Music Theory and Culture

What's Hot
2

Comments

  • Cranky said:
    If you stare into the void long enough, you'll convince yourself that you're not a fucking idiot.
    You're going to end up just like him if you don't get some help.  
    There is a human behind these words. Whatever vitriolic violence tinged stuff you said before your edit, you should have left it in place. Because now not only do you look petty, vindictive, and spiteful. You also look spineless too.

    Have a great day! ;)

    Bye!

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • monquixotemonquixote Frets: 17485
    tFB Trader

    He certainly isn't saying music theory is racist only that analysis which has an implicit assumption that classical music is the pinnacle of culture devalues other forms which aren't based on the same concepts.
    So just clickbait then, basically? Because this viewpoint has been well understood in music for a long time. There is snobbery throughout the entire music world. Classical musicians look down on electronic musicians and popular music. Jazz musicians look down on classical musicians because they're not breaking new ground. Rockers look down on jazz musicians because they don't use enough distortion, etc etc.

    The original video (which I did watch fully) brings nothing new to the table or the discussion about music pedagogy. He's just riding coat-tails basically.

    I think given that neither of us have been through the formal music education system in America it's hard to judge how relevant it is.

    When I was at university in the late 90's I shared a house with someone who was doing a music degree and had no idea who the Beatles were. Essentially he'd never heard any music that wasn't classical so at least in that example it suggests that my university didn't see other forms of music worthy of study.

    I think the question of if music theory is universal like maths or exists within a cultural context is an interesting question and he does make some interesting points on that subject.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonicoctatonic Frets: 33725

    He certainly isn't saying music theory is racist only that analysis which has an implicit assumption that classical music is the pinnacle of culture devalues other forms which aren't based on the same concepts.
    So just clickbait then, basically? Because this viewpoint has been well understood in music for a long time. There is snobbery throughout the entire music world. Classical musicians look down on electronic musicians and popular music. Jazz musicians look down on classical musicians because they're not breaking new ground. Rockers look down on jazz musicians because they don't use enough distortion, etc etc.

    The original video (which I did watch fully) brings nothing new to the table or the discussion about music pedagogy. He's just riding coat-tails basically.

    I think given that neither of us have been through the formal music education system in America it's hard to judge how relevant it is.

    When I was at university in the late 90's I shared a house with someone who was doing a music degree and had no idea who the Beatles were. Essentially he'd never heard any music that wasn't classical so at least in that example it suggests that my university didn't see other forms of music worthy of study.

    I think the question of if music theory is universal like maths or exists within a cultural context is an interesting question and he does make some interesting points on that subject.
    It isn't just the US, in pretty much all music schools you study music theory from classic perspective, even if you aren't playing classical music.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • vizviz Frets: 10645
    edited September 2020
    octatonic said:

    He certainly isn't saying music theory is racist only that analysis which has an implicit assumption that classical music is the pinnacle of culture devalues other forms which aren't based on the same concepts.
    So just clickbait then, basically? Because this viewpoint has been well understood in music for a long time. There is snobbery throughout the entire music world. Classical musicians look down on electronic musicians and popular music. Jazz musicians look down on classical musicians because they're not breaking new ground. Rockers look down on jazz musicians because they don't use enough distortion, etc etc.

    The original video (which I did watch fully) brings nothing new to the table or the discussion about music pedagogy. He's just riding coat-tails basically.

    I think given that neither of us have been through the formal music education system in America it's hard to judge how relevant it is.

    When I was at university in the late 90's I shared a house with someone who was doing a music degree and had no idea who the Beatles were. Essentially he'd never heard any music that wasn't classical so at least in that example it suggests that my university didn't see other forms of music worthy of study.

    I think the question of if music theory is universal like maths or exists within a cultural context is an interesting question and he does make some interesting points on that subject.
    It isn't just the US, in pretty much all music schools you study music theory from classic perspective, even if you aren't playing classical music.

    I expect that's true, and it's pretty clear, at least I thought it was, that while classical music theory can do well in explaining many types of music, especially ultra-simple music like blues rock (not a criticism, I love it), it is not so good at explaining Indian music based on the 19-note or 31-note scale for example. So it doesn't try to. And people who are studying western music feel no need to.
    That's why I think it's a non issue. Snobbery is an issue, but that's not the fault of the music theory, it's the fault of the snobs.
    Roland said: Scales are primarily a tool for categorising knowledge, not a rule for what can or cannot be played.
    Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom

  • He certainly isn't saying music theory is racist only that analysis which has an implicit assumption that classical music is the pinnacle of culture devalues other forms which aren't based on the same concepts.
    So just clickbait then, basically? Because this viewpoint has been well understood in music for a long time. There is snobbery throughout the entire music world. Classical musicians look down on electronic musicians and popular music. Jazz musicians look down on classical musicians because they're not breaking new ground. Rockers look down on jazz musicians because they don't use enough distortion, etc etc.

    The original video (which I did watch fully) brings nothing new to the table or the discussion about music pedagogy. He's just riding coat-tails basically.

    I think given that neither of us have been through the formal music education system in America it's hard to judge how relevant it is.

    When I was at university in the late 90's I shared a house with someone who was doing a music degree and had no idea who the Beatles were. Essentially he'd never heard any music that wasn't classical so at least in that example it suggests that my university didn't see other forms of music worthy of study.

    I think the question of if music theory is universal like maths or exists within a cultural context is an interesting question and he does make some interesting points on that subject.
    At Middlesex there was huge beef between the sonic arts department and the "real music" department. We'd get constantly told we weren't real musicians or artists by people studying classical and jazz. This isn't a race thing. Musicians are just dead fucking snobby about their particular part of it.

    Bye!

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonicoctatonic Frets: 33725
    viz said:
    octatonic said:

    He certainly isn't saying music theory is racist only that analysis which has an implicit assumption that classical music is the pinnacle of culture devalues other forms which aren't based on the same concepts.
    So just clickbait then, basically? Because this viewpoint has been well understood in music for a long time. There is snobbery throughout the entire music world. Classical musicians look down on electronic musicians and popular music. Jazz musicians look down on classical musicians because they're not breaking new ground. Rockers look down on jazz musicians because they don't use enough distortion, etc etc.

    The original video (which I did watch fully) brings nothing new to the table or the discussion about music pedagogy. He's just riding coat-tails basically.

    I think given that neither of us have been through the formal music education system in America it's hard to judge how relevant it is.

    When I was at university in the late 90's I shared a house with someone who was doing a music degree and had no idea who the Beatles were. Essentially he'd never heard any music that wasn't classical so at least in that example it suggests that my university didn't see other forms of music worthy of study.

    I think the question of if music theory is universal like maths or exists within a cultural context is an interesting question and he does make some interesting points on that subject.
    It isn't just the US, in pretty much all music schools you study music theory from classic perspective, even if you aren't playing classical music.

    I expect that's true, and it's pretty clear, at least I thought it was, that while classical music theory can do well in explaining many types of music, especially ultra-simple music like blues rock (not a criticism, I love it), it is not so good at explaining Indian music based on the 19-note or 31-note scale for example. So it doesn't try to. And people who are studying western music feel no need to.
    That's why I think it's a non issue. Snobbery is an issue, but that's not the fault of the music theory, it's the fault of the snobs.
    I guess the issue is that western music theory explains classical music and styles of music derived from it very well.
    I don't see it so much as snobbery but rather it just isn't equipped to explain non-western art music derived styles.

    There is certainly a reluctance in classic circles to explore outside western art music though- that is certainly true.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • vizviz Frets: 10645
    octatonic said:
    viz said:
    octatonic said:

    He certainly isn't saying music theory is racist only that analysis which has an implicit assumption that classical music is the pinnacle of culture devalues other forms which aren't based on the same concepts.
    So just clickbait then, basically? Because this viewpoint has been well understood in music for a long time. There is snobbery throughout the entire music world. Classical musicians look down on electronic musicians and popular music. Jazz musicians look down on classical musicians because they're not breaking new ground. Rockers look down on jazz musicians because they don't use enough distortion, etc etc.

    The original video (which I did watch fully) brings nothing new to the table or the discussion about music pedagogy. He's just riding coat-tails basically.

    I think given that neither of us have been through the formal music education system in America it's hard to judge how relevant it is.

    When I was at university in the late 90's I shared a house with someone who was doing a music degree and had no idea who the Beatles were. Essentially he'd never heard any music that wasn't classical so at least in that example it suggests that my university didn't see other forms of music worthy of study.

    I think the question of if music theory is universal like maths or exists within a cultural context is an interesting question and he does make some interesting points on that subject.
    It isn't just the US, in pretty much all music schools you study music theory from classic perspective, even if you aren't playing classical music.

    I expect that's true, and it's pretty clear, at least I thought it was, that while classical music theory can do well in explaining many types of music, especially ultra-simple music like blues rock (not a criticism, I love it), it is not so good at explaining Indian music based on the 19-note or 31-note scale for example. So it doesn't try to. And people who are studying western music feel no need to.
    That's why I think it's a non issue. Snobbery is an issue, but that's not the fault of the music theory, it's the fault of the snobs.
    I guess the issue is that western music theory explains classical music and styles of music derived from it very well.
    I don't see it so much as snobbery but rather it just isn't equipped to explain non-western art music derived styles.

    There is certainly a reluctance in classic circles to explore outside western art music though- that is certainly true.
    Agree and agree.
    Roland said: Scales are primarily a tool for categorising knowledge, not a rule for what can or cannot be played.
    Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • jpfampsjpfamps Frets: 2723


    I think given that neither of us have been through the formal music education system in America it's hard to judge how relevant it is.

    When I was at university in the late 90's I shared a house with someone who was doing a music degree and had no idea who the Beatles were. Essentially he'd never heard any music that wasn't classical so at least in that example it suggests that my university didn't see other forms of music worthy of study.

    I think the question of if music theory is universal like maths or exists within a cultural context is an interesting question and he does make some interesting points on that subject.


    The intervals used in Western music are all integer ratios in frequency, eg octave is 1:2, fifth 2:3, forth 3:4 etc.

    This would suggest there is a fundamental mechanism at work here, ie this was waiting to be discovered rather than it was completely invented.

    There are also data about use of these intervals in nature, eg birdsong. In fact there are data suggesting that the accuracy of interval production in birdsong confers social status.

    Music theory essentially is an exercise in reverse engineering why something works; you certainly do not need to understand music theory to make music, and theory alone won't direct you to write a great piece of music.

    A huge body of music theory is common across all genres of Western music; eg the intervals used in chords, and resolution.

    In contrast, there is a trend in certain circles of academic thought that generation of knowledge is always culturally situated, and employed to exert power, which seems to be the underlying implication of the video above.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • monquixotemonquixote Frets: 17485
    tFB Trader
    monquixote said:
    I think given that neither of us have been through the formal music education system in America it's hard to judge how relevant it is.

    When I was at university in the late 90's I shared a house with someone who was doing a music degree and had no idea who the Beatles were. Essentially he'd never heard any music that wasn't classical so at least in that example it suggests that my university didn't see other forms of music worthy of study.

    I think the question of if music theory is universal like maths or exists within a cultural context is an interesting question and he does make some interesting points on that subject.
    At Middlesex there was huge beef between the sonic arts department and the "real music" department. We'd get constantly told we weren't real musicians or artists by people studying classical and jazz. This isn't a race thing. Musicians are just dead fucking snobby about their particular part of it.

    That's the bit I was struggling with in that video as snob doesn't equal racist although it does seem that the guy who developed that analysis system clearly was a big old racist.

    It did get me thinking though if you analyse something like "Higher State of Consciousness" by Josh Wink through a classical lens it's almost non music because pretty much nothing happens in terms of harmonic, or melodic development. All the variation is in timbre.
    I know classical musicians who would happily deride it as "non music", but similarly I struggle to listen to a string quartet for a long time because it all just sounds like a string quartet and I'm used to music with lots of dynamic, rhythmic and timbre changes. 

    A lot of musicians I know can be intimidated by "classically trained" musicians because they are "proper musicians". Once you play with them you realise a lot of them are actually very limited in what they can do. They might play in a pretty good orchestra, but they can't transcribe, improvise and their time and sense of rhythm is quite poor.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • monquixote said:
    I think given that neither of us have been through the formal music education system in America it's hard to judge how relevant it is.

    When I was at university in the late 90's I shared a house with someone who was doing a music degree and had no idea who the Beatles were. Essentially he'd never heard any music that wasn't classical so at least in that example it suggests that my university didn't see other forms of music worthy of study.

    I think the question of if music theory is universal like maths or exists within a cultural context is an interesting question and he does make some interesting points on that subject.
    At Middlesex there was huge beef between the sonic arts department and the "real music" department. We'd get constantly told we weren't real musicians or artists by people studying classical and jazz. This isn't a race thing. Musicians are just dead fucking snobby about their particular part of it.

    That's the bit I was struggling with in that video as snob doesn't equal racist although it does seem that the guy who developed that analysis system clearly was a big old racist.

    It did get me thinking though if you analyse something like "Higher State of Consciousness" by Josh Wink through a classical lens it's almost non music because pretty much nothing happens in terms of harmonic, or melodic development. All the variation is in timbre.
    I know classical musicians who would happily deride it as "non music", but similarly I struggle to listen to a string quartet for a long time because it all just sounds like a string quartet and I'm used to music with lots of dynamic, rhythmic and timbre changes. 

    A lot of musicians I know can be intimidated by "classically trained" musicians because they are "proper musicians". Once you play with them you realise a lot of them are actually very limited in what they can do. They might play in a pretty good orchestra, but they can't transcribe, improvise and their time and sense of rhythm is quite poor.
    I've recorded enough trained musicians for sample sets to know that whilst their understanding and performance of music can be very good, their understanding of how music is actually made in the modern world can sometimes be quite limited.

    Also, they sniff a lot. Not joking. Sniffing is the main thing I've had to RX out of sessions for some reason!! Probably our old cold damp basement studio, heh.

    Bye!

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonicoctatonic Frets: 33725
    edited September 2020
    A lot of musicians I know can be intimidated by "classically trained" musicians because they are "proper musicians". Once you play with them you realise a lot of them are actually very limited in what they can do. They might play in a pretty good orchestra, but they can't transcribe, improvise and their time and sense of rhythm is quite poor.
    I prefer the term 'specialised' rather than limited.
    To get very good at a classical repertoire requires total dedication to the task.
    It doesn't really allow for huge amounts of divergence into other areas.

    Jazz requires a similar dedication, but to other areas- improvisation, transcription for example.

    I've played with several classical musicians who had zero ability to improvise or play very much at all without the notes on a page in front of them. I remember having a conversation with the piano player in a band I played in years ago. She couldn't grasp that I was literally making it up as I went along when I was soloing over a chord progression.
    "How do you know what to do in each moment?" she asked.
    "I don't know... I just sort of do it", I replied.

    At that point in my playing were she to put some sheet music in front of me you'd have not heard me over the crickets chirping.
    I can read music now, but not a note back then- she could read anything and play it immediately.
    That looked like voodoo to me at the time.
    She taught herself to improvise in the 3 years I was in that band- started by writing variations of whatever we were doing down on the staff, then slowly she used the score less and less. Her home base is still, I understand it, the written form of music and mine is still very much improv but you can develop away from your specialisation if you put in the work.

    Essentially, you get good at what you practice and what you maintain.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • CrankyCranky Frets: 2629
    jpfamps said:


    I think given that neither of us have been through the formal music education system in America it's hard to judge how relevant it is.

    When I was at university in the late 90's I shared a house with someone who was doing a music degree and had no idea who the Beatles were. Essentially he'd never heard any music that wasn't classical so at least in that example it suggests that my university didn't see other forms of music worthy of study.

    I think the question of if music theory is universal like maths or exists within a cultural context is an interesting question and he does make some interesting points on that subject.


    The intervals used in Western music are all integer ratios in frequency, eg octave is 1:2, fifth 2:3, forth 3:4 etc.

    This would suggest there is a fundamental mechanism at work here, ie this was waiting to be discovered rather than it was completely invented.

    There are also data about use of these intervals in nature, eg birdsong. In fact there are data suggesting that the accuracy of interval production in birdsong confers social status.

    Music theory essentially is an exercise in reverse engineering why something works; you certainly do not need to understand music theory to make music, and theory alone won't direct you to write a great piece of music.

    A huge body of music theory is common across all genres of Western music; eg the intervals used in chords, and resolution.

    In contrast, there is a trend in certain circles of academic thought that generation of knowledge is always culturally situated, and employed to exert power, which seems to be the underlying implication of the video above.

    All knowledge is culturally situated.  That's an inevitability by virtue of what "knowledge" and "culture" both are.  Just part of being human.  But the next level of this is when one set of culture-knowledge claims superiority over another, or even over all others.  The latter is just kinda how it was for a while (ca. 1700-1940+) in America and Western Europe.  (Eurocentrism is okay when you're in Europe.  But the world's a much smaller place now, we're too connected for some of these old ideas to really work.)  "Superior culture-knowledge" is not even the underlying implication of this video, it's explicitly detailed over the course of it.

    Already having a background in the history of culture-knowledge, I wasn't surprised to learn any of this.  What I find more interesting is how the American academy seems to have stagnated and dwelt on this particular "cult" of music theory whilst other parts of The West have moved on.  Perhaps it goes to show how niche and insular this corner of academia is.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • monquixotemonquixote Frets: 17485
    tFB Trader
    jpfamps said:


    The intervals used in Western music are all integer ratios in frequency, eg octave is 1:2, fifth 2:3, forth 3:4 etc.

    This would suggest there is a fundamental mechanism at work here, ie this was waiting to be discovered rather than it was completely invented.

    There are also data about use of these intervals in nature, eg birdsong. In fact there are data suggesting that the accuracy of interval production in birdsong confers social status.

    Music theory essentially is an exercise in reverse engineering why something works; you certainly do not need to understand music theory to make music, and theory alone won't direct you to write a great piece of music.

    A huge body of music theory is common across all genres of Western music; eg the intervals used in chords, and resolution.

    In contrast, there is a trend in certain circles of academic thought that generation of knowledge is always culturally situated, and employed to exert power, which seems to be the underlying implication of the video above.


    Music does relate to physics and our physiology, but I don't think music theory is that much rooted in maths as it is in the conventions of our culture.

    Equal temperament is a choice, the frequency of a C is a choice.

    Analysis of music using figured bass is a choice.

    I don't think anyone is claiming that the definition of a octave is a cultural phenomenon.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Danny1969Danny1969 Frets: 10357
    edited September 2020

    To be fair it's not clear whether we invented maths or whether it was there to be discovered. 
    www.2020studios.co.uk 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • monquixotemonquixote Frets: 17485
    tFB Trader
    Danny1969 said:

    To be fair it's not clear whether we invented maths or whether it was there to be discovered. 

    Maths is a fundamental property of the universe.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • jpfampsjpfamps Frets: 2723
    jpfamps said:


    The intervals used in Western music are all integer ratios in frequency, eg octave is 1:2, fifth 2:3, forth 3:4 etc.

    This would suggest there is a fundamental mechanism at work here, ie this was waiting to be discovered rather than it was completely invented.

    There are also data about use of these intervals in nature, eg birdsong. In fact there are data suggesting that the accuracy of interval production in birdsong confers social status.

    Music theory essentially is an exercise in reverse engineering why something works; you certainly do not need to understand music theory to make music, and theory alone won't direct you to write a great piece of music.

    A huge body of music theory is common across all genres of Western music; eg the intervals used in chords, and resolution.

    In contrast, there is a trend in certain circles of academic thought that generation of knowledge is always culturally situated, and employed to exert power, which seems to be the underlying implication of the video above.


    Music does relate to physics and our physiology, but I don't think music theory is that much rooted in maths as it is in the conventions of our culture.

    Equal temperament is a choice, the frequency of a C is a choice.

    Analysis of music using figured bass is a choice.

    I don't think anyone is claiming that the definition of a octave is a cultural phenomenon.



    Equal temperament is actually a comprise that came about through the problems with reconcilling the Pythagorian intervals. Other tuning have been tried, eg mean tone. 

    Actually several instruments don't employ equal temperament, eg the piano where the tuning is stretched, so that the bass end is flatter and the treble end is sharper than equal temperament.

    I would agree that the frequency of C seems an arbitrary choice (and has and does vary, for example many European orchestras tune to A 443), and there are people who believe that choosing A440 was conspiracy!

    https://jakubmarian.com/the-432-hz-vs-440-hz-conspiracy-theory/

    I do think there are people who would argue that an octave is a cultural phenomenon; I don't agree with them.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • octatonicoctatonic Frets: 33725
    Danny1969 said:

    To be fair it's not clear whether we invented maths or whether it was there to be discovered. 

    Maths is a fundamental property of the universe.
    We are straying into philosophy here, I guess.
    You're right but without a brain to understand it does it have any meaning?
    A lion can't understand maths- it doesn't even know that it is a lion.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • CrankyCranky Frets: 2629
    jpfamps said:
    jpfamps said:


    The intervals used in Western music are all integer ratios in frequency, eg octave is 1:2, fifth 2:3, forth 3:4 etc.

    This would suggest there is a fundamental mechanism at work here, ie this was waiting to be discovered rather than it was completely invented.

    There are also data about use of these intervals in nature, eg birdsong. In fact there are data suggesting that the accuracy of interval production in birdsong confers social status.

    Music theory essentially is an exercise in reverse engineering why something works; you certainly do not need to understand music theory to make music, and theory alone won't direct you to write a great piece of music.

    A huge body of music theory is common across all genres of Western music; eg the intervals used in chords, and resolution.

    In contrast, there is a trend in certain circles of academic thought that generation of knowledge is always culturally situated, and employed to exert power, which seems to be the underlying implication of the video above.


    Music does relate to physics and our physiology, but I don't think music theory is that much rooted in maths as it is in the conventions of our culture.

    Equal temperament is a choice, the frequency of a C is a choice.

    Analysis of music using figured bass is a choice.

    I don't think anyone is claiming that the definition of a octave is a cultural phenomenon.



    Equal temperament is actually a comprise that came about through the problems with reconcilling the Pythagorian intervals. Other tuning have been tried, eg mean tone. 

    Actually several instruments don't employ equal temperament, eg the piano where the tuning is stretched, so that the bass end is flatter and the treble end is sharper than equal temperament.

    I would agree that the frequency of C seems an arbitrary choice (and has and does vary, for example many European orchestras tune to A 443), and there are people who believe that choosing A440 was conspiracy!

    https://jakubmarian.com/the-432-hz-vs-440-hz-conspiracy-theory/

    I do think there are people who would argue that an octave is a cultural phenomenon; I don't agree with them.
    The octave itself isn't a cultural phenomenon.  But the ways we describe how one can get from one octave to the next is a cultural phenomenon.

    Anytime human reasoning and language get involved, it's cultural.  We sometimes have a knack, though, for kidding ourselves into thinking our ideas are of nature.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • jpfampsjpfamps Frets: 2723
    Cranky said:
    jpfamps said:

    All knowledge is culturally situated.  That's an inevitability by virtue of what "knowledge" and "culture" both are.  Just part of being human.  But the next level of this is when one set of culture-knowledge claims superiority over another, or even over all others.  The latter is just kinda how it was for a while (ca. 1700-1940+) in America and Western Europe.  (Eurocentrism is okay when you're in Europe.  But the world's a much smaller place now, we're too connected for some of these old ideas to really work.)  "Superior culture-knowledge" is not even the underlying implication of this video, it's explicitly detailed over the course of it.

    Already having a background in the history of culture-knowledge, I wasn't surprised to learn any of this.  What I find more interesting is how the American academy seems to have stagnated and dwelt on this particular "cult" of music theory whilst other parts of The West have moved on.  Perhaps it goes to show how niche and insular this corner of academia is.

    Whilst some knowledge is culturally situated, I do not believe all knowledge is culturally situated (and yes we would go down a thesaurus argument rabbit-hole of what we mean by "culture" and "knowledge").

    And clearly some knowledge is superior to other knowledge; for example the heliocentric view of the solar system is superior to the geocentric view.

    Also by stating "but the next level of this is when one set of culture-knowledge claims superiority over another, or even over all others," are you advocating cultural relativism? I think that is a very slippery slope down which to go, for example if a culture thinks it's acceptable to persecute homosexuals is this OK? 

    When describing the video attitude towards "Superior culture-knowledge" I was trying to be measured in my words rather taking for inflammatory position.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • monquixotemonquixote Frets: 17485
    tFB Trader
    octatonic said:
    Danny1969 said:

    To be fair it's not clear whether we invented maths or whether it was there to be discovered. 

    Maths is a fundamental property of the universe.
    We are straying into philosophy here, I guess.
    You're right but without a brain to understand it does it have any meaning?
    A lion can't understand maths- it doesn't even know that it is a lion.

    If you wiped out humanity and all human knowledge and another sentient species evolved it would develop maths and it would be the same.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.