfamiliar to most of us. I don't see how that's "transcending" limitations. It's just doing something different and expanding music's vocabulary. Their procedures have been thoroughly studied, haven't they? We can study them at conservatories, can't we? Where's the problem?Boulez and Stockhausen (even Debussy, Messiaen, Cowell, Hovhaness, Satie, Stravinsky, Webern) rejected this Western paradigm, and /or at least saw and transcended its limitations.
Always the pose of superior understanding and the sneer at your critics. Ho hum.This present Classical/Western exclusivity of "Music Theory" can be seen in the "Music Theory" section of this very forum, in which academics reject certain ideas which are outside its purview and paradigm.