Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

1651 music notation, query referred from reference desk

I'm digitizing an old book, and I have some questions about this score: Wikisource:Page:The_English_Dancing_Master-John_Playford-1651.pdf/8

Full list of scores with "fermata"s in that book Wikisource:Page:The_English_Dancing_Master-John_Playford-1651.pdf/8 Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/34, Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/30 (warning for offensive title), Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/38 Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/46 Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/53 Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/55 Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/60 Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/61 Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/63 Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/71 Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/72 Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/74 Wikisource:Page:The English Dancing Master-John Playford-1651.pdf/75

• Are the things like struck-thru fermatas, in this piece always over a dotted wholenote + wholenote pattern, really fermatas? It's a dance tune.
• While the note names are clearly as on a bass clef, the actuall clef is some archaic C clef apparently typographically aligned to point to the space under the center line of the staff (on other pages too). THis is indeed where indeed the C would go. Any idea what this clef is called or how I should show it in Lilypond markup?
• I'm having trouble replicating the barring of the original; I've got the functionality to remove all bar divisions, but I can't figure out how to selectively replace some, and do the odd double bar at the end (nor am I sure what that means).

I have had a hunt for this information and can't find it. If the Wikisource Scriptorium would be a beter place to ask, say so, and I'll ask there. HLHJ (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory. Not only is the pattern of the struck-thru fermate dotted wholenote + wholenote, but both have each time the same pitch, and the fermata or whatever it is, is positioned symmetrically over the dot. A modern fermata is positioned over the notehead. Another observation is that the "pupil" of the fermata (?) sign is not round, as is standard (see e.g. here), but has the same rotated-square shape as the noteheads.  --Lambiam 00:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So these modern versions of the scores render it as a tie. And looking through carefully, I know one of the tunes, and that is what it sounds like. Tie (music) does not mention this notation, and I'd like to find a confirming source anyway. You're right, I should post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory, I didn't know of that forum. HLHJ (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
— Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#1651 music notation

The clef seems to me rather clearly a G clef, with a rather large upper scroll that may stand as a d (or dd) clef. In other words, your transcription appears to be two octaves too low. The modern version that you mention here above has the notes in their proper register. I think also that you could reduce to their half the note values in the transcription; but that really is a matter of convention. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Hucbald.SaintAmand. I've moved it up two octaves and found a g clef in the Lilypond docs which gives the right letter-name alignment. The clef itself still doesn't look like the original, but closer. On reducing the lengths, I am a bit puzzled by the fact that musically, the eight-note-looking notes, each with a single flag on the stem, seem to be half the duration of stemmed unflagged notes, which in turn are half the duration of the unstemmed unflagged notes. Whether the note heads are solid or not is unclear. Since this is Wikisource, I'm trying to reproduce the visual appearance of the original where I can. So the strike-thru-fermatas are indeed ties? I'm assuming the strike-thru-fermata glyph can't be represented in Lilypond. Is there a way to reproduce the original barring? HLHJ (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

HLHJ, the clef is sol de premier ligne or "French violin clef". You're working from a very poor copy, but it looks as if the whole notes/semibreves are 'white'; nevertheless in this piece they behave as if they were black – the stemmed notes are black minims, the hooked ones are semi-minims. I don't know what Lilypond is, but custom bar-lines and modified signs of expression are quite straightforward in a serious music-engraving programme such as Finale. Good luck, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

LilyPond is a quite serious music engraving program, and can almost certainly do what is being asked of it here. Probably the best comparison would be if to say that if Finale is Microsoft Word, then LilyPond is more akin to LaTeX. PianoDan (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Playford's clefs, G, C, F, and gamma
• 
  G clef as printed, though other editions can look quite different
• 
  Of course Commons has an SVGs of Renaissance clefs.]]

Lilypond is one of the two options for rendering live-editable scores in Mediawiki. I have swapped to the sol de premier ligne or "French violin clef"; the Lilypond command is "\clef french", for general information. All the scores in this book seem to use a clef with a horizontal axis of symmetry, looking like a plant sprouting leftwards from the key signature, with two long, curling seed leaves. Or maybe it's two clefs. Sometimes it "sprouts" from the center line of the stave, sometimes from the line below it. The copy is indeed terrible, and maybe I should look again for a better one (some of it seems to be the 1651 printer). I will try to figure out how to make semi-minims with flags or hooks, and I think I'd best add an explanatory note on notation to this book. Thank you all for your help; I have good resources on modern notation and neums, but I'm struggling with bits of this in-between stuff. HLHJ (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The G clef on the first line is quite older than French violins, even that indeed became its name. For an example of a G clef as used by Playford, see his Skill of musick, p. [74]. This is a G clef on the second line, but it is one of the clearest in the book, with its large scroll on top. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)HLHJ, the version here appears to derive from the same digital source, but suffers from fewer undesirable artefacts. I find it rather easier to read, perhaps you will too? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the clefs on pp.74 and 75 are obviously what is being badly reproduced in the scan. Thank you, Hucbald.SaintAmand. I don't think Lilypond will do those without my adding an image, they aren't in the docs. Thank you for the file, too, Justlettersandnumbers, just eh page height beign fitted to the content will make transcribing easier. I've uploaded both.

We really need the score transclusion discussed at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/11#RfC: Musical notation files and T208494, I've already found the score of one of these tunes in another Wikisource book, and Judas Maccabaeus (Handel)#See, the Conqu'ring Hero Comes! and variants have been written up at least thrice on assorted wikis... it's the whole we-need-a-translingual Commons problem again. HLHJ (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Changing colours[1] and note heads [2]

I've added an image of the clefs so everyone can see what is being talked about. I think adding a custom clef image would probably be hard, so perhaps I should go with a modern G-clef although it looks quite different. I've now got a somewhat kludgy way to do all the irregular barring except the double double bars at the end. I can't seem to find a "turn off all non-explicit barring" command, but I can toggle barring as long as I toggle at least a note away from the place where the bar line is needed. And I can change note heads (from solid to hollow), and the colours their hooks, so I could kludgily make it match appearance-wise (in SVG form only), but in practice I can't seem to set elements to white or transparent on Mediawiki. HLHJ (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@HLHJ: turning off all non-explicit barring can be done with \cadenzaOn and \candezaOff ([3]). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, RandomCanadian, for that and for the links you gave on your talk page, reproduced here for convenience of record:

The odd-looking time signatures are also covered in the lilypond documentation; [4] (same page), although if you're able to transcribe the duration of the notes then which grouping is correct is often intuitive. This pdf and this page might be helpful if you haven't already found them.

For some reason I'd tried the cadenza-on command and mistakenly found I needed to turn it on and off repeatedly as described in my last post, but I didn't actually need to do that; fixed now. I hadn't even gotten to the time signature yet; it's now right. The flagged-semiminima problem I fixed by using e8*2 instead of e4, as documented (search "semiminima"; once you know a thing's name, conspicuous in the second of RandomCanadian's quoted-block links, it's easy). Justlettersandnumbers's better scan is really useful for figuring out what noteheads are solid and what are outline-only. I've put all these changes into Wikisource:Page:The_English_Dancing_Master-John_Playford-1651.pdf/8, along with some notes in the comments, and once I've figured out the last few things I'll copy to the other pieces.

Still on my to-do list:

• the double-double bar lines near (but not at) the end
• the "strikethrough fermatas" (Playford calls an unbarred fermata-like corona a "hold" or "close": Skill of musick, p. [38]), which may not be possible in Lilypond. It has fermatas, of course, but not in any nonstandard meaning. If they are intended to be essentially a breath mark, I might try attaching a fermata to an invisible zero-duration rest or some sort, but I'm still hunting for something better.
• making these work:
  • \override KeySignature.glyph-name-alist = #alteration-mensural-glyph-name-alist
  • \override Staff.Accidental.glyph-name-alist = #alteration-mensural-glyph-name-alist
  • \override Stem.neutral-direction = #up

The Renaissance clefs might not be too hard to add to Lilypond, since Commons has SVG files of them, but that's rather up to the developers. HLHJ (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Settling for \clef "petrucci-g1" (or others as appropriate) might be the simplest for the time being. As for adding the others to lilypond, that would be a matter which we can't do anything about on wiki (although, if you want to make a little message to the lilypond mailing list, which isn't particularly difficult to find, might help deal with that quicker). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone know the name of this glyph? Apparently it's a breath mark, 1651, London

Thank you, RandomCanadian. I quite agree on the clef. Once I've got a better idea of what is Lilypond and what is my ignorance, I may contact the devs. I've got a few bits of Lilypond that don't seem to be working on-wiki, which I've listed at Help talk:Score#Some Renaissance notation bits don't seem to be working, least anyone here be curious. I still don't have a name for the strikethru fermatas, but if I did I could place them correctly now! HLHJ (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Generalizing chord progression

There is a page for the IV^△7–V⁷–iii⁷–vi progression, which is popular in Japan. It also claims Western examples, which as far as my checking goes, don't include the seventh notes. Would we consider:

• moving the page to IV-V-iii-vi to keep the Western examples

• creating a new page
• Leaving it as is, with an explanation.

? Any constructive thoughts?

Dhalamh (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

My thought would be to keep the page as is and either remove examples that don't conform, or add an explanatory note. PianoDan (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

\include "gregorian.ly"

Putting '\include "gregorian.ly" ' in a Lilypond file enables archaic notation used in of a lot of public-domain music. Such notation often can't be translated one-for-one to modern notation (for instance, some of it does not indicate absolute pitch at all). Including the file is not possible in Mediawiki; obviously it would be highly undesirable for editors to be able to include arbitrary files in Lilypond rendering, security for Lilypond seems to be hard enough as it is. This particular functionalty would be really useful, though, especially on Wikisource. Does anyone know if there is an alternate way to enable it? HLHJ (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@HLHJ: Sadly, I think this is a result of the new implementation of lilypond on Wiki (it had previously been disabled due to security issues). Don't think it can be resolved that easily, although you could try filing a task at the Phabricator to see if something can be done about it. Alternatively, you can always compile lilypond examples locally on your own computer and export them as svg or something and include the picture along with the audio (which can also be created as a midi file by lilypond if need be, although custom treatment might result in a more palatable result). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, RandomCanadian. I've made a feature req on phab: T301624. Comments, criticisms, and additions from anyone reading this are very welcome. HLHJ (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea about Lilypond, but I am quite surprized to read above that it "does not indicate absolute pitch at all." I know of no musical notation that does – it is not a matter of the software used, it is staff notation itself (or, for that matter, any other type of notation) that does not indicate absolute pitch. Even if the composer gave an indication to this effect (saying for instance that A4 should be 440 Hz), I fail to see how that could be achieved unless perhaps on an instrument of fixed pitches. On any other type of instrument, pitch varies rather widely during the performance. This was not the question, of course, but I couldn't refrain commenting this point. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You're quite right, Hucbald.SaintAmand, and in the phab ticket I said absolute pitch/note name. I was trying to say that some historic notation (especially for vocal music) apparently only indicates relative pitch changes between notes, without the conventions we have for the approximate pitches at which we expect to find A4 etc.. Granted that most scores don't indicate the frequency in Hertz, if people pick up, say, a part from an orchestral piece, they will have certain expectations as to what pitches the notes are. Though the conventions vary by cultural context and shift over time; I have an instrument that simply cannot be tuned to anything approaching tunings others are likely to play similar modern instruments at. HLHJ (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Draft:Negative harmony

I don't know anything about music theory, and am trying to review this draft. There was an article on Negative harmony, and then there was a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negative harmony which deleted it. There is now a redirect to Riemannian theory. Riemann was in the late nineteenth century. Both this draft and the AFD refer to 21st century people who may be Youtubers. Should the draft be declined as already found not to be notable, or can something be worked up that links between the traditionalists and the moderns, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any paper publication concerning Negative Harmony: all mentions are on Internet. As some claimed, the word cannot be found in Ernest Levy's A Theory of Harmony, at times said to be the source of the concept. Having browsed through the book, it seems to me that what it describes indeed is negative harmony, even if it does not give it that name. But the problem remains the same: Levy's book has no clearly identified source. It does mention [Hans] Kayser's Lehrbuch der Harmonik, but without precise reference.

There are on internet slides from a talk by Moreno Andreatta where negative harmony is mentioned (in reference with the Tonnetz). Moreno Andreatta is a researcher in the Ircam in Paris and his may be more reliable than many other Internet references. His email address is available on his website, https://morenoandreatta.com/, and Moreno is a friendly person: it may be worth writing him.

The redirect to Riemannian theory indeed is somewhat puzzling. It is true that Riemann at times had a dualistic view of harmonic functions, i.e. one relying on undertones as well as overtones. But a redirect to Undertone series might make more sense. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A redirect to "Undertone series" would indeed be more sensible as that article at contains the term, which "Riemannian theory" doesn't. Or maybe the redirect was really meant to go to Neo-Riemannian theory which also mentions the term. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I've declined the draft and advised the author to merge it into Undertone series or to come here for discussion. Thank you for your review. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ethnomusicology

Hello,
Does the music theory project include ethnomusicology ? I couldn't find any answer in the music theory project page so i don't know...

Also, i'm a bit new here; in order to join a project, do i have to apply somewhere or do I just edit some articles related to music theory ?

Regards Vincent-vst (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whether ethnomusicology is in this project's scope. The last line of the project's description of its scope might indicate that it isn't. I also note that Talk:Ethnomusicology doesn't carry this project's banner, {{WikiProject Music theory}}. Maybe the project's creator, User:4meter4, can clarify this. As for joining: there is no application process; you just add your username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory/Members, but many other users edit music theory articles, too. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Vincent-vst and Michael Bednarek Good question. No ethnomusicology is not under the scope of this project, although there are places where the two academic disciplines may overlap. Ethnomusicology is an interdisciplinary field and is therefore a much broader area of study which examines music through many lenses (depending on the researcher and their interests) including cultural anthropology, psychology, cultural studies, queer theory, feminist theory, gender studies, sociology, ethnographic research, music history, geography, etc.

While musicologists (of which ethnomusicologists are a subset) may employ aspects of music theory in their discipline in some instances, it is not the primary focus of the field. Music theory is about understanding the mechanics of music and how it is functioning much in the way one studies the grammar of language and the construction of writing in language studies. It’s also about understanding the theories and philosophies informing the construction of music, in the same way that we might study the theories informing the writings of a novelist.

Ethnomusicology on the other hand is interested in music’s place and function within a culture/ society. It’s the study of music as a societal practice. What is this music doing for the people who are listening to it or performing it? How is the music being used within a culture? How is the music changing society? Is it political? Is it meeting some sort of communal or societal need? Etc.

That said, traditional music theory courses in the West have privileged Western music theory to the exclusion of other organizational structures. It’s often been left to ethnomusicologists studying the music of other cultures to do the work of understanding the mechanics of those different musical languages (particularly in music traditions without a prior existing formal written theory). As such, theory does come into the work of ethnomusicology. However, many ethnomusicologists do not engage with music theory at all within their work; choosing instead to look at music through the other lenses mentioned above.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems odd that there was never a WikiProject Musicology (or WikiProject Ethnomusicology). - kosboot (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kosboot Yes, it is a deficit in our WikiProject coverage in some ways. However, when one considers that musicologists write most of the academic literature on popular music genres (jazz, rock and roll, hip hop, rap, folk etc.) we do cover much of the published literature in various projects. There’s also Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Regional and national music taskforce which would be closest thing we have to an editing group dealing with the work of ethnographic research. So really, we do cover much of the field elsewhere, but the larger big picture articles within musicology don’t necessarily fall neatly into any of these niche projects or editing groups.4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keeping future comments on topic. I think this topic thread has been side tracked by a discussion of the work of Philip Ewell which lies outside of the field of ethnomusicology. Ewell is not an ethnomusicologist and his work critiquing the current state of music theory as a discipline is not structured from the point of view of ethnomusicology but from the sociological arguments of Joe Feagin. As such, I have separated out the off-topic comments raised into a subsection below.

To reiterate, ethnomusicology is not primarily concerned with music theory, and most of the literature produced by ethnomusicologists does not overlap with the topics covered in music theory. As such, ethnomusicology does not fall under this project.

As a project, we have delimited our scope of this project to the academic field of music theory as it has historically been presented in the West. This is largely because of the sources available in published literature. The field may potentially broaden in response to Ewell's work, and as it does the available published literature will change. If and when that happens, the scope and coverage of articles by this project will need to adapt accordingly. However, it's too early to predict how the field will change. We are essentially putting the cart before the horse (or sources). Ultimately we are limited by available published references per WP:Verifiability, and the current scope reflects what is currently published. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Side discussion on Philip Ewell

There remains something unclear in the question itself, IMO. If the question is whether our music theory project also covers the theories of other cultures, the answer obviously is "yes" – the Music theory article, in its historical section at least, covers the whole world and it would be up to people from these cultures to expand that. If on the other hand the question is about ethnomusicology, then it may be necessary to first inquire about the nature of the discipline, as 4meter4 already did above. Isn't ethnomusicology mainly a Western point of view, in that it involves considering cultures, so to say, from outside? The historical section of the Music theory article makes it rather clear (even if it was not its intention) that theories outside the West mainly are theories of the scales or of the systems. This also appears obvious in the earliest music notations, most of which are of the alphabetic type even in countries that have no alphabetic writing for their verbal language. It may also be noted that in many cultures the actual notation of music postdates the invention of notation by centuries. Music theory, in many countries, appears "pitch-centric," with notation denoting pitches, even in cultures where music itself isn't particularly pitch-centric. One may conclude that some distance always existed between music theory and music itself. I suspect that early music theory, like the writing of language itself, may have been a somewhat esoteric discipline belonging to limited castes of initiates. But what we call "theory" today is a consideration of the music itself, which is an entirely different affair. Even in some non Western countries that I know, present-day theory heavily relies on Western ideas more than on local historical theories (and students in theory come get their degrees in Western countries). This raises fundamental questions that it would be most interesting to discuss – at a professional level rather than here. However, this American guy who complained about "white supremacy" in music theory and who advocated the need to "reframe" theory never enough considered what he was speaking of (or didn't know enough) to realize any of this. As a result, this much needed discussion cannot take place at the moment in the US. (It does take place at this very moment in some non European countries, though.) The description of the scope of the project on the main page clearly says that it "covers Western music only" and the time may be ripe to change this. But this may be somewhat different from including ethnomusicology as such. And it deserves an in-depth reflexion. I for one believe that "Music theory" as a discipline mainly is a Western affair, even when applied to non Western cultures and musics. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand, I think you have some misconceptions about the research paradigm that is employed in ethnomusicology. The core research approach in ethnomusicology is ethnography which aims to “ explore cultural phenomena from the point of view of the subject of the study”.

The goal of the researcher in ethnomusicology is not to provide an outside opinion or analysis of the music of other cultures but to document the lived experiences and perspectives of the people within the culture from their own perspective. This means lots of interviews and recordings doing long term field work and allowing people from inside the culture to provide the narrative and contextual framework for understanding (not the researcher). The researcher should not be giving their own opinions but merely reporting what was done and said in interviews of people in the culture or within field observations (which should be interpreted/ contextualised by people from the culture and not the researcher).

In other words, ethnomusicology is not meant to be from an outsiders perspective but a reflection of the perspective of insiders in order to accurately represent the culture. The goal of the researcher is to remove themself as much as possible from what is reported. Ethnomusicologists are interested in what people inside cultures have to say about their music and music making within their culture, and what that music is doing for them and their society. Ideally, any sort of theory or analysis employed of the music of other cultures should come from within the culture itself and not be superimposed by the researcher. However, identifying themes and patterns through coding of the documents generated through interviews and fieldwork can bring about analysis in ethnographic research. This type of research is employed by both Western and non-Western academics in the field of anthropology. I can’t say whether non-Western researchers have specifically applied ethnography to studying music. I am not aware of any researchers outside the west working in this area, but they may exist. I can confirm that ethnography is widely used by non-Western researchers in anthropology. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand this is such a staggeringly inaccurate portrayal of Philip Ewell's work, as well as the current state of the field of music theory, that it borders on the absurd. (Not to mention the offensive offhand dismissal of an Ivy League professor as "this American guy".) The idea that Ewell's carefully researched, meticulously footnoted, and basically airtight case "didn't know enough" is laughable in the extreme, and is so hilariously misinformed as to throw everything else in this comment into doubt.

And frankly, it is so obvious that the modern profession of music theory is built on works of white composers and theorists, and still highly exclusionary to practitioners who are not white men, that to argue against that point only serves to establish the bias of the commenter. The fact that Ewell can provide a MOUNTAIN of receipts for his patently obvious thesis and still get this kind of pushback is pretty sad. PianoDan (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@4meter4, I am obviously not an ethnomusicologist myself, but my colleague in one of the major European universities always told me that the first step for the ethnomusicologist was to immerge in the culture studied, but that the second step was to return from it and take a distance of observation. In any case, this has little to do with the matter of theory.

@PianoDan, let me suggest that you read comments still available on the former SMT Discuss webpages, particularly the last two discussions which led SMT to close the pages, refusing further discussions: the one on the opinion of John McWhorter and the one on the opinion of Ian Pace. I won't enter a quarell about this, but to say that things may not be as clear as you believe. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hucbald.SaintAmand As part of my work doing research in music education in grad school, I had to take four graduate courses in musicology, one of which involved reading multiple ethnographies in conjunction with the authors of those ethnographies. We spent much time discussing how field research is conducted and the process through which ethnographic research is implemented. Yes distance is necessary to maintain accuracy, but intimacy is also required in order to actually make field observations. Researchers have to develop relationships with people in order to gain access to interview subjects, and be invited into places and spaces for research. The process of distance is achieved through coding as mentioned above, but any ethnographer is going to allow the interview subjects presented in their work a chance to read their finding before publishing and get feedback for accuracy and clarification because ethnographies are meant to be told from the perspective of the subjects. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand cherry picking individual academics who happen to support some of your points doesn't really give any support to arguments about the direction of the field as a whole. John McWhorter is a respected scholar, but he's not a music theorist, musicologist, or an ethnomusicologist.

And citing a post by Scott Fruewhald, who is a lawyer with no published research in the field for decades is side-splittingly worthless. An argument that SMT-discuss shouldn't have been shut down because we needed to preserve the option for THAT kind of discourse is so absurd as to be over the line into fairly effective satire.

SMT Discuss was shut down because it was an antiquated system that isn't how people use online resources any more. PianoDan (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Your argument seems of the same kind as Ewell's own: "who does not agree with me is wrong." All discussion about these matters has been refused from the start – also by Ewell himself. WP is not the place for such a debate and we won't continue here, but I recommend you to read the SMT Discussion beyond merely the names of two of the participants. Ian Pace, to mention only one, is a major music theorist. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

If someone is demonstrably correct, then there is no logical fallacy in asserting that those who disagree with them are wrong. In fact, quite the opposite. PianoDan (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@PianoDan, let me repeat that WP is not the place for such a discussion: there are better places for that. But let us nevertheless examine the matter further. It is extremely difficult to claim that someone is "demonstrably correct," particularly in complex matters. Let's take an example outside the field. Would you agree that the theory of particle accelerators mainly (i.e., statistically) is white? Yes, I presume. Would you agree that the reason is anti-black racism? No, for sure. This however exactly is what Ewell claims for music theory. I fully agree with him that music theory mainly is white, but I am in total disagreement on the reason why. The whole idea of theorizing about things probably is a feature of Western ways of thinking since Greek Antiquity. Other cultures (not necessarily black) developed other ways of thinking that we would not easily define as "theory." I can only repeat that these are interesting and important questions and that I utterly regret that the SMT, and Ewell, merely refuse any discussion about them. There are however, on Internet and elsewhere, a growing number of authorized voices discussing Ewell's claims. You probably should read some of them. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"...that we would not easily define as 'theory'." Are you aware that you're just proving the point here? Who is "we" that gets to define theory in this way? That's Ewell's entire point - that the inherent assumptions behind who "we" are, and how "we" define theory have some baked-in notions that are exclusive of anyone who isn't a white man... and they are not required to, nor should they. Defining theory in this way is massively problematic. You are not "we".

You keep saying I need to consult the dwindling number of people who are still fine with this exclusionary definition. I flatly reject this. The shrinking number of dinosaurs who are OK with a field defined as narrowly is this do not represent the majority of the field, and they do not represent its direction.

SMT is the professional organization for theorists, and they have been making strides in the last decade to improve diversity at their conference, in their publications, and on the executive board. And the membership hasn't voted out that executive board and replaced them with a bunch of Eastman-educated Schenkerians - it has continued to elect leaders who support that effert. THAT'S who I look to to establish my sense of the direction of the field - the elected organization representing the entire field. Not a random lawyer grinding an axe on a 25-year old list server.

You also keep saying that this isn't the place to discuss this, and then continuing the discussion. Aside from the obvious contradiction, the question at hand is "what is music theory?" This is EXACTLY the question that you are attempting to answer using an understanding from two hundred years ago, and I am refusing to accept an answer to with that many implicit assumptions from an age when Black people were property in the US. PianoDan (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

SMT is the professional organization for AMERICAN theorists, and it clearly diqualified itself worldwide (I am not the only one saying this). I am myself a professional music theorist, with more university degrees than Ewell and many more publications – also concerning non Western theories. So, we better stop here. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"It clearly disqualified itself worldwide." No, that ISN'T clear. PianoDan (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment on Ewell from my perspective as a music educator. @PianoDan and @Hucbald.SaintAmand I personally have mixed feelings about Ewell's arguments, largely because I do not believe applying music theory as practiced as a discipline to musics outside of the West can be done without superimposing Western academic ideas onto non-Western cultures. Many cultures have no formal concept of 'music theory' as understood in the West but are oral/cultural traditions which are not written down and often involve improvisation. As such, the music language of those cultures should really be taught in the way it is taught inside that culture, and not transcribed into Western music notation and then analyzed. That is unethical if we consider the current focus on decoloniality in academics. In short, I am not certain that Ewell's call for change can be done without enacting what is primarily a Eurocentric episteme onto non-European musics. That would completely defeat the purpose of achieving decoloniality in the music theory classroom.

The decolonization of knowledge means that we need to recognize how Eurocentric episteme are a form of cultural hegemony, and ultimately that may mean that music theory as a discipline needs to respect the musics of non-Western cultures by not analyzing them at all through the Eurocentric epistome that is music theory. Sometimes the best thing we can do, is recognize the limits of what we are as an academic discipline and be ok with it.

Ewell is right that we could do far more to diversify the music studied in theory courses within the Western canon by including Western composers of diverse backgrounds in the canon of study (not all classical music worth studying has been written by dead white men) and varied music genres that are inherit in the West ( we don't need to spend our whole time analyzing 17th, 18th and 19th century European keyboard and symphonic music which is what most theory classes are; we can look at other genres like jazz, rock and roll, etc.)

There are some highly developed non-Western music theories such as Indian classical music that could potentially be studied using their own framework. However, I question whether this would be of much benefit to students in the West who are not likely to have much need for such knowledge. Teaching students Western music theory is already a daunting task, and most students struggle to grasp a basic working knowledge of the structures of Western music as it is. Taking time away from that, would seem to be detrimental for building mastery of the core content area needed to be a working professional musician. At some point, we need to be willing to admit that mastery of the musical language of one's own culture may need to take precedence over the languages of the musics of other cultures. If I can't write and speak well in English, should I really be trying to master Italian, Chinese, Arabic, and French at the same time when I need to master English to be employed after school?

Ewell's ideas are great in theory, but I am not sure they are pragmatic for the goals of most students in university music departments and music conservatories who are trying to pursue careers in the performing arts which require a working knowledge of Western music theory. Ultimately universities and conservatories should be preparing students for the workforce, and I am not seeing how the study of non-Western music theories are going to do that for the majority of students who are trying to prepare for careers in Western music ensembles (i.e. symphony orchestras, opera companies, Broadway musicals, etc.). This kind of study would be better relegated to elective graduate level courses in music theory for those seeking careers in academics with a specialized interest in the theory surrounding a specific musical language. Thus, I would not advocate for as radical of an alteration of the current theory curriculum as Ewell; while still pushing for some alterations along his line of thinking. But all of this has very little to do with the supposed topic of this thread.4meter4 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If we can continue this discussion on serious terms, I remain willing to participate.

I do believe that Western music is a special (albeit not necessarily unique) case in that it is a two-stage art (Nelson Goodman, Languages of Art, 1976, p. 114). One stage is the composition, usually in writing, and the second is the performance. Not only may the performer not be the same as the composer, but the composer often already is death when we hear the music performed. The music is "differed" (Jacques Derrida, L'Écriture et la différence, 1967, passim). Between the composition and the performance, there exists something to which we usually refer a "the work." This in turn justifies discussions of "ontology" (Lydia Gohr, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works, 1992) and, in addition, allows us to treat "the work" differently from "the performance." This, IMO, is utterly different from the situation in most musics of oral tradition, where it is difficult to distinguish the work from its performance.

What we call "music theory" in the West today, and more specifically what we call "music analysis" is a consideration of the work itself. Performance studies are a rather recent development, one which may be considered a "reframing" of the theory. However, most of our performance analyses concern performances of a written work, i.e. something given and which, in its notated form, somehow is immuable. Performance studies examine the work and its performance from another perspective than our usual music theory but without deeply modifying what theory itself means.

I have had several PhD students from North Africa or the Near East, practicing māqām music, but who came to work with me probably in order to consider their own music as if consisting of immuable "works." One think we did was to try and apply Schenkerian techniques to māqām. We were fully aware that this was applying Western music theory to a music that might be studied otherwise. One problem is that, after the Cairo congress of 1932, Arabic music deeply is influenced by Western ways of theorizing it, notably in North-African and Near-Eastern Conservatoires. This is a historical evolution of which, I think, nobody should be considered guilty today: finding culprits (white supremacists? who is white?) would change nothing.

Non-Western music theories often are of another kind. Ancient theories at least mainly were theories of scales and systems rather than considerations of the music itself. So far as I know, Sourindro Mohun Tagore (1840-1914), one of the main 19th-century theorists of Bengali music, wanted both to revive Sanskrit tradition and to organize music education in India on the model of European Conservatoires. This is one illustration among many of how these matters are complex. I think however that it would be pointless to try and teach Indian music theory in the West because that theory hardly could be studied in depth without at the same time studying the practice of the music itself: either this is done under the direction of a Master, as is normal in a music of oral tradition, or by adding written examples of Indian music in our theory textbooks, which won't really "reframe" anything.

To sum up, I think that any idea of "reframing" music theory should be considered with utmost caution. The differences between the world musical cultures are important. We may try to know more about the music of other cultures, but that should not involve mixing everything. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Serious discussions of the differences between ethnomusicology as practiced by Western academics and Western music theory (all music theory is NOT Western, as you quite clearly demonstrate here) are fine. You are the one who brought up Ewell in the first place, and all of these points could have been raised without doing so.

Ewell's critique is of the entrenched racial biases in Western theory itself, as you define it. Will I push back every time you bring up your offensive implications that a professor of music at a leading university, publishing in a flagship journal of American music theory, is somehow stupid or ill-informed? Yes I will, because other readers should be aware that those implications ARE offensive and ill-founded. PianoDan (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Christ, @PianoDan, can you not calm a bit? I certainly am not the one who brought up Ewell in the first place, as you could easily check rereading the above. Did I ever say that he was stupid or ill-informed? Where? When? I only said that he did not enough consider what he was speaking of – and I added that he refused any discussion. I'll keep to that. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You certainly are the one who brought him up. Your words:

"However, this American guy who complained about "white supremacy" in music theory and who advocated the need to "reframe" theory never enough considered what he was speaking of (or didn't know enough) to realize any of this. "

You didn't have the courtesy to refer to an Ivy League professor by name, but those are your exact words. And "didn't know enough" is a straight synonym for "ill-informed." PianoDan (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@PianoDan and Hucbald.SaintAmand, this may not be the best way to go about having a civil and productive conversation. Try and be patient with one another. @ Hucbald, Ewell is the only academic who has published and presented at a major symposium the argument that music theory as a discipline has a white racial frame. It was pretty clear who you were referring to. @ PianoDan, I think Hucbald was raising a valid query about the existence of other non-Western / non-White music theory systems, and he was therefore accusing Ewell of ignoring that information in his argument. (ie. how could music theory be white supremacist if music theories exist in non-white cultures?)

Hucbald's criticism deserves a respectful answer; although it's pretty clear that it is a critique from someone who hasn't actually read Ewell's publication or listened to his speeches/ lectures on this topic. Hucbald, Ewell is very much aware of these other theories and musics. His argument is they aren't taught and that we ignore these other theory systems and musical languages in the curriculums we teach in universities and conservatories, and in the academic journal articles that get published. This is absolutely true. Ewell has meticulously researched and analysed what literature has been published in the field of music theory (both now and historically in English and other languages), what music gets analyzed in journals (from what culture and by what composer) , what authors get published (ie by race and gender; nearly all white men), what is the background of the people working in the field (something like 97% white men hold the academic positions in this field if I am remembering correctly), what music gets included in curriculum materials etc. This research has been collected into a damning statical picture demonstrating that we rarely publish music theory journal articles on music by non-white individuals, non-Europeans, and women. We also rarely publish articles written by anyone but white men. All of it presents a damming picture that we pretty much privilege music composed by white men, and mainly from Europe and mainly from the 17th through 19th centuries.

Based on the data meticulously collected and analyzed using statical models widely used in research, Ewell's research demonstrates that the academic community in the field of music theory has built a "white racial frame" into their discipline using the model of critique developed by Joe Feagin. It is a convincing argument. If our curriculums textbooks in music theory do not address anything outside of European music (typical; even music by Americans is rare in most textbooks) and do not discuss the music theories of other cultures, and if our publications do not examine music by people other than white men and from a very narrow period of time, then how can the field of music theory be truly representative of all music and the theories used in all music? The answer is it can't. As a remedy, Ewell has provided curriculum examples of ways that textbooks could be updated to include music theories other than those developed in the West, other musics by women and people of diverse racial backgrounds that could be used as analysis pieces in theory curriculums, and he is currently developing a new music theory textbook with a global perspective. I would imagine that once it is published, it is likely to be adopted by many institutions. All of this to say, if you are going to critique Ewell, you should probably read Ewell's publications, watch his speeches and lectures on YouTube, and then form an opinion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@4meter4, many thanks for your attempt at calming things down. I am afraid I will stop for a while, though, mainly because I'd like to remain more or less anonymous here, otherwise the discussion soon would become impossible. I am a professional music theorist, with about three to four times as many peer reviewed publications as Ewell (I am older than him, a "dynosaur" as PianoDan friendly writes). I have directed or seated in the jury of PhD's on Japanese, Indian, Libanese, Tunisian, Algerian and Ivorian music (if I forget none), most of them from students from these countries – I don't know who of them must be considered "black," I didn't pay much attention to their skin color (some for sure were darker than others, but I fail to see at what degree of darkness one becomes "black"). I published on several of these musics and their theory. I read several of Ewell's publications (I am not particularly interested in modern Russian music, but I read his MTO article, his blog, his tweets – where he was so kind as treating us Europeans as "anti-Black racists"). You write that "Ewell has meticulously researched and analysed what literature has been published in the field of music theory both now and historically," which I hope is true; but you add "in English and other languages," which I strongly contest. His quotations from German publications usually are from translations (I don't mean that he does not read German, maybe he does, but apparently he finds it easier to read translations); some have been shown to be incomplete up to the point of losing or contradicting the original meaning. I would have not much to say of what Ewell wrote about the way music theory is taught in the US. But he spoke of European supremacy, without evidencing much knowledge of how we teach an practice music theory here in Europe. This all is worth further thinking, also from the American side, and I trust that in the end we will be able to share a more common and pacified view of all this. But let's stop here for the time being. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2022

Ewell’s criticism of pedagogy and curriculum has been directed entirely on the American academy and not at the European academy (something he has made clear in his dialogues with European academics in recorded YouTube sessions). So I think some of the reaction here is understandable but also maybe not accurately depicting who Ewell was addressing in his research/audience. His main focus is reforming the practice of music theory in the United States. The United States has always privileged European music and methodologies in its education system (hence the accusation of European supremacy), and historically the American academy has always been more accepting of European composers than even American ones, let alone composers from other backgrounds. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@4meter4 Thank you for your detailed discussion. I agree with you that many of the loudest voices against Ewell's work have failed to demonstrate an academically honest engagement with the text of his research, choosing instead to attack the messenger. (Jackson and others from JSS #12 come to mind immediately.) There's also a certain amount of sea-lioning going on - "If you refuse to accept my context to have this debate, then it's YOUR fault we aren't debating."

But these ARE very important issues, and dismissing or refusing to engage with them thoughtfully does a disservice to the profession, and more specifically, we do a disservice to Wikipedia as editors if we fail to include views which are widely held within the profession. Even if the Europe / America split is as profound as Hucbald.SaintArmand claims it is (a claim for which I have seen very mixed evidence), the fact that the American theory establishment (as personified by SMT) acknowledges the issues raised by Ewell as important means that it's a widely supported position.

I'll also point out that counting publications isn't really a great way to establish the VALIDITY of a position past a certain point. While Wikipedia editors CERTAINLY shouldn't be leaning on research from people with few to no publications in a field for citations (no matter how much we happen to agree with their positions) the difference between the exact count for established academics with serious reputations in their field is meaningless, and at worst a distraction from engaging with the content of the research itself. PianoDan (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

References

@PianoDan I don't think anyone involved in this particular conversation suggested censoring wikipedia, or not presenting content on Ewell and his work. We have a decent article on Ewell now thanks largely to SyLvRuUz and to editors like yourself. Whenever anybody is bold enough to write a paper that redirects a field in a new direction, or forces a field to do the work of critical self-examination it is bound to create some controversy as people sort out how to respond. Ewell's keynote address did both of these things. What we are seeing here is the natural reaction to a work that is intended to create this kind of response.

Ewell knew that introducing academic theory in anti-racism to the field of music theory was going to cause disruption, and force difficult conversations. I don't think we should chastise others as they work through their own thoughts and emotions in response to this work. Inevitably there are going to be people who need time to come around to a certain way of thinking, and they may need to work out how to think about this topic through debate/ conversations like the one above. Indeed, it's the people struggling with this ideology that need to be exposed to it the most.

I can understand that a European person hearing Ewell's keynote may not perceive the context of Ewell's research. (more so if they are engaging with it through secondhand sources rather than directly) The European Academy is structured differently than the American Academy, and pedagogical practice is not identical between the two. As such, much of Ewell's criticisms can not necessarily be transposed to other teaching contexts and cultures outside the United States. (even in Europe there is not complete uniformity). It's quite possible that there is more diversity in the actual practice of music theory in the European classroom itself. I don't think Ewell looked at doctoral dissertations coming out of Europe, just journal articles. So it's possible that there has been a move towards more inclusivity as Hucbald has claimed. I can't say because I am not an expert, and I have no experience with the European academy personally beyond engaging with some materials while doing research for my dissertation which was so narrow in scope that it wouldn't give any clue to what the state of pedagogy is in Europe. Regardless, Hucablad clearly misinterpreted what Ewell meant by European Supremacy in music theory, and failed to recognize how that conclusion was arrived at and in what context it was being applied. This is why conversations are important.

Another point to consider, while Europe was responsible for the slave trade, they did not actually incorporate slaves into their societies in continental Europe to the extent of what occurred in the United States. So whereas America has to contend with a large population of citizens descending from slaves, and the continuing fall out from a history of systemic racism within our societal systems, Europe has a different relationship to its colonial past. That's not to say that the work of anti-racism doesn't apply to European societies, but that Europeans are less likely to admit to or perceive the need for anti-racist scholarship because they haven't been impacted so directly or obviously by racist systems as the United States. As such, the willingness to engage with Ewell seriously is maybe not so precent for European academics who in general are more skeptical of anti-racism, theories of decolonization, etc. All of this to say, keep calm and kind because that is likely to have more impact than attacking people wrestling with a new way of thinking. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

All great points. I'll do my best. PianoDan (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a point: did you see this European Open Letter from almost two years ago? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure did. Did you see this one with over 900 signatures? PianoDan (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The whole issue with Jackson and the Journal of Schenkerian Studies (JSS) Vol. 12 is a complicated mess that doesn't reflect well on anyone involved. While it's clear the JSS needed/needs to make improvements to its editorial oversight, it's equally clear those issues were raised in a retaliatory fashion in a way that violated the academic code of ethics for universities and academic organizations like the Society for Music Theory. (Sorry SMT letter signers, but you are now the oppressor using unethical retaliatory tactics to silence debate.) The court case filed against UNT found that they selectively enforced policies to the JSS journal that they didn't apply to other journals at the university with similar editorial oversight and publishing practices, and that such action was taken in retaliation of the publication of vol. 12 as a means of silencing academic discourse. They therefore lost the court case for violating freedom of speech under the first amendment. It's likely Jackson will also win his defamation lawsuit against the university, and the staff and students named in his lawsuit. Rightfully so. When we allow cancel culture to impugn academic professionals without evidence (by this I mean accusations made by faculty and students outside of the publications which have been brought in the lawsuit), spread defamatory opinions as truth, and attempt to silence our intellectual opponents in what resembles a McCarthy like witch hunt we have created an academic community resembling a dystopian novel like Nineteen Eighty-Four. I am all for adopting anti-racism paradigms, but I am for it inside an academic community that respects ethical codes of conduct that allows for freedom of speech.4meter4 (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@PianoDan Sure. It is mentioned in the European Open Letter: "The Open Letter on Antiracist Actions Within SMT calls for 'a censure of the advisory board of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies' and asks 'revocation of membership and honors' – which merely is censorship." Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between "censorship" and "being held accountable for your actions." And some speech ISN'T deserving of University imprimatur, including the explicit racism in JSS #12. The signatory list of the SMT letter is over ten times this size of that for the European letter, so I think it is pretty obvious which one represents the stronger consensus in the field.

Also @4meter4 - Jackson hasn't WON anything yet as far as I can tell. The judge denied the defendants' motion to summarily dismiss the case, meaning the case can proceed, not that it has been decided. At a minimum, there's no decision until the judge issues a final opinion, and given that East Texas is a place to go when you want to venue shop, I would probably also wait for the inevitable appeal. PianoDan (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like you are correct and it was just an opening part of the case. Regardless, I find the response to the journal's publication on the part of UNT and JSS more disturbing than the actual journal publication (which I also found disagreeable). Couching censorship under the guise of "accountability" when said accountability is selectively enforced in what's clearly a retaliatory tactic isn't equitable treatment no matter how you spin it. Either we hold all journals to the same standards (which UNT isn't), or we don't. Selective enforcement indicates that it's only being done because people disagree with the speech being expressed, and that is a first amendment violation which threatens the integrity of the wider bulwark of academic freedom. We can't conveniently put aside our ethics and structures that protect academic freedom when someone publishes something we find distasteful. What the JSS should have done is invite critique of the actual published articles and used their pens and their scholarship in publications to express their opposing opinions. Any review of the journal's editorial process needs to be done independently and in a way that is equitable with other publications housed at UNT. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

If you read the report that was made to the university, I think it shows that JSS absolutely abdicated proper academic standards. Peer-review isn't "censorship". And issue 12 wasn't peer-reviewed, as Jackson made clear in his court filing. PianoDan (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand that. There were other journal publications at UNT that also published non-peer reviewed material and that published anonymous content. These journals are not undergoing the same scrutiny, and their editorial staff was not removed. Hence, selective enforcement. I am not disagreeing with the need for better editorial oversight. What I am disagreeing with is selective enforcement in what is clearly a response to the content that was published. That becomes unethical as it is clearly an attempt at censorship. 4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a WP:WHATABOUT argument to me. :) PianoDan (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Selective enforcement is a legal term, and it is a serious ethics breach with legal consequences. So no, it’s not a what about argument; it’s the law. Governing bodies have a legal responsibility to implement policies with equity. In this case, proof of selective enforcement could be enough to prove a case of a first amendment violation under the law. In fact this is the argument being made by Jackson and his attorney in their lawsuit against UNT. 4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@PianoDan You acknowledge that I am a legal scholar, so let me analyze this using legal method. Ewell is a fraud. Ewell has proclaimed that Schenker is a biological racist. Fraud is a material misrepresentation. Claiming that Schenker is a biological racist is a material misrepresentation, so Ewell is a fraud.

Here is the evidence. Dr. Barry Wiener has identified several incomplete quotes in Ewell’s article, reproducing Ewell’s quotations in bold within the longer quotes, which provide the true context. (Barry Wiener, Philip Ewell’s White Racial Frame, 12 Journal of Schenkerian Studies 195, 199 (2019)) The full context establishes that Schenker was talking about the French, English, Americans, and Japanese, Germany's enemies in WWI, not biological race.

Most importantly (and fatally for Ewell’s argument), Ewell has “misquoted” Austrian music scholar Martin Eybl's, discussion of Schenker to disguise that Schenker’s world view was cultural. In a key section of his paper, Ewell asserted, “The author who has done the most to reframe Schenker’s racism is Martin Eybl. . . . Eybl acknowledges Schenker’s racism forthrightly.”

In support of his argument, Ewell quoted Eybl,"The term 'Menschenhumus' is based on the idea that Germanism unequivocally constitutes the best natural conditions for the development of geniuses: in “Menschenhumus of the highest category” the “German genius” is manifest. . . .  Anyone who considers the term “Menschenhumus” as a simple translation of the burdened conceptual pair of blood and soil is ignoring the pseudo-scientific bases of national-socialist racism and its predecessors."

Ewell then declared, “But this is, in fact, one of the main goals of the white racial frame—to ignore inconvenient facts if those facts contravene or damage the impact of a given racialized structure of the white frame. Schenker invokes Menschenhumus as a scientific basis for German superiority in music. We must not now or ever cast aside such important information, especially about a figure who remains so central to our field.”

Notice the ellipsis in the quote above. Here is what the ellipsis replaces: “Again, Schenker does not argue on the basis of race, but of German national [culture].” [“Wieder argumentiert Schenker nicht rassistisch, sondern Deutschnational.”] Ewell also left out the two sentences that follow: “At no point does Schenker attempt to explain the superiority of Germanness genetically. The fact that the German people can be defined by language and culture forms the open and nebulous prerequisite for Schenker's German nationalism.” (Timothy L. Jackson, The Schenker Controversy, Quillette (December 20, 2021))

In other words, by omitting these three key sentences from the Eybl quote, Ewell totally changes Eybl’s meaning from culture to biological racism. In sum, Ewell made Schenker lookloke a biological racist, when he wasn't one, through deceptive quotation. This is not opinion; it is fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Let me add that Martin Eybl is among the signatories of the European Open Letter. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@4meter4 The statistics in Ewell's article are not statistically sound. He is correct that there are few minorities in American theory, minorities have not published a lot of articles on music theory, and they have not received many awards. But, these facts, by themselves, are meaningless. He doesn't show that minorities have been rejected from graduate music theory programs at a greater rate than whites. He hasn't mentioned the number of articles rejected by music theory journals. He says nothing concrete about awards.

There may be other explanations for Ewell's statistics. Minorities may simply not be interested in Western Art music. Also, teaching music theory is not exactly a lucrative field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If all these arguments are persuasive, I'm sure you and Dr. Weiner will have no difficulty getting them published in an actual peer reviewed music journal somewhere. PianoDan (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for confirming your identity - that will make WP:COI substantially easier to identify in the future. PianoDan (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@ 24.184.26.105| I don't think it's fair to say that the "statistics are not sound". You yourself admitted the accuracy of the facts, which is what statistics are (i.e the cut and dry data generated). What flaws specifically do you perceive in the statistical models used and the data collection process? I don't think there are any as these are proved research models used in published research within the field of sociology among other academic disciplines. The questions you are raising here aren't really questioning the soundness of the statistics but the interpretation of the data and/ or the scope of the data (i.e. what questions were and were not asked? and what the data can and can not tell us?) which is another matter. Ewell was specifically interpreting the data through an Anti-racism social theory (of which there is much published supporting literature) and specifically Joe Feagin's "white racial frame" systemic racism framework. The questions you are raising above seem to be more of a skepticism of the framework being used, rather than an actual critique of the data and statistic models themselves. Further the absence of questions in a given publication, is not evidence of statistical flaws but evidence for the need for further research. You raise some valid questions about the limits of what the information is telling us, but I wouldn't consider them undermining the soundness of Ewell's paper in any meaningful way or providing a cogent critique of the research models or frameworks being used. In order to do that, you would need to engage more deeply with Feagin's published literature/ research, and argue why employing that lens on systemic data like this isn't a sound model.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Economists don't use "antiracism theory" to interpret data. That's why I said it's not statistically sound. If you look at Feagin's work, he provides no scientific basis for his theories. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

A quick Google search is all it takes to establish that 4meter4 is right about the existence of anti-racist social theory. Don't know why you're bringing up economists, as no one else here has. PianoDan (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I meant statisticians.

I never said that 3rd generation anti-racist social theory doesn't exist. I am saying it's not scientifically-supported. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

And here is where I eye roll because its clear you haven't actually read Feagin who is a highly respected researcher in his field ( a former president of the American Sociological Association and with a lengthy list of impressive accolades to his credit for his research). Your understanding of the application of statistics in sociological research is wanting.4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I have read Feagin. I looked to see how he backed up his theories. He does a very poor job.

Here is an example that is statistically unsound:

A claims that Garden City Law School has discriminated against Martians because only two out of 100 faculty members are Martian. This allegation is meaningless because it lacks context.

A adds that 13% of the population is Martian. This is still statistically unsound. Law schools require a JD to become a faculty member. A has not shown that Martians have JDs at the same rate as the general population.

There are other problems with A's argument. A has not shown how many Martians applied. A has not shown the qualifications of the Martian applicants.

Ewell made the same mistakes concerning statistics in his article. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Your claims are WP:OR. Ewell's and Feagin's are published in reputable journals. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, that's the end of it. PianoDan (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The truth is not WP:OR. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@PianoDan I fail to see the relevance of citing WP:OR here which is a wiki policy involving article content. Nobody is discussing article content in this conversation, which is not really about wikipedia in any way but more a side discussion on Ewell and Feagin.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@24.184.26.105 Fundamentally, there are connections being made through the use of systems theory in Feagin's and Ewell's work which you seem to have issues with. You are demanding evidence of direct causal relationships for outcomes rather than considering societies as complex organic systems as Feagin/Ewell does that produce certain outcomes through multilayered complex societal structures which can not be so easily simplified or isolated into cause effect relationships. Systems theory looks more at big picture data trends which reflect large systemic products which can not be attributed easily to single cause and effect relationships. They do however, give us a picture of what the system itself is doing based on measurable information.

I think it's a fair assessment that the data demonstrating racial disparities in employment (by this I mean that it doesn't reflect the society demographic statistics, not that any individual employer was racist in their hiring practices), publishing, the content of curriculum, etc. This paints a picture of systemic problems that have workable solutions within the profession of music education at large (which is my field). The lack of non-white applicants for music theory professionals for example is not evidence against a white racial frame. It's actually evidence in support of it. A system without bias in its structures would be attracting a diverse pool of candidates/professionals that reflects the demographics of the society at large. The fact that the field is not attracting diverse candidates suggest some sort of barrier to participation or access to other kinds of people. One suggestion for this is the field's predominant focus on Eurocentric material. Ironically the reason that you suggest that few non-White applicants have applied for positions in the field because they are not interested in Western art music is exactly the same argument being made by Ewell for the system's white racial frame. There's no reason the field of music theory should be so limited in scope. That would be like limiting the field of pathology to only studying the diseases of the liver, and ignoring diseases found in other parts of the body. Music theory in the United States can broaden its examination of music to a more global perspective, and as it does, it's likely different kinds of people will be attracted to studies and careers in the field. Hence this a workable solution leading to more equitable outcome in the system at large. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@4meter4 Given that WP:OR isn't allowed in articles, why bother engaging with it on talk pages? PianoDan (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Because the truth matters. WP is supposed to be based on the truth. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@24.184.26.105 Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is not interested in what is true, but what is verifiably true. There is a difference. @PianoDan Once we got off onto discussing Ewell and Feagin we lost any connection to discussing editing of the content on wikipedia and more into personal opinions on those individuals and their publications. It makes for an interesting discussion which is why I engaged. But other than that, it's not of any value. It certainly isn't productive in any way for this project or for editing in mainspace. Probably best to end the conversation. 4meter4 (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

1. You are right. I am not satisfied without proof of causation. Without causation, it is just unproven theory. It is one of the first things I learned in law school. Scientists learn this, too.

2. The fact remains that Ewell made Schenker look like a racist through academic fraud--distorting quotes. All you need to do is look at the original source materials, which Jackson and Wiener have done. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

All systems theory does, as you have used it above is to raise possibilities--theories. Ewell raised a theory, but he didn't test it. Maybe the lack of minorities in American music theory is due to discrimination. But, to base a theory on it, you must eliminate all other reasonable causes. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, the type of scientific evidence you are demanding is not possible in the field of sociology. We can not put entire societies into controlled environments and implement experimental research with re-producable results. Further, the framework being presented here is so much bigger than mere discriminatory hiring (which isn't what is being argued at all; nobody is claiming non-white individuals are applying for jobs and not getting hired; they are claiming the field is not attracting non-white people to even apply or participate; a totally different issue) So I am fundamentally going to state that you have issues with what sociology is as an entire academic discipline and how it approaches its work. To me, that is not a reflection of someone operating from a place of good faith, and I really see no point in continuing this discussion any further.4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

So, you are saying if I don't agree with you I am not arguing in good faith. I am not the only one. Lots of scholars have problems with the aspects of sociology you are talking about. Sociology is not monolithic. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly. I think many of your criticisms are well worn tropes which have been around for a long time between the hard and the soft sciences. I find this sort of argumentative critique useless in providing anything of contributive value to discussions within the soft sciences themselves. It merely shuts down conversations, discourages academic investigation and questions, limits thought, and asserts dominance in conversations from what is essentially a dismissive paradigm designed to do nothing useful. If you can accept sociology on its own terms, and engage with critique using its own paradigms and processes for debate I think there can be productive conversations of value and room for valuable disagreement. If you can't do that, then yes I do think you are not able to dialogue within this area without having a personal axe to grind which is a form of bad faith. It's also tedious.4meter4 (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't put too much faith in sociology. Irving Louis Horowitz distinguished professor of sociology Rutgers (deceased): "I firmly believe that a great discipline has turned sour if not rancid." The problem--that a single variable can explain human behavior. That variable--ideology. Ideologists masked as sociologists. Misfits who have special agendas. Sociology, rather than being the study of ideology, has become ideology itself. The Decomposition of Sociology.

Unfortunately, music theory, with Ewell in the lead, has suffered the same fate. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a good ending point to this discussion thread, which I am now archiving. We really shouldn't be using this wikiproject's talk page for a non-wikipedia related discussion.4meter4 (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed move for "List of pitch-class sets"

Hey look, it's something that couldn't be LESS related to Schenker if it tried. :)

Specifically, I am proposing moving the page List of pitch-class sets to List of set classes. If anyone has strong opinions on this proposal, the discussion is here. PianoDan (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Continuous pitch instruments has been nominated for discussion

Category:Continuous pitch instruments has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Endwise (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)