A Bevy of Biases

IF 0.4 2区 艺术学 0 MUSIC
Justin M. London
{"title":"A Bevy of Biases","authors":"Justin M. London","doi":"10.30535/mto.28.1.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is in response to and in broad support of Philip Ewell’s keynote talk, “Music Theory’s White Racial Frame,” given at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Society for Music Theory, and essay, “Music Theory and the White Racial Frame” (\".fn_cite_year($ewell_2020).\"). In his address and its companion essay, Ewell notes how the repertoire we study and teach, as well as the theories we use to explain it, are manifestations of whiteness. My article will show, first, that the repertory used in the development of theories of harmony and form, as well as (and especially) music theory pedagogy comprises a small, unrepresentative corpus of pieces from the so-called “common practice period” of tonal music, mostly the music of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, and only a small subset of their output. We (mis)use this repertory due to a combination of implicit biases that stem from our enculturation as practicing musicians, explicit biases that stem from broadly held aesthetic beliefs regarding the status of “great” composers and particular “masterworks,” and confirmation biases that are manifest in our tendency to use only positive testing strategies and/or selective sampling when developing and demonstrating our theories. The theories of harmony and form developed from this small corpus further suffer from overfitting, whereby theoretical models are overdetermined relative to the broader norms of a musical practice, and from our tendency to conceive of our theoretic models in terms of tightly regulated “scripts” rather than looser “plans.” For these reasons, simply expanding our analytic and/or pedagogical canon will do little to displace the underlying aesthetic and cultural values that are bound up with it. We must also address the biases that underlie canon formation and valuation and the methodologies that inherently privilege certain pieces, composers, and repertoires to the detriment of others. It is thus argued that working toward greater equity, diversity, and inclusion in music theory goes hand in hand with addressing some of the problematic methodologies that have long plagued our discipline.","PeriodicalId":44918,"journal":{"name":"Music Theory Online","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Music Theory Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30535/mto.28.1.4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MUSIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article is in response to and in broad support of Philip Ewell’s keynote talk, “Music Theory’s White Racial Frame,” given at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Society for Music Theory, and essay, “Music Theory and the White Racial Frame” (".fn_cite_year($ewell_2020)."). In his address and its companion essay, Ewell notes how the repertoire we study and teach, as well as the theories we use to explain it, are manifestations of whiteness. My article will show, first, that the repertory used in the development of theories of harmony and form, as well as (and especially) music theory pedagogy comprises a small, unrepresentative corpus of pieces from the so-called “common practice period” of tonal music, mostly the music of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, and only a small subset of their output. We (mis)use this repertory due to a combination of implicit biases that stem from our enculturation as practicing musicians, explicit biases that stem from broadly held aesthetic beliefs regarding the status of “great” composers and particular “masterworks,” and confirmation biases that are manifest in our tendency to use only positive testing strategies and/or selective sampling when developing and demonstrating our theories. The theories of harmony and form developed from this small corpus further suffer from overfitting, whereby theoretical models are overdetermined relative to the broader norms of a musical practice, and from our tendency to conceive of our theoretic models in terms of tightly regulated “scripts” rather than looser “plans.” For these reasons, simply expanding our analytic and/or pedagogical canon will do little to displace the underlying aesthetic and cultural values that are bound up with it. We must also address the biases that underlie canon formation and valuation and the methodologies that inherently privilege certain pieces, composers, and repertoires to the detriment of others. It is thus argued that working toward greater equity, diversity, and inclusion in music theory goes hand in hand with addressing some of the problematic methodologies that have long plagued our discipline.
一堆偏见
本文回应并广泛支持菲利普·尤厄尔在2019年音乐理论学会年会上发表的主题演讲《音乐理论的白人种族框架》和文章《音乐理论与白人种族框架”(“.fn_site_year($Ewell_2020)”),以及我们用来解释它的理论,都是白人的表现。我的文章将首先表明,在和声和形式理论以及(尤其是)音乐理论教育学的发展中使用的曲目包括一小部分来自所谓的音调音乐“共同实践时期”的作品,主要是巴赫、海顿、莫扎特和贝多芬的音乐,以及他们作品的一小部分。我们(错误地)使用了这个曲目,这是由于我们作为练习音乐家的融入文化所产生的隐性偏见的结合,源于对“伟大”作曲家和特定“杰作”地位的广泛审美信念的显性偏见,以及在发展和展示我们的理论时只使用积极测试策略和/或选择性抽样的倾向中表现出来的确认偏见。从这个小语料库中发展出来的和声和形式理论进一步受到了过度拟合的影响,即理论模型相对于音乐实践的更广泛规范被过度确定,以及我们倾向于用严格规范的“脚本”而不是宽松的“计划”来构思我们的理论模型,简单地扩大我们的分析和/或教学经典并不能取代与之相关的潜在美学和文化价值观。我们还必须解决经典形成和评估背后的偏见,以及固有地赋予某些作品、作曲家和曲目特权而损害其他作品、作曲家或曲目的方法。因此,有人认为,在音乐理论中努力实现更大的公平性、多样性和包容性,与解决长期困扰我们学科的一些有问题的方法论是相辅相成的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
42 weeks
期刊介绍: Music Theory Online is a journal of criticism, commentary, research and scholarship in music theory, music analysis, and related disciplines. The refereed open-access electronic journal of the Society for Music Theory, MTO has been in continuous publication since 1993. New issues are published four times per year and include articles, reviews, commentaries, and analytical essays. In addition, MTO publishes a list of job opportunities and abstracts of recently completed dissertations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信