|
|
|
|
|
by TeeMassive
1909 days ago
|
|
Your whole argument is based on coincidences, at best. I mean, "the guy who created it was a White supremacist", OK, but the same thing is true for the internal combustion engine. Numbered theory is said to be very popular in Asian cultures, yet it was invented by a French man who probably wasn't a saint either in terms of having more or less the prejudices of his time, are they White supremacists too? Using Music theory is like using English as the tech lingua franca instead of Latin or Esperanto, it's not about imperialism, it's just too troublesome to learn and change and does the job pretty well anyway. The idea that ideas carry over all of the context of their creation is simply insane. |
|
> Using Music theory is like using English as the tech lingua franca instead of Latin or Esperanto, it's not about imperialism, it's just too troublesome to learn and change and does the job pretty well anyway. The idea that ideas carry over all of the context of their creation is simply insane.
English is a natural language and all technical concepts are equally well expressed in most natural languages perhaps with the need to enrich the vocabulary.
A specific framework for analyzing music which emphasizes certain specific structures and discards considerations that other musical traditions hold as important creates systematic biases in the understanding of music.
A better metaphor would be perhaps be expressing algorithmic ideas in a language where only "for" loops were deemed important and everything else a derivative concept.
The fact that you think this bias towards specific forms of European music doesnt have consequences doesnt make the idea insane. I think the fact that you have to resort to that kind of labeling speaks to a fragility in your worldview.