Talk:Music theory

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Public Musicology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christopherbowers176 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Christopherbowers176 (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding the notable Ewell debate on the white racial frame (2020)

This entire article had practically no references to anything but white european 18th century classical music theory and its main white proponents in the field of music theory and music studies, writ large. There was a pivotal debate in the field during Black Lives Matter after Phillip Ewell published a bombshell article on the topic. This shouldn't be buried in a final section though I intend to add more there. It must be included, imho, in the opening paragraph because the debate was game-changing in the field. The impact continues in 2024. So four years later, it's imperative to include the debate in the intro.

Welcome other contributions to make this article more neutral and inclusive. sheridanford (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Organisation of the "History" section

The "History" section of the article first links with "Further information" to History of music, which has little to do with music theory. Follows a first subsection, "Antiquity", which similarly links with "Further information" to Ancient music, again with little to concern music theory. A first subsection of this first section, "Mesopotamia", at last begins with more useful information, with first a "See also" link to Music of Mesopotamia.

Each of these two first section and subsection also adds an [Edit] suggestion to provide additional information. One fails to see what could be added, however, as the "History" of theory in "Antiquity" really begins with "Mesopotamia". I wonder whether these [Edit] suggestions are automatically added by WP because the concerned sections already give an information in the form of "Further info Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hucbald.SaintAmand, I agree that this needs attention. Why don't you go ahead and rationalise it a bit? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverting Reversion: Eurocentric Focus in Music Theory

@Suonii180, while I do not at all agree with the thrust of the IP's recent removals of your contributions, I want to make clear that I think it should be better organized before considering its readdition: the article lead should be a balanced summary of the article itself, so generally new additions should not be made directly to the article lead, see WP:LEAD Remsense ‥ 论 08:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Remsense, I've taken the gross liberty of adding a a new section header here, as this seems to be a new topic distinct from that above; please edit the title if you so wish. Am I right in thinking that it is the content added by SheridanFord with this edit that you're referring to? In view of the back-and-forth that's been going on, I've restored the revision from before that addition in the hope that some discussion will develop here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

First, thanks to @Justlettersandnumbers for weighing in on the inclusion of the Ewell debate to the Music Theory article after 4 years of controversy in the field. @Remsense: I would be remiss if I didn't suggest that you conclusion is misguided. Let me explain your oversight.

The edit I made was firmly rooted in, and is substantiated by, the existing guidelines (remember the pillar: "there are no firm rules") for a lead section of a WP article, and I quote: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Perhaps you missed this passage in WP:LEAD.

This prominent debate was the result of the impact of the global Black Lives Matter movement that impacted many disciplines in music. I am a notable music scholar who also has taught theory. There has not been a substantial debate concerning the discipline of music theory that was published and discussed in a national journalistic outlet like The New Yorker throughout the 20th and 21st century. It's an ongoing debate with multiple articles over the last four years since 2020.

Let me conclude, I’m titling this Talk topic Reverting Reversion: Eurocentric Focus in Music Theory and reverting the removal of the passage:

"In recent years, music theory has been debated for its Eurocentric focus and exclusion of non-Western and [[African-American music|African American musical]] theories, with scholars like [[Philip Ewell]] leading calls for a more inclusive approach."

This passage is well-supported by reliable sources, including:

1. Ewell, Philip. "Music Theory’s White Racial Frame." Music Theory Spectrum, vol. 43, no. 2, 2021, pp. 324–329. https://doi.org/10.1093/mts/mtaa031.
2. Ewell, Philip. "Music Theory's White Racial Frame." Music Theory Online, vol. 26, no. 2, 2020. https://mtosmt.org/ojs/index.php/mto/article/view/485.
3. Neely, Adam. "Music Theory and White Supremacy." YouTube, August 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr3quGh7pJA.
4. Ross, Alex. "Black Scholars Confront White Supremacy in Classical Music." The New Yorker, September 2020. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/21/black-scholars-confront-white-supremacy-in-classical-music.

In addition, I intend to add more context to the passage about the debate around Ewell’s white racial frame in music theory.

Adding references to scholars Edwin S. Fruehwald who published substantial counterpoints in Why Philip Ewell’s “Music Theory and the White Racial Frame” is Fundamentally Wrong: Ignoring Inconvenient Facts (2022). In the meantime, Ewell responded to these critiques in his 2024 article, Tonality, Racism, and White Indifference, published in the Journal of Music Theory (2024), providing further nuance and substantiation for the inclusion of the ongoing discourse in the lead of this article. The most pivotal debate in centuries in US academic disciplinary discussions of music theory should not be buried in the final section without mention in the lead, is my stance.

Given the weight of the sources and the significant impact of this debate in the field of music theory, I intend to proceed with the reversion/revision. I may simply make a new edit later today. sheridanford (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

SheridanFord, that may not be entirely a good idea. Please read this (non-binding]] advice – the general idea is that if your edit is reverted, it's best to seek consensus on the talk-page before making the same edit again. You might also look at this – this article needs to cover music theory over several thousands of years and many cultures round the world, something that can be done in only the most cursory and superficial way. It may not be appropriate to dedicate a large proportion of the lead section to criticism of the music syllabus in schools of just one of 200+ countries (I can never keep up with exactly how many there are), a topic that would almost certainly fit better at Music education in the United States. Anyway, why not wait for some other opinions here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)