public library all the way man. they have all sorts of awesome stuff
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
New Adam Neely
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
- Status
You’re probably right. Still, it was a bit of an eye-opener for me, and I’m glad I took the time to watch it in full.
That is a valid and defendable opinion. Alright, so let's do that. But wait: isn't it best that we teach one system in-depth, so students can master one system, and use it to compose and break down music? And then expose them to others later down the road? Alright, let's pick one. But wait: it should probably be the theoretical system that is most applicable to music in the US, so kids can understand the music they're most exposed to. Okay, so that's 18th century European music theory. So let's teach that in-depth, and--
hey wait a minute...
I’m not buying it. At all. I love Adam Neely, but this video... nope. Western classical music theory is the best codified way we (the world) Have to describe harmonic motion and resolution in music. It is lacking in terms of microtonality, rhythm, “groove”, and improvisation. So the best solution is to augment It with what works, and don’t use what doesn’t work. Classical Indian music doesn’t have chords, makes use of microtonality, and is mostly improvised, so harmonic theory doesn’t work too well there. A lot of traditional African Music is intensely rhythmic, and I’m not sure what the harmonic content is. But so what? As far as I know, these musics are taught by oral tradition only. They don’t have much in the way of a written music system, which I feel is important to a true theoretical system.
I didn’t listen to the whole thing, but I didn’t hear Adam suggest what we should replace western classical theory with. He had a picture of Duke Ellington. Duke was well versed in classical composition and that is clearly audible in his music. Count Basie, less so. But Even For him, what musical theory would you use instead? There is no blues theory system. The major scale is not the only scale on which to base a theory system, but so what? You pick a “base” sound, and other things are described relative to that.
There is no “hip hop theory” or “EDM theory”. These styles are about pushing boundaries and ignoring rules, except for “does it sound good to you?”, Or “does it make your audience dance”, which are not particularly good theoretical foundations. There’s nothing wrong with those rules, but it’s not music theory.
Figured bass is a weird thing for Adam to talk about. Classical organists may use it to improvise, but nobody else has used it for hundreds of years. It should just be ignored. Nobody is forcing anybody to use that, or any other theoretical framework. Lots of people have tried alternatives (Ornette Coleman’s harmolodics, or Harry Partch’s microtonal stuff for instance). But afaik, nothing has proved as generally applicable as a (suitably Modified and updated) version of good old 18th century musical practice.
I didn’t listen to the whole thing, but I didn’t hear Adam suggest what we should replace western classical theory with. He had a picture of Duke Ellington. Duke was well versed in classical composition and that is clearly audible in his music. Count Basie, less so. But Even For him, what musical theory would you use instead? There is no blues theory system. The major scale is not the only scale on which to base a theory system, but so what? You pick a “base” sound, and other things are described relative to that.
There is no “hip hop theory” or “EDM theory”. These styles are about pushing boundaries and ignoring rules, except for “does it sound good to you?”, Or “does it make your audience dance”, which are not particularly good theoretical foundations. There’s nothing wrong with those rules, but it’s not music theory.
Figured bass is a weird thing for Adam to talk about. Classical organists may use it to improvise, but nobody else has used it for hundreds of years. It should just be ignored. Nobody is forcing anybody to use that, or any other theoretical framework. Lots of people have tried alternatives (Ornette Coleman’s harmolodics, or Harry Partch’s microtonal stuff for instance). But afaik, nothing has proved as generally applicable as a (suitably Modified and updated) version of good old 18th century musical practice.
It works extremely well for describing music based on the Western Classical idiom. It doesn't work so well for much world music. True, its notation has been extended to cope with some of these "foreign" concepts, like "microtones," but not its theoretical foundations. It, for example, can not describe classical Ottoman music, Persian, Chinese, nor Indian musics, all of which have their own working rulesets. Frankly, it even struggles with jazz.
As buddy points out, if music schools exposed their students more to these other formal traditions then the world might become a fraction more tolerant. Imagine, for a moment, being able to sit down down and jam with a couple of guys, one on kanun, the other on oud, and actually understanding what they were doing as if it were the blue, or modal jazz in D-. A lot of work, yet if we start 'em young enough...
I play early music, specifically Baroque. Just gotta know how to figure (I'm crap at it, btw) which is why I don't play for anyone but myself. You play the theorbo, cello, or harpsichord and it's your bread and butter. I certainly wouldn't write off the Early music scene as "nobody"
Ok, I’m sure I painted many things with too broad a brush, my apologies for that. But it IS the “early” music scene, so I would expect it to use some constructs that other musical subcultures might deem archaic. No disrespect intended, Adam just went off on the concept as if figured bass was being forced onto all the poor non-white musicians, so I was reacting to that. My point was that if you want (for instance) figured bass, it’s there, if you don’t, no need to use or learn it. Also, if something is missing, add it in and use it. If others like it, they will pick it up. That’s how all languages evolve.
Painfully obvious. But in spite of that, you’ve made up your mind.
It´s a great video. Saw it yesterday and was really afraid of the comment section going south but was surprised to see that it actually did not. In the first 10 minutes i was very sceptical about how and where this would go, but on the whole it´s very well done and goes way beyond the clickbait title (which is the only thing to criticize...).
If you read between the lines (and the clickbait title) the criticism is not so much against the nuts and bolts of the Western theory system itself, but rather the curriculum, pedagogy, and rhetoric of it.
You're defending "Western music theory" as though it were nothing more than a codified set of intervals and names to organize them relative to one another and in time. I.e. The building blocks like "quarter notes", "major scale", "lydian mode" etc. which might be called the "parts of speech" rather than the formal "grammar" or "vocabulary" of the language of music. Neely is not criticizing those elements of the system, and you are correct to cite his own video as a source as to why that would be a futile undertaking.
What he IS criticizing are the ways American academia (and by extension, the culture which they purport to be the caretakers of) have adopted a prescriptive rather than descriptive means by which to canonize and evangelize the Western musical "grammar," and the corpus which is used to demonstrate and enforce it. His argument is that this approach cannot help but be exclusionary of certain voices (which desire and deserve to be recognized) because it is so deeply intertwined with the prevailing ideologies of the time, place, and people which spawned it - because that exclusion is exactly the task it was designed for.
Last edited:
I really dislike the title of that video.
If you are criticising the academic system in the US, as you are in this video, Mr, Neely; why not say so in the title. Music theory has zilch, zero, nothing nix to do with all this.
If you are criticising the academic system in the US, as you are in this video, Mr, Neely; why not say so in the title. Music theory has zilch, zero, nothing nix to do with all this.
I know how I feel about the subject matter and the several minutes I heard of him speaking. I’ll listen to the rest later. But thanks for your input.
I recommend finishing the video. His point is exactly that it is an obscure piece of trivia relevant to a small subset of practitioners in specific circumstances, and yet it is front and center in at least 4 (he picks them up and drops them) "foundations of music theory" text books, and (one assumes) any and all "foundations of music theory" courses at the university and/or high school and/or individual instructional level - it certainly was in mine.
The joke is that they all (going back 140 years) even all contain the same caveat: "this is an anachronism and no longer relevant, don't waste your time on it" and then proceed to waste the readers time on it, potentially for multiple chapters! Imagine if in some monastery in 500 AD a monk had written his grocery list in the margins of his parchment and the current printing of the New International Version was still including a sermon from Jesus on the "Dozen Eggs, Gallon of Milk, Loaf of Bread, and Stick of Butter."
The joke aside, his point isn't even that that curriculum is harmful in and of itself, his concern is that given the finite amount of time in a given "foundations of music" course, (and for that matter a student's entire undergraduate program, [and for that matter a musician's entire career, (and for that matter any one or all of our lives, collectively)]), by choosing to continue to include it, and choosing NOT to include any perspectives beyond those which existed in 18th-19th century Vienna, "they" (the people who make up curricula) and "we" (the people who consume it and ask no questions) have implicitly stated that this one esoteric piece of musical trivia is effectively more important than those other voices, purely by virtue of the fact that it did exist in 18th-19th century Vienna.
Challenge:
All politics and bandwagons aside;Tell me one style of music suited as well or better, to explaining universal musical concepts and principles as/than Western 'classical musics'...(not talking about adding info on more current music to illustrate how those principles are still valid today)
All politics and bandwagons aside;Tell me one style of music suited as well or better, to explaining universal musical concepts and principles as/than Western 'classical musics'...(not talking about adding info on more current music to illustrate how those principles are still valid today)
Last edited:
Part of the point of the video is there is no such thing as a "universal musical concept" and the presumption that there is only ever existed as means of justifying subjugation.
That's where I disagree. He is putting one thing in his title and talks about something really quite different in the video.
Music theory; It's physics, mostly.
I actually subscribed to a new channel based on Adam's video. I personally do not care for raga. My mother loves it, I heard a ton growing up, and it's not my jam. But one of the people Adam brings in, Anuja Kamat, compares North Indian musical theory with western. And I'm all about similarities and differences. Bring it!
Not into that? How about the Surf Rock Byzantine Scale? (Adam didn't mention that one, and I haven't posted my comment yet, but I will.) But it's Greek for crying out loud, which is European, and it's considered lesser than the German school. Meh.
As for his comment about African music and dance, one of my great musical experiences in my life was being jam packed in a household full of women in Oakland, almost all Black (I am not), listening to African drummers and singing in Yoruba. There's nothing close on YouTube, but this is possibly the closest of what's there. Definitely not described by western theory, partly because of the additive rhythm.
Not into that? How about the Surf Rock Byzantine Scale? (Adam didn't mention that one, and I haven't posted my comment yet, but I will.) But it's Greek for crying out loud, which is European, and it's considered lesser than the German school. Meh.
As for his comment about African music and dance, one of my great musical experiences in my life was being jam packed in a household full of women in Oakland, almost all Black (I am not), listening to African drummers and singing in Yoruba. There's nothing close on YouTube, but this is possibly the closest of what's there. Definitely not described by western theory, partly because of the additive rhythm.
Back when I wanted to get a bachelor's in music, I was deeply conflicted about it even then, because I'm basically a rock musician at heart. I would be far more interested in learning more about Alan Wilder's influences than Beethoven's, and far more about writing surf rock arrangements than string quartets.
Last year, I saw Invalid Link Removed, speak. Electric guitar was fine with the faculty at Princeton, but none of that rock stuff.
(Seriously)- Status
