Talk:List of music theorists

William Sethares

I added William Sethares to the list of 21st Century music theorists.

• Sethares has had a Wikipedia bio since 2009, which introduces him as "a music theorist;" hence, he is already considered to be a "notable" music theorist.
• On Google Scholar, compared to Richard Cohn, who is already (quite deservedly!) on the list:

• Sethares' his most-cited single publication, "Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale" has 730 citations, which is more than Cohn's most-cited single publication (464).
• Sethares' total number of citations across all publications (5621) is higher than Richard Cohn's (3311).

So, if Richard Cohn belongs on this list—which I heartily agree that he does!—then William Sethares does, too. I am not arguing for Cohn's removal, but rather for Sethares' non-removal.

Sethares is indisputably "known for" TTSS, given its high (for music theory) citation count.

Do you not have some connection to Sethares, JimPlamondon? If so, you are expected to disclose it whenever discussing him or his work, and to refrain from making any article-space edits relating to him. The preferred approach for COI editors is to make an edit request on the relevant talk-page(s), adding a {{request edit}} template if you like. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Conflict of Interest: I have co-written a number of academic papers with Sethares, many years ago, starting after the first edition of TTSS was published. I have cited TTSS in perhaps 7 papers -- fewer than 1% of its citations. Hence my providing hard evidence (e.g., Google Scholar citation counts) to support my claims of Sethares' notability.

The selection criteria and its rather unfortunate result

Right now, the selection criteria is "publication or (especially with pre-15th-century theorists) dissemination of written theoretical work by western musicians, and their inclusion in published books discussing the history of music theory."

Personally I have a hard time understanding what this cluster of words say, neither do I understand the inclusion of "western" there. Now, interestingly, pre-Renaissance composers are quite diverse, but somehow non-Western theorists are basically not featured after 1500? I'm not exactly sure if this is because of the criteria, but either way this is missing some pretty verifiable non-Western names.

My understanding of inclusion criteria for these things (in general) is that if RS can be found talking about someone's contribution to music theory, they should be included. I'm unsure as to why this article does not conform to that norm. Uness232 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You are welcomed/encouraged to do something about it. - kosboot (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have time right now, but I may get around to doing that. The reason why I asked this right now is to get the previous consensus, in the "is there a reason for this?" fashion, not that this is a vital page that attracts a lot of viewers so that this would need an urgent fix. Thanks anyway though! Uness232 (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Well right now there are a couple of Arab theorists so the "criteria" isn't exactly being followed. That being said, I'm not sure there are "pre-15th-century Western music theorists" other than Arab and (some, but not many) Chinese and Persian figures. Aza24 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree with that, to be fair. They might not be as well-studied in Western literature (unsurprisingly) and therefore many might not have English pages, but I'm pretty sure there are many more pre-15th century (I believe you meant non-Western) music theorists. I do not know much about Chinese music traditions, but of the Near and Middle East, I can think of Qutb-al Din, Hadji Büke, Maraghî, al-Ladiqi, Shirvani, Plousiadinos, Mehmet Agha and Behrâm who have at least one RS and are not featured in the article, although I am sure there are more. (I've realized later on that one or two of these might have died in the 15th century, but either way I think my point still stands). Furthermore, as this list includes many figures whose main focus was not on music theory, like Roger Bacon, it might actually be fair to include rulers of Middle Eastern countries who have written musical treatises.

However, that was not my main point at all, I think it's okay that more Western theorists are mentioned in English Wikipedia, as it is in a Western European language. However, what I am more uncomfortable with is the sheer absence of non-Western theorists after the 15th century, which I find perplexing. The 17th and 18th centuries are probably the golden age of Middle Eastern music, for example, and I see zero examples of Middle Eastern theorists from the 15th century onwards. Examples from this era (that I know of, so they are likely to be Ottoman or Byzantine) are much more plentiful: including Cantemir, Papadopoulos, Abdülbâkî, Chalatzoglou, Kyrillos, Yekta, Ali Ufkî, Itrî, Tanburî Moshe, Osman Effendi, ‘Isa, Kadri, Kiltzanidis, Çengi Yusuf, Seydi, Peloponnesios (almost forgot Kevserî) and more. Moreover, the Middle Eastern rulers argument still stands and is even more important in the 18th century. Uness232 (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article goal that even suggests exclusion of non-Western music theorists. Those of you who think that way are getting upset because you're inventing your own straw man. Stop complaining and start editing. - kosboot (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion relies on publication or (especially with pre-15th-century theorists) dissemination of written theoretical work by western musicians, and their inclusion in published books discussing the history of music theory.

I'm pretty sure that this definition (although very unclear) is likely to exclude non-Western theorists.

However, I understand your frustration with my lack of action (although I do not appreciate the tone), so I will start editing by deleting the sentence mentioned above, and I will come back to this article when I have more time. Uness232 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a very fair response, considering I said "other than Arab". Regardless, I've added the three Byzantine theorists I know of and will try and add more in the future. Aza24 (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the theorists that I have added are mostly not Arab: from the above examples, Qutb-al Din, Maraghî and Shirvani are Persian; Hadji Büke, Mehmet Agha and Behrâm are Turkic; al-Ladiqi is Arab and Plousiadinos is Greek. Despite this, I think I get your point, as until the Timurid Renaissance, art music in the Middle East was mostly from what would now be the Arab world, although I'm not sure if that is how you meant it. Either way, I think we should be more focused on expanding the article with theorists we do find rather than counting how many there are from each ethnic group. Thanks for your work on the article, Uness232 (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed I was grouping many groups together under the guise of "Arab", but I think we understand each other anyways. A couple of things: I'm working on the ancient music section in my sandbox as we speak, by the way. I had rewritten the Barbad article a few weeks ago; many theorists are mentioned in it, so I'll check if they have been included. Also, I removed Roger Bacon as he is not a "music theorist" in any sense of the word—I'm seriously considering removing Augustine as well. I know he has rather influential writings on music, but as I understand it, they might be more under the guise of musicology; in addition, it's telling that his Wikipedia article says virtually nothing on his music commentary. It seems awkward to call him a "music theorist". Aza24 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to be inclusive in here, and I would argue that, for people whose identity as a music theorist is debatable, exclusion might actually hurt our goal. I support the removal of Roger Bacon, though. Uness232 (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that user:Uness232 removed all the redlinked individuals. How are people supposed to know to identify and create articles on them? I think by now it's generally accepted that editors should NOT removed redlinked items because it indicates what needs to be done (see multiple issues of The Signpost). - kosboot (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

While I was not the one who removed the redlinks, and would have no problem with adding them back, I would like to say that not all of the redlinks were removed, just the unsourced ones. As there is no way to verify the works of such individuals, I can understand why @IronGargoyle removed them. Uness232 (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Reformatting?

I see someone created a list of medieval music theorists and I'm all in favor of altering the format to meet that list (which could be merged). But then I was thinking about sources. I agree there should be a separate column for sources, but might it be improved if one created more than one column? Namely, a columns for those listed in Grove, perhaps a column for those listed in MGG? The advantage for users would be an indication of coverage in both these sources (the leading sources for music information in English and German). Thoughts? - kosboot (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

That was me who created that list! I would be against a merge, primarily because I would expect we don't want to list every niche medieval theorist in this general List of music theorists one. And in this sense, the scopes don't coincide, since "medieval music" generally means "Western European music" (see here) vs the global Post-classical section. In general though, I would prefer the format of the medieval list, mainly because I think there is something to be gained with the nationality columns, especially now that we have Greek and Chinese theorists in the same section. Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24, you recently renamed the list of Medieval theorists as "Post-classical theorists," but this really begins to pose a major problem, e.g. compared to the Classical music article, in which you want classical music to begin ... precisely at the time of "post-classical" theorists. I can understand your concern of including non European theorists, a point that already was discussed about the Classical music article itself, without that we reached any constructive conclusion.

Music theory is today under attack, mainly in the US, because of a supposed European, or Western (and white) supremacism, and I suppose that the incertitude here on WP is an indirect result of these attacks. One should however not confuse the present-day situation of music theory and that of one or two millenia ago. This is not a problem that we can solve on WP, as it certainly would count as "original research". The fact remains, however, that the number of non-Western "post-classical" theorists remains quite restricted, and this cannot merely be considered the result of some modern Western supremacism – nor of the fact that we would miss the relevant information.

One might argue about what we call "music theory", and admit that some early non Western writers wrote about aspects of music that could be considered of the order of music theory. I do believe, however, that the whole idea of (1) writing (2) about theoretical matters (3) concerning "music" in Antiquity mainly is Western, or better said Greek. There is no supremacy involved in this, nor anything to be proud of, but the fact is that the Greek spent much more time discussing and writing about what they called the "musical system," which involved tunings and intonations. The fact is that "music," in Greek Antiquity, mainly meant the science of numeric ratios – a matter that may not have been of important concern in other cultures.

There is an obvious tension, for instance in Persian or Arabic music "theory" of about a millenium or more ago, between writers who dealt with systems as in the Greek tradition, and others more concerned with music properly speaking – for instance between al-Farabi and Zalzal (a tension that reminds of the one between Pythagorean and Aristoxenian Greeks of a few centuries earlier). But this, once again, obviously is too close to "original research" for WP.

The problem remains of calling "post-classical theory" a theory that belongs to the period that you yourself defined as "classical" – with the additional problem that defining music of the European Middle Ages as classical does not mean that the classical music of other cultures developed at the same time. One might speak of "post-Antique" theory, but for the fact that Western Antiquity may not be at the same time as that of other countries. I don't really know what to do, unless aknowledge (and say) that our chronology mainly is Western. I would not dare try to figure out what "post-classical" might mean, say, for Chinese, or Indians, or Persians... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a rather simple reason I renamed it that I assure you has nothing to do with the modern-day state of music theory. See Post-classical history, the term is a real historiographical categorization for world history studies. The term 'medieval music' almost exclusively refers to Western music during the middle ages (see [1]), that is, any book on 'medieval music' will basically only cover Western Europe (not expressing judgement on that) with some exceptions that I will not waste time explaining here. Therefore, in the context of music, having a 'medieval theorists' section would imply the need for only Western European theorists (which is what the List of medieval music theorists article that I made already does). If we want to include other theorists (which threads above seem to suggest that we do) we have to use a broader more global term like "Post-classical". This is all it is, most of this 'music theory is under attack' stuff you bring up is rather inapplicable. Aza24 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point. But I don't believe anyone in the musicological world uses the term "post-classical" to mean anything other than "music after Beethoven." - kosboot (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, but then no one uses 'medieval music' to say Al-Kindi, so there's no ideal solution here. I also really don't think it's a big deal, and seriously doubt that any of our readers will care... :) Aza24 (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes they do. As a compromise, I suggest we use centuries instead, something like 8-16th centuries, or even years: 700-1500. - 12:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Kosboot:; categorizing by centuries is a much better idea. I would like to take issue with what @Hucbald.SaintAmand: is saying here however; if the concept of writing about music theory is supposedly Greek (and this is markedly wrong, I would believe), then this does not explain why there would be more Western music theorists. Until the Age of Enlightenment, the Western (or, more appropriately, Latinate) world did not entertain the works of Greek authors nearly to the extent that Hellenic and Arabo-Persianate societies did. I do not think that music is an exception to this. Uness232 (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Changed, done, easy solution and no 'attack' on music theory. And no, I will never believe that readers care as much (or at all) about some random trivial section name as we (apparently) do. Like Uness, I take issue with Hucbald's characterizations above. I'm not really sure what they're going for and the only way I can really interpret it is needlessly bringing down non-Western cultures. Believe it or not Hucbald, it is quite possible for one to able to appreciate, respect and admire multiple cultures at once, including Western, Chinese, Persian, Arab etc. The idea that "non-Western "post-classical" theorists remains quite restricted" is complete nonsense, there are loads of Arab and Persian theorists, who (as Uness said) analyzed Greek works for more effectively than their European contemporaries. Indian and Chinese theory is just as old (in some cases, predates) Greek theory. This is all notwithstanding how little any of this has to do with the word 'post-classical'... Aza24 (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Eric Sams

I agree that Eric Sams is not a theorist. In fact he's not even a musicologist. Here's the entire entry from Grove written by Stanley Sadie.

(b London, May 3, 1926; d London, Sept 13, 2004). English writer on music. He studied modern languages at Cambridge and entered the civil service, becoming a Principal Officer in the Department of Employment in 1953. His musical studies are based on his interest in the relationship between music and language, both in the text settings of the Romantic song composers and in the more general field of aesthetics and inquiry into the nature of musical expression. Much of his work in the field of the lied is concerned with a close analysis of analogues between verbal meaning and musical motif; in his studies of Schumann he carried this particularly far with his discovery of a cipher system used by the composer. Sams’s interest in musical cryptography also led him to a solution of Elgar’s ‘enigma’. In 1989 he wrote and presented a television film on music ciphers and their use by Brahms, Elgar, Schumann and others. A penetrating and well-informed reviewer with a witty and allusive style, he wrote for the New Statesman (1976–8), and in 1977 was visiting professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Sams was also a noted authority on Shakespeare and his texts.

- kosboot (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers is using evidence of his writings on Schumann; I don't think this has to do with music theory. Motivic identification (or "ciphers and music codes" as the Eric Sams WP article puts it) is a musicological line of study, if at all. This is similar, to say, scholars who identify and catalogue themes in Wagner's Ring. There is not music theory involved in this. Again, sources need to call him a "music theorist". If he was one, Grove would certainly call him that, and it is extremely telling that they do not. His work seems to be full of fruitful and valuable material, but not music theory. Aza24 (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that reasoning: if a source calls him a theorist, fine. Lacking that, he doesn't belong on this list. - kosboot (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed him. If we can't have this bare minimum of being called a "music theorist" (which is extremely practical), then this list will never work. Aza24 (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Choice of Theorists

I have to question the choice of theorists on this page. Why is Philip Ewell here, when Wallace Berry, David Lewin Walter Piston, Saul Novack, Robert Morgan, and Leonard Meyer are missing. This list needs to be more inclusive or more exclusive. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, do you know... anything about Wikipedia? The answer to your needlessly bad faith and clearly provocative question is the same reason that half the entries don't have references, because no one has added them yet. Either do it yourself or stop complaining, and bringing Ewell out of nowhere into this says a lot about your inability to engage in productive conversation. David Lewin is included already, by the way. Aza24 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

When I put up something you just take it down. I prefer to be your critic. I repeat: this is a poor list. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You haven't made any edits to this page. I told you the reason they're not there, if you have nothing productive to add, then don't add anything. No one wants to hear your whining. Aza24 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't be working om an article unless you have the knowledge to do it right. A first-year graduate student would know that Wallace Berry, Walter Piston, Saul Novack, Robert Morgan, and Leonard Meyer belong on this list.

Concerning Ewell you state "Russian and twentieth century music, as well as rap and hip hop." Ewell has not done any notable publication in these areas. He shouldn't be on the list 24.184.26.105 (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This list is for music theorists with Wikipedia articles or references that establish notability. Ewell has a Wikipedia article so he is on this list. This list is incomplete—how many times do you need to hear this??? You are wasting everyone's time with your repeated assertions built on nothing but your own ignorance. Go away. Aza24 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Piston, Meyer, and Novack have Wikipedia pages. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This list is incomplete. This will be my last response. Aza24 (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed. It says this at the beginning: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Lots of the listing do not have Wikipedia entries. They are the ones in red. Piston, Meyer, and Novack have Wikipedia pages, but they are not here. This is why people don't trust Wikipedia; it is mostly done by amateurs. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

My earlier comment: "This list is for music theorists with Wikipedia articles or references that establish notability". This talk page is WP:NOT A FORUM, go away. Aza24 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm entering this conversation begrudingly, but I will say one thing. Your last comment about why people don't trust Wikipedia is exactly the type of rhetoric that will get you blocked on here for WP:NOTHERE. It has no purpose, other than insulting the hours of unpaid work we as a community put forward in service of free, public knowledge, incomplete and/or imperfect as it may be. If you plan to continue these comments, I will very soon have the same response as @Aza24, go away. Uness232 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I would have a different response which would be to block you permanently because of harassment. If you don't like it, edit the page (in accordance with Wikipedia standards). If you're not willing to help, your criticisms are not only useless but are abusive. Either help or remain silent. - kosboot (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is mostly done by amateurs" is a SELLING point. See also WP:PE PianoDan (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red: Music Theorists

Just discovered this Wikidata-generated list of women music theorists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_occupation/Music_theorists - kosboot (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)