From Alice Gebura @ https://youtu.be/Kr3quGh7pJA

I enjoyed watching it but I also disagree with some of it.

What I like – the overview of various schools of theory, the correlation of music and dance (I have always believed movement should be part of music education and vice versa), demonstrating the shallowness and ignorance of the “Ben Shapiro argument,” Owen Pallett and their ilk, the limitations of Schenkerian analysis.

What I don’t like – the generalization that music degree programs are missing all the things mentioned. While music programs at liberal arts colleges are skimpy, this isn’t true of conservatories and dedicated music schools. I started out in 1972 at a liberal arts college and learned a lot from the traditional courses offered which were robust and enlightening, but limited in scope. All it took was some research on my part – in the 1970s–to find Berklee and then NEC, the 2 schools I ended up getting degrees from. Berklee covers all the jazz harmony systems the video mentions and more, and George Russell was at NEC teaching his Lydian chromatic system. (I enjoyed seeing a very young George in this video!!) And you could study global music systems by taking Ethnomusicology classes at both schools. Any one of the theory systems discussed in the video are lacking in one or more dimensions. A passionate musician looks at all of the theory systems and realizes this.

Also I disagree with the premise that we are better off analyzing Chopin with the Lydian Chromatic system rather than traditional harmony. I would argue that both systems shed some light on what Chopin is doing with musical language but limiting your view of Chopin to musical language is to miss what is at the heart of Chopin - musical space and tone color, as he was exploiting recent technical innovations that expanded the range and frequency saturations of the piano.

In fact, Sonic Design by Cogan and Escot (1976) -which isn’t mentioned in the video - does exactly what you are advocating – looking at all music systems to come up with a set of parameters that can be applied towards understanding all music. The video refers to cross cultural music analysis but it focuses on “scales/chords” and rhythm – what Cogan and Escot called musical languages and time. The video ignores musical space and color – two parameters Cogan and Escot deal with extensively.

The video mentions consonance/dissonance theory and articulation. For example, it says staccato is a form of “dissonance.” What isn’t said is that articulation greatly influences spectral result. Technically, plucking introduces noise artifacts that disrupt overtones (spectra). But to whom is this dissonant? “Dissonance” is a judgement call - which you don’t point out.

I disagree that Schenkerian analysis is the root of all music theory [white male/western european]. Berklee had no Schenker analysis classes and NEC had only one. Schacter was on the list of books to read in undergrad but it was used to understand a specific era, and it was almost invisible at Berklee. There are certainly specialists in Schenkerian analysis but my observation is that few musicians even know what it is. As you point out Schenkerian analysis is useful for understanding a specific body of music and where I studied no one ever claimed it was more than that, in fact my teachers pointed out its limitations – in the 1970s. Schenkerian analysis is limiting even within the arena it purports to explain. It certainly can’t explain Chopin. Schenker was a racist but the video doesn’t make it clear that he was not an anomaly, belief in white superiority was the basis for politics, science, and the arts in that place and time. That shouldn’t be news to anyone with a basic education in history.

The video narrator complains the white male perspective limits the field of music theory. I suppose there are music depts. where that’s true. But to make a sweeping generalization that this is the case everywhere is simply not accurate.

What is true is that you can’t rely on every college or university to have as much depth in the music dept. as you get at a dedicated music school. As someone with 2 music degrees I had an excellent education at the 3 schools I attended. Each one presented a unique perspective and environment. I was exposed to traditional western harmony, jazz harmony, Asian music systems, Native American systems, and a boatload of contemporary/20th century music. We read linguistics, anthropology and physics texts to supplement our understanding of music and its analysis. I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

Obviously I’m from a previous generation and my teachers have either passed away or are retired. I don’t know what goes on today in my alma maters. I will say that back in the day the administration at NEC never seemed to appreciate the jazz dept. or the innovation going on in the theory dept. Society’s problems with social justice and the treatment of women were certainly in evidence in the schools I attended. I could burn your ears with some of the stories. But the topic is music theory….