Classical Music Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Did you know that "Classical Music is Inherently Racist?"

83K views 690 replies 66 participants last post by  Dan Ante 
#1 ·
I came across this gem in my google feed last night:

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."
:rolleyes:
 
#189 · (Edited)
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?
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.
 
#190 ·
Let's clear a few things up:

- 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.
- Many Koreans push for greater inclusivity, wanting educational options to include a wider variety of cultures.
- Koreans who reject that push are sometimes accused, and rightly so, of racism.
- Similar dynamics play out in other cultural realms.
- All this despite the fact that Korea actually has very few non-Koreans living here.

So to that extent, it is the same. Of course there are differences in detail, as there are differences in this dynamic between, say, the United States and Australia.

But you're saying it would totally different if Koreans didn't accuse each other of being racist.

Why would that be? What difference does it make whether the push for more inclusion and the resistance to it include that accusation?

Put another way, what's wrong with calling something racist racist?
 
#193 · (Edited)
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.
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.

But you're saying it would totally different if Koreans didn't accuse each other of being racist. Why would that be?
It would be different from the West, where a predominance of Western culture within Western curricula is routinely ascribed to racism.
 
#194 ·
It would be different from the West, where a predominance of Western culture within Western curricula is routinely ascribed to racism.
In my experience, this does not happen. It's not the predominance, it's the refusal to allow a more inclusive curriculum.

Also, this issue is really from the 1990s. In most of the world, we're over it now, and we've agreed to have a global curriculum.
 
#200 · (Edited)
There are a lot of us. Adding all our time up, there is even time for this argument, apparently.
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?

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.
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?

"The West" simply does not "readily excuse other cultures' lack of diversity."
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.
 
#202 · (Edited)
Does one ever hear western intellectuals berating Japan for being too monolithic? Certainly not.
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.

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.

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.
 
#205 · (Edited)
More to the point, I'd assume that Japanese intellectuals lament resistance to diversity and tolerance within their own culture.
Maybe some do, but western intellectuals lament it very little or not at all.

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.
Active bloody persecution is one thing. The mere fact of passively being monolithic is another. This latter I seldom if ever see derogated.

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.
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.
 
#208 ·
Maybe some do, but western intellectuals lament it very little or not at all.
Because it's not right in front of them.

Active bloody persecution is one thing. The mere fact of passively being monolithic is another. This latter I seldom if ever see derogated.
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.

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.
I can't believe you actually think this. People "on bottom" are constantly "negatively criticized" people on top.

You know that idea I had in mind was that only western societies are criticized as racist, either in general or specifically in cultural contexts.
 
#212 ·
In this great forum we are writing / conversating for music and not for conspiracy theories and crazy opinions. I really can't write something more…
 
#222 ·
So weird! There used to be talk of the Anglo-Saxon "race", the Slavic "race", etc., thus confusing language groups with "racial" groups. Then, when talk of race became "scientific", the classifiers came up with the classic five races: Congoid, Capoid, Caucasoid, *********, Australoid. There has been an effort to also link these "races" to very early linguistic groups as well as skull shapes, etc. I am not aware of a Lebanese Arab "race" as an identifiable post-mortem entity. In flamenco circles, there are even today people asserting that it is "racist" to deny that gypsies (gitanos) created flamenco, and also "racist" to assert the same thesis. Nobody really knows who created flamenco, or when. There does exist Tribalism, and it is alive and well.
 
#223 · (Edited)
Well, you know, every positive has a negative. The positives are when we ignore the negatives, and transcend the differences. But this means we have to eat everything, not just tamales. Although tamales are good.

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?
 
#224 · (Edited)
(...)
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?
Do you realise that the Caracas opera (in Venezuela) opened in 1783?
(a great many years before the 21st century and Dudamel)

https://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-5000003989#omo-9781561592630-e-5000003989
 
#225 ·
This is definitely a sensitive topic in this day and age. As a European musical tradition, the history and development of the genre is for the most part exclusively European. I am sure we can agree that is an indisputable fact of classical music, which is also called by many as "Western Music". To say that classical music is inherently racist, on the other hand, I do not think holds water. Here is the definition of racism from the Merrriam Webster dictionary:

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Does composing, appreciating, and listening to classical music support a belief that one group of people are inherently superior to other groups of people? I would say that it does not. It is the listener himself/herslef who has to make a connection between music and the outside idea of racism to project a belief that Europeans are inherently superior to the rest of the world because of music. So objectively, I say that music is not racist or prejudiced until people/society decide to make it that way, which is what the author in the article in the first post creates.

Is the listener base of classical music concerts primarily older people of European descent? Can't deny that: that is what I've seen whenever I go to a concert. The question is why is that, which I would argue is a lack of musical education and exposure of classical music to the masses. You can only listen to a genre of music and fall in love with it if you are exposed to it. To present an example, groups of people around the world have their own forms of folk music. Greeks have their own musical styles and traits as do Chinese. Can you take the argument of this article and apply it to folk music? Only Greek people listen to Greek folk music, so surely Greek music is superior to everyone else's no? As I have said in other threads before, I think that one's preference to music is closely linked to what you are exposed to. Classical music is European in origin and is enjoyed by a listener base who in today's day and age, consist of a lot people of European descent. I disagree with the notion that classical music is inherently racist.
 
#227 ·
I think it would be quite wasteful to dismiss classical music as "racist", "imperialist" or "elitist", though the culture surrounding it may have been. As I already pointed on another thread with a similar theme, Nelson Mandela was a huge fan of classical music, notably Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and Handel; and Mandela has become the very symbol and personification of African pride and African independence. So before we decide to throw away the good parts of Western civilization along with all the bad parts, we might consider leaving the world with the best that Western civilization has to give. Such debates also become a distraction from more pressing issues regarding racial injustice concerning situations of inner-city crime and poverty that are much more important than arguing over which music, art, literature, movies, and statues are supposed to be "racist". It's easier to put a ban on Richard Wagner than it is to take collective responsibility for Blacks and Latinos dying at a disproportionate ratio from COVID-19.
 
#228 · (Edited)
Is this just another attempt to convince people that they should at least pretend to like what they consider to be terrible noise by saying that doing otherwise is culturally biased? Is the idea just to associate that with a word that will get a knee jerk reaction from people to avoid being associated with it? Because that is really what it sounds like here.
 
#229 ·
Classical music, or "the Western canon" is music I have enjoyed for a long time, but I also enjoy (possibly enjoy more) Blues, Jazz, Appalachian mountain music, Bluegrass, Fado, Flamenco, Indian Classical Music, and other forms of vernacular music, i.e. music having little or no written tradition.

Throughout that time I have interacted with many fans of Classical Music who claim, with no sense of awkwardness, that Western Classical Music is superior to all other genres.

I reject this attitude unequivocally, and vociferously. And to the extent someone makes that false claim, I view it as a mild form of racism or bigotry.
 
G
#230 ·
I am very wary to declare any genre of music superior to another. The basic limitation of all art, music included, is the human intellect and the human spirit. I wouldn't say all musical genres that allow full engagement of the artist are on the same footing. (It is hard to fully invest the human spirit and the human intellect in a 15 second advertising jingle.
 
#233 · (Edited)
I agree, but only in terms of the more general category of "art," which in itself transcends the idea of any art being "better" than others (within certain boundaries).

But when it comes to the "nuts and bolts" of music, i.e. pitch, rhythm, timbre, harmonic complexity, compositional methods, etc., then a credible case could be made that the Classical tradition (including contemporary music) has produced the "best" and most advanced and complex examples of music.
 
#231 ·
Music, Art, the Arts are all experiences we savor as individuals, though often in a group setting and though often the group's collective sum reaction can color our own (become a part of the esthetic experience, either in real time or remembered). But the individual response is primary and valid. The emotional and "esthetic" reaction of anyone to any Art experience are just as valid and authentic as those of others experiencing other Art objects, sounds, etc. We personally might not like or even understand the other's appreciation for some Art experience--individual preference rules--but we cannot judge and opine that someone else's experience is somehow inferior to ours.
 
#234 ·
This is correct, and I agree, since "art" is a process which transcends any idea of being "better" than other forms of experience. This is basically a subjective matter, which involves the inter-subjective realm of "being" and subjective experience.

But when we apply "objective criteria" to music, the picture can change.
 
#232 ·
It depends on what the criteria are. Since all art is the result of "being," then you can't say one genre is better in terms of art.
But if we narrow our criteria to the formal elements of music itself, then it becomes more credible to assert that "classical music is the best" because it is the most complex, and does the most in terms of the actual materials of music.

For instance, bluegrass music is harmonically simplistic, mannered, and formulaic by comparison; this is true for all forms of popular music, including rock, jazz, hip-hop, tin pan alley, etc.
 
#235 · (Edited)
I think a kind of judgement can be placed on genres of music. In my own case, I tend to like a good deal of popular songs and country songs, and if I were to run a cookout in my backyard and invite family and friends, that's the music I'd play. I mean, you don't break our Beethoven's Missa Solemnis at a party. With pop/country, though, it seems the more I listen to song (even one I like), the less I like I like it after repeated hearings. With classical, it's just the opposite. I could listen the same piece of classical music all day and enjoy it all the more as I keep finding new things in it. "World" music is also very appealing to me, and I was into it long before anyone called it "World" when it was filed under "Ethnic" or "International". Even so, it seems to me that these genres are limited, because after about a half-hour or so, all the songs start to sound the same be it Mexican, Greek, Celtic, etc. I think that American Jazz is roughly on par with classical music as an art form, and I was big into jazz during my college years and a few years beyond. I think that jazz artists such as Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Charles Mingus, Roland Kirk, Sun Ra, the Modern Jazz Quartet, and David Brubeck can be compared to the masters of classical music in how they continued to expand the genre and innovate new sounds so that certain jazz pieces remain fresh after repeated hearings. And it will take a smarter person than me to find any virtues in genres such as heavy metal and really explicit rap music; both are torture to my ears.

India and China have vast classical music traditions of their own that I enjoy when I hear it but can't possibly make a judgment upon for fear that I'll be speaking out of ignorance.

While it would be silly to place an exact measurement or apply a rubric to each piece of music regarding it's value; I think we can make some reasonable judgments, otherwise, it's like everyone gets a trophy just for showing up.
 
#236 ·
It is only valid to compare the best of one culture to the best of another culture, "best" as decided by any individual, for him/her-self - and based on some depth of exposure. Even though I very much value and enjoy Bluegrass and Old Time music, and even after being a professional songwriter in Nashville for 30 years, I detest most modern Country music as well as most modern Pop. I would never say that Western European Classical Music is no better than the latest Top Forty on Country radio.

And your test of length of listen time, I can't listen to more than three minutes of Top forty Country or Pop.

But I can listen to what I consider the best acoustic country music, Bluegrass, Old Time Mountain, Folk for weeks at a time, and longer than many styles of Western European Classical Music. I don't enjoy orchestral music but the chamber and solo music of some composers will play around my house for periods of time longer than some other music. But I do not think it is better music, just different music that may suit my mood better on any given day.

My point is that since music is an expression of a People's culture, once we begin to evaluate music (according to our own personal taste) and think/say the best of the Music of People A is superior to the best of the Music of the People B - then we run the risk of devaluing People B in comparison to People A.

My opinion is that the best music of any culture can hold its own, given enough exposure, to the best music of any other culture.

Of course this is just my opinion, and based on my own listening experience.
 
#237 ·
Is "complexity" inherently "best" in music? Or is it just "complexity"? How about something being complex and infinitely boring? How about something being simple and wonderful? No, this business of sneaking "objectivity" into esthetics via the back door will not work. But we need not revisit this issue yet again--I have disposed of it in previous posts and threads almost without number.:tiphat:
 
#238 ·
I agree. But defining "complexity" according to the priorities of Culture A and claiming it is superior to the Music of Culture B is specious. I would argue that there is just as much complexity in a performance by Robert Johnson singing Delta Blues, as there is in any work by Beethoven.

But that is not what I wish to argue, and won't continue.

I am not interested and don't spend any time comparing or judging the relative value of different kinds of music, or even thinking of that kind of thing. I just listen to what I like.

:cool:
 
G
#240 ·
I agree. One thing western classical music undeniably has going for it is large structures, pieces that go on for hours with a large performing group. I value subtlety. Compressing a great deal of meaning into a small form is also a challenge, just as much as trying to organize a vast expanse of music.
 
#239 ·
I think that history is a good indicator of greatness, as perceived by the largest, most dominating status quo. This will turn out to transcend limited areas such as "music" to include all art which is a reflection of the human experience. That is, if history itself can encompass all of Humanity.

Even then, feminists, blacks, and other groups might have their own historical agenda, and prefer a re-write.
 
#241 ·
Making arguments like this is not going to help fighting racism, it is a symptom of racism and a troubled PC culture.

Look at what Japan did, they spent a 100 years transforming themselves diligently from a traditional agricultural society to become a part of the western power. Yes their military imperialism was terrible but they have nonetheless produced great composers of Western Classical music such as Takemitsu and Hosokawa and later great film music composers such as Hisashi Jo and Sakamoto Ryuichi.

The Japanese people are non white, they were filthy poor 150 years ago under the constant pressures of great European powers, they have distinct culture and identity that is far different from the west. Yet they can do it, they fully embrace classical music, they have great orchestras and music education, they have a strong sense of national dentity, they have meticulously preserved their unique culture and managed to project their tradition eloquently to the world through techniques of the western classical music (the same happened in Avant garde art and architecture). The Japanese people are liberated through successful "Westernization" and they are still Japanese.

There is an unique universal dimension of Western culture that is definitely non-white or non-western, it is universal. It's like the technology of making nuclear weapon or computer, there is nothing white about it even if white people discover them first (just like Mathematics and Shakespeare).

What the racial minorities should do is to ruthlessly appropriate this technology, this emancipatory potential, this universal dimension as much as they possibly can without worrying about losing their identity. If it is a power struggle then they can only get equal foot by gaining power from within, that is, they have to be more "universal" than "westerners". They need to beat white people at "their own game" just like how the Chinese has dominated table tennis, a game invented by imperialist Britain.

What the white liberals should do is stop monopolizing this technology and reinforced the hidden notion that "only whites are capable of being universal and responsible". Raising awareness and providing help are all great, but it is the racial minority's decision to become what they want to become, they are the agent in this struggle, not the white liberals.

What the neocons should do is stop claiming that Western culture/value is superior. This emancipatory technology does not belong to the west, it belongs to the entire human race. The west should be proud of that they are the early discoverer, adopter, and guardian of it, but to monopolize it or to bundle it with their culture identies are a disgrace to their own tradition and will just cause more antagonism toward them.
 
G
#248 ·
Although I didn't take the article with much seriousness, it has its uses in rooting out racist responses as this one. I'm sure you don't believe you were writing a racist response but you did. When I was a kid, white people would berate black people as lazy and expecting a hand-out, of whining about racism in order to get sympathy and "playing the race card." If that white person was someone I knew, he would point to me and say, "His people don't expect handouts! They came to this country and built their lives from their hard work and they study hard and go to school!" I am Asian-American.

First of all, MY people weren't brought here specifically to be slaves to a dominant race but rather came here on their own ready to build themselves new lives. They generally had money, belongings and education. Hell, MY people were better off than a lot of Europeans that came here. We didn't have our identity erased. Yes, Asian-Americans place a lot of emphasis on education but it was illegal in the South to teach blacks to read and write! If anything, whites wanted nothing to do with us and didn't care to erase our identities. It just wasn't the same for blacks or American Indians (which I am also part). Whites had a vested interest in erasing their identities--of not remember who they were, of softening their brains with Christianity (aka "civilising them"). When all these groups grew large enough to form their own sub-societies, who do you think will be in the best shape--a community built on abuse, disenfranchisement, deceit? Or a community built on the traditional values of their cultures back home that valued hard work and education? Well, you see the results.

When I got older, I met other Asian-Americans and realized I was far from alone. Nearly all of them knew white people who, at some time or other, used them as examples of what hard work, education and a proper mindset can accomplish and how they don't use race as an excuse for their failures. They don't play the race card. I learned that Asian-Americans had a response to this type of thing and it goes like this: "Please don't use my arm to slap someone else's face."

I know when white people do this, they mean well but it is actually racist. That's the problem. When they do this, they don't think it's racist. That's why they still keep doing it. I have learned that "playing the race card" simply means complaining about racism being directed at you. Using my arm to slap another's face is just a way of saying. "Don't blame us for what happened to you. You have to rise above it like they did." "They" being Asian (generally Far Eastern) people. But that didn't happen to us. We had nothing to rise above. Where any mistreatment was really bad, we never recovered from it either. The Japanese-Americans used to be the largest Asian group in the US. Well over a million. By 2020, that number is 763,000. In 2010, it was 850,000. So, it is decreasing. That is a direct result of the Internment. An incident of abuse that lasted 5 years and occurred over 70 years ago is still affecting them to this day, it's basically driving them extinct in the continental US--they will survive in Hawaii, I think, but there is no way they can remain intact on the mainland. They are sliding inevitably to extinction.

So, imagine what centuries of slavery and centuries of disenfranchisement have done to others. They can't simply rise above it and they can't keep their traditions intact because those long ago have been or are actively being eased against their will.

I also remember how American autoworkers reacted when they were told to be more like the Japanese autoworkers. It was, "Hey, we're American not Japanese. They're a different people with a different culture. You can't expect us to just suddenly be like them!" But we don't accept that response when we tell others to be more like Japanese. Even the Japanese wish they could be more like the Japanese. They more than anybody.
 
#242 · (Edited)
An article came out today on the New Yorker about this topic that I felt that I should share with everyone here. It presents several different arguments about racism in classical music such as supporting African American composers/musicians, music theory, and of course some mention of Wagner.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...0QaXArkL3OE2cYcX6BPK93VG-zIavICNdGFE3I2PshGTs

In the end of the day, what I got the most out of this article is its conversation about classical music specifically in America and the adoption of classical music by the African American community and acceptance of black musicians by a largely white listening base. The article acknowledges that it is a European art form and that aspect of its history and "whiteness" cannot go away, but it is how that tradition was adopted in the United States that the article disputes. My own personal take is that the issue today stems from two fundamental issues:

1) Education/Exposure: you cannot gain a large base of African American or minority base listeners of classical music if it is not supported by the education system and people continue to encourage old stigmas about the genre. If there is anything in this article that I think is missing in the argument, it is this factor.

2) Acceptance of newer music: Many listeners including myself have certain composers and eras of music we like (Baroque, opera, Mozart, etc) and that we are willing to pay to see in a live concert setting. Are we willing to break habits and/or go to concerts where new pieces are presented? I may be part of the problem but I personally would rather see a performance of the Beethoven symphony I know rather than a modern piece written by a composer who I don't know. I'd imagine orchestras and opera houses that struggle to make a profit are more willing to present a show of pieces it knows has an audience base rather than newer/unknown music. Again, I think this is a point that the article also misses, which has both a cultural and more importantly and economic aspect to the issue.
 
#243 · (Edited)
Yes, of course it is, just like pretty much all major scientific achievements. Clearly white people conspired to elevate the achievements of white only scientists at the expense of all those coloured Einsteins and Newtons out there.

Seems to me some people these days are looking so hard for evidence of racism they are bound to find it (imagined) just about anywhere.
 
#247 ·
I read through the academic paper linked in the new yorker. It was an in-depth explanation of how Schneker's music theory is fundamentally racist or 'white' (I thought white was a colour, need to get with the times; maybe all in reference to the colour of scores (even the paper is white! The racism: racism everywhere!)?). Luckily, so my good friends here on TC could be spared the enlightening task, I went through and picked out the quotes the author uses to demonstrate, beyond any doubt, with more certainty than there is for Newton's laws themselves, that Schneker's music theory is racist. Here they are.

Racist Musical Theoretical Thoughts by Schenker:

"It is therefore a contradiction to maintain, for example, that all scale tones between "C" and "c" have real independence or, to use a current but certainly musically unsuitable expression, "equal rights."

"musical coherence can be achieved only through the fundamental structure in the background and its transformations in the middleground and foreground"

"in accord with its origin, it [diatony] simultaneously governs the whole contrapuntal structure, including the bass arpeggiation and the passing tones"

"the scale-degrees of the fundamental structure have decisive control over the middleground and foreground"

"Yet we must remember that all growth (every continuation, direction, or improvement) finds its fulfillment only through the control of the fundamental structure and its transformations"

Yes, my friends, oh my friends, here we have it; how, in the face of such insurmountable evidence, can an ignominious neanderthal like myself continue to deny the self-evident, the complete obviousness of the racism, the racism in these remarks is, to put in one simple word: overwhelming; I'm shocked and dismayed not to have realised it before.

But I am also relieved yes, oh so relieved, for here I thought, and, most unfortunately as you can see, you might have as well, where was I, ah, yes, at thought, something that according to the author was lacking before, was, perhaps, maybe is, sorely lacking, thought it was a bunch of pseudo-academics blowing hot air on the public dime. Boy am I happy to have been shown to be so erroneous; in my enlightened new state of anti-privilege, I'm going to burn my whiteness reinforcing treble clefs (maybe even with a sprinkle of pepper and racist rests (it even alliterates; as the sexist (possibly racist) author Joseph Conrad would say: The horror! The horror!) to some African drum music while smudging at a ceremonial fire. Even then I may not be purified. God forgive me. Wait, Gods probably racist too. Dunno what to write here that's not racist so I will end awkwardly and unintelligible with this very line.
 
#249 · (Edited)
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.

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 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.

Boulez and Stockhausen (even Debussy, Messiaen, Cowell, Hovhaness, Satie, Stravinsky, Webern) rejected this Western paradigm, and /or at least saw and transcended its limitations.

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.
 
#252 · (Edited)
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.
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."

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.
Jazz does have its own procedures. It's reasonable to regard jazz theory as distinct from, though partly inclusive of, traditional classical theory.

A 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.
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 than
Boulez or Stockhausen.)

Boulez and Stockhausen (even Debussy, Messiaen, Cowell, Hovhaness, Satie, Stravinsky, Webern) rejected this Western paradigm, and /or at least saw and transcended its limitations.
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?

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.
Always the pose of superior understanding and the sneer at your critics. Ho hum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top