Talk:Journal of Schenkerian Studies

Older Comments

Eventually, you should include a link to this article explaining the Schenkerian response to Ewell. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kettle_logic If Schenkerians are not racists, then why do they think that anti-racist proposals are an attack on Schenkerism? - Joshua Clement Broyles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.155.14.114 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody censoring me today? OK, I'll do it. Thanks. JCB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.155.14.114 (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC) I'm not great at formatting, sorry. I'll trust someone else to clean that up. Thanks. JCB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.155.14.114 (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean that Ewell's plenary talk and his MTO article did not attack Schenkerism? You should perhaps reread Ewell in MTO 26.2. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ÑÑÑ I must thank you for agreeing that Ewell's talk was an attack on Schenkerism, because everything that Ewell attacked was an example of racism. Now if you can just get Nicholas Meeús to repeat your statement in a scholarly publication, we can stick his statement right into the article. Thanks for your help. - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.244.231.150 (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Joshua, you don't believe, I hope, that everything Ewell wrote is THE truth. Ewell never explained how modern schenkerism could be an example of racism, and I utterly fail to see how this could be justified. For sure, if Ewell himself explained in a scholarly publication how he can link present day Schenkerism to racism, we could begin sticking that in the article (not in this one on the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, perhaps, but better in the Schenkerian Analysis article), and after that we might indeed induce Meeùs to answer Ewell's arguments in another scholarly article. In his open letter, Meeùs called for "a much necessary worldwide debate". However, to open a debate, one needs at least two people, each of them developing their own argument. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The debate has not been helped by ambiguity as to what is being debated. Whether Schenker was a racist is one question. Whether schenkerian theory is racist is another question. Whether schenkerian theory is being taught by racists or for a racist purpose is at least one more or possibly two more questions. The core of the argument from Ewell that schenkerian theory is, itself, racist seems to depend on the fact that Schenker considered his theory inseparable from his ideas of social hierarchy, which, in modern terms, are racist ideas. I do not personally see these 2 things as necessarily inseparable. I just do not see any way to separate them and also keep schenkerian analysis as academically relevant, since all the important utilities of schenkerism are political rather than musical; in other words, there is probably no way to get schenkerians to teach schenkerism without a racism component, because racism is the very point of teaching it at all.

Joshua Clement Broyles

186.154.37.140 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

ÑÑÑ The justification is that current Schenkerians are also racists, as will soon be shown in court. Meanwhile, I have corrected the inaccurate statement the JSS is a peer reviewed journal. The UNT web page no longer claims that it is peer reviewed, the UNT review panel agreed that Vol, 12 had not been peer reviewed, as consistent with Jackson's onw statements after 01:06:00 in this Youtube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BYEmzYAMok&t=3950s There is also no indication in the other 11 volumes of JSS as to what, if any, peer review process had been applied. In total, there are more indicators that the JSS has never been peer reviewed than that it has ever been peer reviewed. - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.28.182.217 (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

If we can raise the question in a civil fashion - JCB is making a reasonable point: IS JSS technically peer-reviewed? If the articles are only reviewed by the editorial staff, then the answer is clearly "no." However, issue 12 might have been a special case. If we don't have any citable sources to establish the answer one way or the other, simplest (and most NPOV) might be to simply delete the claim, i.e. "JSS is an academic journal..." PianoDan (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll use a more civil tone when Wikipedia stops letting itself be used as a propaganda tool for Schenkerism. Meanwhile, the claim that ANY of the 12 volumes is peer reviewed is supported by nothing that has been cited in any of those 12 volumes, and it's a claim that no one but Wikipedia, not even UNT, seems to be trying to openly defend at this point. If the other 11 volumes can be cited as peer reviewed, then just show me how. This is not unreasonable.

And I've already looked. Has the person undoing my work here bothered to look? (Spoiler: no) But to bend over backwards to seem more diplomatic, even assuming that 11 volumes were peer reviewed and the 12th were not, what would be the case for continuing the claim that the journal "is" peer reviewed, if the current volume is not peer reviewed? Should it not at least be necessary that a 13th volume be published, to which peer review can be conclusively cited? If the article were to say that the journal "is peer reviewed, but not currently peer reviewed", how would readers make any sense of that? And how is this different from what my antagonist is claiming here in this process? - Joshua Clement Broyles

I suspect your edits are being reverted for their non-NPOV tone, rather than their content, which is why I brought up the subject. The editors reverting the edits are don't seem to be primarily music centered editors, but rather folks who habitually scan new edits for apparent vandalism. (And who seem to have zero dogs in this fight.) When the edits appear to be non-NPOV, they're going to get reverted regardless of factual basis.

That doesn't mean Wikipedia has a pro-Shencker bias, it means it has one against histrionics. If you had simply deleted "peer-reviewed" and indicated in your edit log that there was no reliable sourcing to support the adjective, it would likely not have been instantly reverted. However, now that the section has been edited and reverted multiple times, that has basically forced there to be a discussion so as to avoid the appearance of an edit war.

On the underlying point - I actually agree with you that since there is no evidence that JSS *is* peer reviewed, the article shouldn't claim it is. Further, I'll be happy to make that edit myself once other interested parties have had a chance to weigh in.

TL;DR - you're more likely to get what you want if you keep your edits encyclopedic in tone. I'd suggest reviewing WP:NPOV PianoDan (talk)

• The journal says on its home page that it is "peer reviewed". That's enough to substantiate that claim. Contrary to what people seem to think, peer review is not some kind of honor badge, it's just a procedure. There is peer review. Whether that peer review is effective and of high quality or not is a different question. In any case, have a look at the academic journal article. Such a journal is defined by being peer-reviewed. Any publication that is not peer reviewed is a newspaper or a magazine. As another aside, "editorial staff" at most academic journals, especially small ones like this, are usually also "peers", so being reviewed by editors does not exclude a journal being peer-reviewed. If a journal claims to be peer-reviewed, we accept that claim as a neutral fact. To write the opposite, or to write that the peer-review was deficient, needs reliable sources. Think of it as follows: if the Journal of Flat Earth Theory uses other flat-Earthers to review fringy manuscripts claiming that, indeed, the Earth is flat, then that journal is peer-reviewed. That it is fringe and the peer-review is crappy, while pretty evident, still needs reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

ÑÑÑ[*The journal says on its home page that it is "peer reviewed"] No it doesn't. This isn't the home page: https://digital.library.unt.edu/explore/collections/JSCS/. This is the home page: https://mhte.music.unt.edu/journal-schenkerian-studies [That's enough to substantiate that claim. ] No it isn't. UNT now says that Volume 12 was not peer reviewed. That the person they removed as editor for not conducting peer review has not edited the page to reflect lack of peer review shouldn't be a surprise. But that doesn't mean it was peer reviewed. That it is peer reviewed is an affirmative claim made by that specific editor, which he had prime burden to defend, and which he failed to defend. [Whether that peer review is effective and of high quality or not is a different question.] It might be a different question. But your insistence upon repeating the lie that the journal is peer reviewed reflects that you are somehow invested in how peer review or lack of it reflects on the journal. I don't pretend not to be invested in the matter. But the facts do not support your bias; they support mine. [Such a journal is defined by being peer-reviewed.] The definition, itself, does nothing to assure that peer review is conducted. UNT says that it wasn't. [Any publication that is not peer reviewed is a newspaper or a magazine.] OR a scholarly journal afflicted by the very type of editorial misconduct to which Jackson effectively confesses in the linked video, and for which UNT removed him from his editorial position. [ As another aside, "editorial staff" at most academic journals, especially small ones like this, are usually also "peers", so being reviewed by editors does not exclude a journal being peer-reviewed.] That's nice. Just show me that any of the editorial staff reviewed any specific article. Can you? Jackson wasn't even able to do that for the review committee, so what are your chances? [If a journal claims to be peer-reviewed, we accept that claim as a neutral fact.] Then you are not being neutral. The university that hosts the journal does not accept it as a neutural fact; when you do so, you contradict the official position on the matter at this point. [To write the opposite, or to write that the peer-review was deficient, needs reliable sources. ] Here's a source on UNT's position: https://vpaa.unt.edu/sites/default/files/%5Bfile%3Aoriginal%3Atype%3Aname%5D/jss_review_panel_final_report1.pdf Knock yourself out. [Think of it as follows: if the Journal of Flat Earth Theory uses other flat-Earthers to review fringy manuscripts claiming that, indeed, the Earth is flat, then that journal is peer-reviewed. ] That's exactly why I have left this matter alone until this year. But if the host university formally rejects this claim by the chief editor, and continues to reject it even as he sues them for it, the host university's position is the official position on the matter while the suit pends. [That it is fringe and the peer-review is crappy, while pretty evident, still needs reliable sources.] The fringe crappiness and the lack of peer review are possible to treat as two separate problems. What remains unsubstantiated is the claim that the journal was ever peer reviewed to begin with. There's no sign of that, and as of the publication of the ad hoc report, it is the position of the host university that, currently, the journal is not peer reviewed. Doesn't anybody at Wikipedia actually do their homework before climbing over each other to adulate Schenkerians? - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.98.18 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The link you posted to the journal home page is broken for me - this appears to be the correct link: https://mhte.music.unt.edu/journal-schenkerian-studies-0 . And unlike the previous version of the page, it DOES assert that the journal is peer reviewed, so I'm now in agreement with Randykitty that the journal's self-description should stand absent reliable other sourcing that the journal as a whole is not peer-reviewed. PianoDan (talk)

ÑÑÑ I do see the new home page, thanks. Google didn't find that for me. On this basis, I'm going to shift blame for the problem away from Wikipedia and Wikipedians, and to UNT administrators for contradicting themselves. What they're saying is analogous to someone claiming to be happily married while also conspicuously looking for someone to become the spouse that will complete that happy marriage. Thank you all for your patience in the face of my frustration and what I know is an unfriendly tone. You need to understand that nothing has still been done about Hucbald being used as an illicit alt by a high profile Schenkerian under extreme conflict of interest. This poisons the whole matter. - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.98.18 (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC) ÑÑÑ BTW, the home page linked at the bottom of the article is still the home page I linked here. Can we all at least agree to fix that? At least then this might feel like less of a waste of time. Thanks. - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ

That, you could certainly have just done yourself without risk of reversion, but I'll take care of it. Also, it's not inherently a conflict of interest for an expert on a topic to edit pages on a topic on which they are an expert. There are certainly concerns to be raised about WP:NPOV, but building a consensus is the only way to address those concerns on Wikipedia. Discussions like this one are how that happens. PianoDan (talk)

Oh hey, someone already did. Thanks, Randykitty! PianoDan (talk)

ÑÑÑ The link wasn't changed in the article. What happened, instead, is that UNT reinstated the previous link after I made a Youtube video about them hiding it and making it hard for people to find out who is on the editorial board. So, of course, the old page is back up for no stated reason, being both redundant with and contradictory to the new page, but with the link to the editorial board page predictably disabled. Fortunately, I still have a working link for the editorial board page, in case you want to use that information for something, since, apparently, they have neither yet been replaced, nor have their positions yet been eliminated. Here's the new non-working link: https://web.archive.org/web/20201024135716/https://mhte.music.unt.edu/editorial-board Here's the old still working link, no longer on the superficially reinstated, redundant, contradictory home page: https://mhte.music.unt.edu/editorial-board . Just to make sure Wikipedia has some recond of who is on the current editorial board of the peer-reviewed-but-not-exactly-at-this-moment journal when UNT catches up with my activity elsewhere and gets around to trying to manage what's happening here, the 16 names on the board as of today are: Benjamin Ayotte, David Beach, Charles Burkhart, Allen Cadwallader, William Drabkin, David Gagné, Yosef Goldenberg, Timothy L. Jackson, Roger Kamien, Wayne Petty, William Renwick, Carl Schachter, Hedi Siegel, Peter Smith, David Stern, Stephen Slottow. This will make it easier to later identify who was on the board during the period of editorial misconduct recognized by UNT. Lauri Suurpää's name was still on the list when JSS12 was published, and I'll have to check a couple of things to be sure whose name is the other blank space, which only became blank in 2021. Thanks for assuing there's no risk of "reversion". - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.28.179.41 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC) ÑÑÑ And now I have watched the link behavior change enough times and in enough ways over the course of a few hours to suggest that whoever is managing the Wikipedia link is also managing the UNT links. Can I please either get formal confirmation or formal denial on this? Thanks. - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ

It is obvious from the page edit history that Randykitty DID update the link in the article. As far as links changing at UNT, it is important not to attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. PianoDan (talk)

ÑÑÑ If Randykitty isn't also managing UNT's links, maybe Randykitty can say that. Meanwhile, I see the article is still marked as an orphan. Do you guys prefer to see it linked in from the Psuedoscience article or the Pseudoscholarship article? Go ahead and pick. I'm still felxible on this. Thanks. - Joshua Clement Broyles

Possible defunding

ÑÑÑ I won't bother logging in just to point out that this web page claims the journal has been defunded. https://www.allenharrislaw.com/allen-harris-laws-michael-thad-allen-represents-timothy-jackson/ Thanks. - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ

Doesn't really strike me as a reliable source. Given that the "help wanted" page for a new editor is still up at UNT, it seems unlikely that the journal has been defunded. PianoDan (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

ÑÑÑ That's great, thanks. PianoDan doesn't consider Jackson's attorney's website to be a reliable source. If I need someone to quote on what's not a reliable source, I'll be quoting PianoDan from Wikipedia. -Joshua Clement Broyles (still not logged in; why bother?) ÑÑÑ

Sarcasm aside, I can't see how "the publisher of the journal" WOULDN'T be a more reliable reference than "the attorney of the former editor who is currently pursuing legal action against the journal." PianoDan (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't find where our WP web page claims that "the journal has been defunded." I therefore fail to understand what this whole discussion is about. The affair still is the object of a lawsuit and we might perhaps do better to wait for the issue. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean - if there WERE a reliable source for that claim, it would certainly merit inclusion. The lawsuit is a defamation suit, not unlawful termination, so it's unlikely the outcome of the suit will affect the future of the journal much. Tim Jackson certainly isn't going to be reinstated as editor by the university he sued. Discussion here of whether that claim is supported enough to warrant inclusion is reasonable. (Spoiler - it isn't at this time.) PianoDan (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

ÑÑÑ Hucbald, we've already long established that you think you can convince everyone that you don't see things, and that those things therefore do not exist, because you think everyone but you is an idiot. The link I provided was from Jackson's attorney's website, and it still clearly shows the text "The publication was also defunded." Please don't think I wouldn't eventually cut a screen shot of that directly into the article just to emphasize your total lack of integrity in this matter, as in so many other matters. OR, you can just get everyone else here to confirm that the text is not there. What's your excuse for not spotting it? Probably, as usual, that you think your English comprehension isn't very good. Should I just cut and paste that statement (about your English) in here for you from one of your various other implausible iterations of same? Even the person whose French language biography page you've mostly edited has said the same thing in enough other places that maybe I should cut and paste one of those for you instead. Your text and the text of the person whose French language biography you've mostly edited are often quite indistinguishable. - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ PianoDan, I'm just fine with leaving the item out of the article until UNT confirms it. I am delighted to have, rather than that, collected the unexpected bonus of being able to now cite you as saying Jackson's attorney's website is "not a credible source". As soon as Jackson and/or his attorney get around to taking issue with me characterizing the Allen Harris Law website as "not a credible source", I will eagerly refer them to you, here. Thanks again. - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ

You seem to be unaware that on Wikipedia, the term "Reliable Source" has a specific definition - it's not just colloquial English. A reliable source, in this context, is defined at length here: WP:RS. In particular, the concern with citing to the page of the law firm is an obvious (and of course, normal) bias towards the interests of their client. From the WP:BIASED section of the aforementioned policy: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." PianoDan (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

ÑÑÑ Even better, thanks. Wikipedia defines Jackson's attorney's website as not reliable, and PianoDan merely agrees. Very clear. Not that I can see any reason for Allen Harris Law to mislead readers about the defunding. Please note that I do not insist that we list the unconfirmed statement, despite that could probably list is as an unconfirmed allegation. What I patiently await is for UNT to get around to updating any page that would indicate the defunding. In the meantime, though, both UNT and Allen Harris Law need to realize that the publicly reverse chronology of defunding announcement only encourages people to even more suspect that JSS was being secretly funded by some entity other than UNT all along. The Allen Harris Law site says JSS was defunded; it doesn't say who defunded it. - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ

Subject Matter of Pro-Schenkerian Articles

It is true that a majority of the articles were Pro-Schenkerian. However, the footnote does not support the remainder of the statement. None of the Pro-Schemer articles use "Heinrich Schenker's known views on white racial supremacy" or "white racial supremacy" or anything similar. This is because when Schenker is referring to race, he is referring to nationality, not biological race. Please don't put words into the author's articles that they didn't use. No Schenkerian would call Schenker a white racial supremacist. A German nationalist yes, but not a white racial supremacist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's just check that statement, shall we? All references are to Journal of Schenkerian Studies, Issue 12.

• "Henrich Schecker was a passionate and prolific writer... several of his writings contain racist comments" - David Beach
• "I take as fact the disturbing and mutually reinforcing relationship between Schenker's much-disseminated music theory and his less-discussed belief in white racial superiority." - Richard Beaudoin
• "[Ewell] is quite right to deplore Schenker's racism." - Charles Burkhardt
• "Heinrich Schenker made distasteful statements and embraced unsavory cultural prejudices." - Alan Cadwallader
• "Ewell provided abundant examples of Schenker's blatant racism from both his Nachlass and published materials." - Suzannah Clark
• "Such statements [by Schenker] could only be seen as 'designed to provoke hatred, sometimes of a specifically racial nature.'" - Nicholas Cook
• "Schencker viewed the world through a hirearchical lens that was racist (and more)." - Rich Pellegrin
• "The facts are not seriously in question: Schenker was a deeply flawed and conflicted character whose virulently nationalist and racist views are unpalatable by any standards". - Boyd Pomeroy

I'm not going to keep going, because this already represents a majority of the articles in the volume. And I'm not splitting hairs on semantics. Schenker's racism = white racial supremacy, and to claim otherwise is nonsense based on even the words of his own adherents above. Unless there's a LOT of support on this page in the next few days for keeping it out, I'm restoring the description of the journal articles as reacting to Schenker's racism, because they clearly are. PianoDan (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

ñññ

Schenker's use of the term "cannibal" must refer not to the French government, but to the Senegalese troops. "Cannibal" is not a culturally racist term for the French; it is a biologically racist term for a black person. Schenker's statement is biological racism.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ñññ 186.155.12.109 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Piano Dan: You are wrong about the appropriateness of the quote. First, you create a majority by saying "and" when you are actually using "or." Some of the articles talk about white supremacy (actually, only one), some talk about a connection, and some talk about both, but a majority of the articles do not talk about both. Thus, there is no majority supporting this sentence.

Second. in Schenker's time, race had two meanings. First, it had the same meaning it has today--biological race. This is the sense in which the Nazis used the term, although they expanded it by including the Jews, who were mostly white. Second, it could mean national people--like the French or the Italians. Schenker used it to refer to peoples--cultural, not biological, racism.

Ewell tried to make Schenker look like a biological racist by using distorted translations. This is supported by the Jackson and Wiener articles that you judged unreliable sources on the Ewell WP.

Of the quotes you give only Beaudin uses the term "white racial superiority" or a variation. One is far from a majority. Cadwallader is obviously using the term "race" in the cultural sense--he uses "unsavory cultural prejudices." Pomeroy uses "virulently nationalist and racist views"--the cultural side. For the rest, it is very hard to tell which meaning the writer meant. Neither you nor I should try to mind read. This is not the function of a WP editor.

Why do you attack the Journal of Schenkerian Studies as not being a reliable source on the Ewell WP talk page, but use it as a source here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Because, as I have attempted repeatedly to explain, the standards for a Biography of a Living Person are substantially different than those for any other type of article. This is not a biography page, so WP:UNDUE (which is an extremely important thing to consider for BLPs) applies differently here.

The statement that a majority of the articles attempted to grapple with Schenker's acknowledged racism is unambiguously correct and supported by the reference. Word mean things, and it is not "mind reading" to take the word "racism" to mean "racism." PianoDan (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

But you said "white racial supremacy." The statement "a majority of the articles attempted to grapple with Schenker's acknowledged cultural racism" would be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not concur with your artificial distinction between so-called "cultural" and "biological" racism in this context. And at this point, it would probably be best to wait for a third party to weigh in. PianoDan (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not an artifical distinction. Schenker equated race with national peoples. He was a Jew. He opposed biological racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Added detail to avoid generality disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Biological racism is based on race; cultural racism is based on the differences between cultures. Racism against Blacks in America is biological. Germans' hatred of the French and English after WWI is cultural. Schenker's racism was cultural because he criticized other peoples, especially the French and the English, not other races.

Ewell tried to show that Schenker was a cultural racist by distorting Schenker's quotes. Wiener in the article I added last night to the JSS entry said this. So did Jackson in the Quillette article that PianoDan keeps deleting. Most of the writers in JSS are acknowledging Schenker's cultural racism. Only the Beaudin article is clearly using the term in the biological sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I think asserting that anyone BUT Beaudin is making that distinction when they use the word "racism" is WP:OR. PianoDan (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. That was also the problem with your summary. Neither of us can read minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I am asserting that "racism" means "racism". You are asserting it has a nonstandard usage of "cultural racism." As I am asserting that the word has its plain meaning, I am not purporting to read minds. Rather, I am saying that words can be taken to have their customary meanings. That does not constitute WP:OR.

On the other hand, claiming that "racism" means "nationalism", IS attempting to project a non-standard usage where it is not warranted, and does constitute WP:OR. The two cases are not parallel. PianoDan (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It did not have a plain meaning in the Weimar era. Also, Ewell distinguishes the two terms. The WP article is talking about Ewell and the reaction to Ewell. We have to follow that meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article on racism: "Cultural racism manifests as societal beliefs and customs that promote the assumption that the products of a given culture, including the language and traditions of that culture, are superior to those of other cultures. It shares a great deal with xenophobia, which is often characterized by fear of, or aggression toward, members of an outgroup by members of an ingroup.[citation needed] In that sense it is also similar to communalism as used in South Asia.[67]

Cultural racism exists when there is a widespread acceptance of stereotypes concerning diverse ethnic or population groups.[68] Whereas racism can be characterised by the belief that one race is inherently superior to another, cultural racism can be characterised by the belief that one culture is inherently superior to another.[69]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"Racism" has a plain meaning now. And if Ewell is talking about biological racism, then a response to Ewell that simply says "racism" without making a distinction is obviously also talking about the same thing, since that is ALSO the plain meaning today.

On another note, PLEASE use ":" to indent your comments where appropriate, per WP:THREAD. PianoDan (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and in case you aren't aware, even as an anonymous user, you can use four tildes to sign your post, thus preventing the constant stream of "unsigned comment signed by SineBot" edits from cluttering up page histories. PianoDan (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@PianoDan The English word "racism" did not exist before the late 1920s, thus not before the last years of Schenker's life. The German Rassismus was rarely used by then in German, mainly in texts condemning racial thinking (Rasse was more common and Rassismus had a rather contemptuous meaning). In Der freie Satz, Schenker writes of the germanische Rasse (1935, p. 18), which hardly could be understood as biological racism. He quotes Gobineau, e.g. in Der Tonwille 1 (1921, p. 12), but Gobineau himself wrote for instance of la race latine, again hardly a biological race. "Racism" may have acquired a "plain meaning" in contemporary American English, but even today to use it only in that meaning would be bound to produce misunderstandings – especially when dealing with Schenker and his time. I would think at least plausible that responses to Ewell by people with a better knowledge of German or European vocabulary before WW2 are not speaking of the same thing.

(But you are right that 24.184.26.105 should sign her comments.) — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The authors cited above are contemporary writers, writing in English for modern English speaking readers. If THEY are using the word "racist" without qualification, then it is not only safe to assume they are using the contemporary English meaning, it is WP:OR to claim otherwise. PianoDan (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I dont claim anything, I merely say that people involved in an in depth study of the European situation before WW2, knowing German (and French), and speaking of Schenker, might plausibly have taken the meaning of the word as it was then. It may not be safe, as you say, to assume that they are not using the contemporary American meaning, but it similarly is not safe to assume that they did. Not all of them are Americans and I am not sure that the meaning in contemporary English English is exactly the same as in American English. Is this an important discussion for this WP article ? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that it's entirely germane to the only reason this tiny journal is even worthy of a Wikipedia article? Yes.

And if we cannot assume that people using words are using them to mean the things that they mean, then the entire premise of an encyclopedia goes out the window. I could say "bicycle" and really mean "platypus". Words mean things, and it is safe to assume that people writing things using words are using those words to mean the things they mean unless they EXPLICITY redefine them. There is no fuzzy ambiguity in "Ewell provided abundant examples of Schenker's blatant racism from both his Nachlass and published materials," to pick just one quote. We don't have to pick apart what "racism" meant in 1925, because that statement was made LAST YEAR. PianoDan (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I am confused. The Schenker bio article says Schenker considered racial theories to be pseudoscientific. If Schenker was never exposed to such theories, I do not understand how he could have formed any opinion of them. Please explain.

Joshua Clement Broyles

186.154.37.140 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Cite? Who said that? Where was it said?

You are trying to summarize an entire issue written by several different authors who disagree with each other. You can't do that. You have to consider every article separately.

Ewell, himself, distinguished between biological racism and cultural racism.24.184.26.105 (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Your latest change is fine. Ewell did say that. He was wrong, but that is why I put the next paragraph in.24.184.26.105 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

To correct an error in my edit summary: it should have said the "JSS issue itself", not the "JSS article itself". There is support in basically every article in the that issue of journal for the contention that Schenker was a racist, in addition to the extensive citation list in the Ewell article. PianoDan (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Barry Wiener Quote

The author is notable, but that is irrelevant. It's included here because it is in the Journal. Please wait for a discussion before making further changes.24.184.26.105 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Having reviewed the discussion here, I agree with @PianoDan in that there is no particularly good reason for picking this quote from Weiner as being some sort of representative contrast on the issue. An h-index of one is quite low (especially given the other authors in that issue who have much more credibility when it comes to the topic, speaking as someone working in music academia at the moment) and the list of presentations provided to show credibility feels like it actually detracts from the argument to keep him in there since there is not much empirical evidence to date to suggest they are authoritative on this issue. Dr. Weiner might be active as a Schenkarian and have work forthcoming, but I until there is a book citation to their name or something in one of the major analysis journals, it feels like a false equivalency. I also believe that summarising all author's contributions would be a bit much for this page. Davidjohnbakerphd (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of articles in issue 12. If we're going to pull quotes, there needs to be reasons to pick and choose. Jackson's an obvious choice as the editor. But past that, we shouldn't be pulling quotes from the least notable scholars in the journal, unless we want to illustrate the how low the standards for that issue were. Wiener has an h-index of ONE, which is absurd even in the low citation field of music theory. PianoDan (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. It would be very helpful if you would learn the basics of how Talk pages are supposed to work. New discussions require new sections. I've pulled your quote down below the section heading I added. PianoDan (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

PianoDan obviously has a personal interest in all this, it seems useless to continue argue with him. What he considers a "notable" publication is what suits his opinion. I had not thought that that was the purpose of a Talk page. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If the anonymous contributor wanted me to see his comment before I reverted his edit, he should have put it under a section heading. I could just as easily say that you and Mr. anonymous have personal interests, and it's useless to consider arguing with you, but I'm NOT saying that. What would you consider a reasonable metric for establishing which quotes are notable to pull from the journal? What metric would Wiener satisfy that say, Suzannah Clark wouldn't satisfy to a far greater degree? PianoDan (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

For reference, here's the relevant Wikipedia policy: WP:SOURCEDEF. "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Issue 12 has been clearly established NOT to have the former, so some evidence of the latter would be needed to justify quoting Wiener here. PianoDan (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am reverting it because it is 2 to 1 to keep it. Mr. Wiener is well-known within Schenkerian studies. The fact that you don't know this shows your ignorance. Dr. Wiener has a Ph.D. from CUNY/Grad. CUNY is the most important graduate school in the U.S. for Schenkerian srudies. Are you a friend of Ewell's? 24.184.26.105 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

An hour isn't exactly a reasonable length time for discussion, and last I checked, Wikipedia has more than three editors. "2 to 1" does not establish a lack of edit warring behavior.

I have never met DOCTOR Ewell, no.

Let me explain one more Wikipedia policy to you: the Three Revert Rule. I made a change to the page, and you've reverted it twice. If I were to make the change again, I MIGHT be edit warring. But if you were to revert it a third time, you would DEFINITELY be edit warring, and could be automatically blocked.

I'm not going to do that, because that's not how this is supposed to work. However, assuming a consensus has been reached in an hour is ALSO not how this is supposed to work. WP:CLOSE suggests a week as a reasonable length of time if there's no obvious consensus reached before then.

It is not sufficient for you to assert Wiener's notability. It needs to be demonstrated. What establishes his notability for the purpose of Wikipedia, according to the policy I cited above? Saying that someone has only been out of grad school for eight years is not a point in their favor, when compared to possible citations by scholars such as Clark, Cook, or Beaudoin, all of whom have demonstrably greater histories of scholarship, as evidenced by a simple Google Scholar search. Why is THIS quote more notable than from one of the other, far more accomplished, authors in the volume? PianoDan (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh hey, I just realized - Dr. Ewell TEACHES at CUNY. Wouldn't that mean HIS opinions on Schenker should hold far more weight than those of a barely published recent graduate? PianoDan (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Selected presentations and publications by Dr. Wiener:

December 2021. “Race, Nation, and Jewish Identity in the Thought of Heinrich Schenker.” Annual Meeting, Association for Jewish Studies, Chicago, IL. These papers, including Dr. Wiener's, are to be published this summer.

Ralph Shapey and the Search for a New Concept of Musical Continuity (in preparation, Peter Lang Verlag)

Dahlhaus’s Paradigm and Sibelius Reception. Jean Sibelius’s Legacy – Research at His 150th Anniversary, edited by Daniel Grimley, Tim Howell, Veijo Murtomäki and Timo Virtanen, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017

The Battle Over Sibelius in Sibelius Reconsidered, edited by Timothy L. Jackson and Veijo Murtomäki , 2019

Per Nørgård’s Tragic Vision: A Comparison of GILGAMESH (1972) and NUIT DES HOMMES (1996)in Cambridge Opera Journal, forthcoming.

Global Perspectives—Akemi Naito (Japan/NY): “THE WOMAN IN THE DUNES for Solo Percussionist (2012)” in Musicology Now, 2018.

Ralph Shapey and the Search for a New Concept of Musical Continuity, 1954–1958 in Contemporary Music Review, Aug 1, 2008.

November 2021. “Melding Sound and Structure: Spiraling Through the Serial Matrix in Ursula Mamlok’s VARIATIONS AND INTERLUDES for Four Percussionists (1971).” Annual Meeting, Society of Music Theory. Zoom conference.

December 2020. “Ferdinand Hiller and Felix Mendelssohn: German Oratorios and Jewish Politics.” Annual Meeting, Association of Jewish Studies. Zoom conference.

July 2020. “Stefan Wolpe’s Zionist Network.” Music and National Identity. Zoom conference.

February 2020. “Mythic Paradigms and Jungian Archetypes in Per Nørgård’s GILGAMESH (1972).” Greater New York Chapter, American Musicological Society.

December 2019. “Stefan Wolpe as Jew and Zionist.” Annual Meeting, Association for Jewish Studies, San Diego, CA.

November 2019. “Dialectical Polarities in Per Nørgård’s NUIT DES HOMMES (1996).” Lightning Talk, Global New Music interest group. Annual Meeting, Society of Music Theory, Columbus, OH.

November 2019. “Stefan Wolpe and Palestine: New Perspectives.” Annual Meeting, American Musicological Society, Boston, MA.

April 2018. “Sibelius, Busoni, and Ultramodernism.” Greater New York Chapter, American Musicological Society.

April 2018. “Conceptualizing the ‘Gothic' Symphony.” New York University.

November 2017. Akemi Naito (Japan/NY), “THE WOMAN IN THE DUNES for Solo Percussionist (2012, NY).” Lightning talk, Global New Music interest group. Society of Music Theory Annual Meeting, Arlington, VA.

November 2017. “Ursula Mamlok’s Path to Serialism.” Society of Music Theory Annual Meeting, Arlington, VA.

April 2017. “Brahms and Ossian: Compositional Sources and Political Symbolism in the First Symphony.” Greater New York Chapter, American Musicological Society.

April 2017. “Ursula Mamlok’s Path to Serialism.” West Coast Conference on Music Theory and Analysis, University of Victoria, BC.

March 2017. “Between Pietism and Liberalism: Felix Mendelssohn and the German Oratorio.” University of North Texas, Division of Music History, Theory, and Ethnomusicology. Residency, UNT Division of Music History, Theory, and Ethnomusicology.

March 2017. “Ursula Mamlok's Path to Serialism.” Lecture, University of North Texas, Division of Music History, Theory, and Ethnomusicology. Residency, UNT Division of Music History, Theory and Ethnomusicology.

March 2017. “Stefan Wolpe's Compositional Pedagogy.” Division Lecture, University of North Texas, MHTE Lecture Series. Residency, UNT Division of Music History, Theory, and Ethnomusicology.

April 2016. “Ordered Successions in the Music of Ralph Shapey.” West Coast Conference on Music Theory and Analysis, University of California, Santa Barbara.

February 2016. “Ursula Mamlok: The Path to the New Music, 1960-63” (revised). Greater New York Chapter, American Musicological Society.

December 2015. “Dahlhaus’s Paradigm and Sibelius Reception.” Sixth International Jean Sibelius Conference, Hämeenlinna, Finland.

May 2013. “Per Nørgård’s Tragic Vision: A Comparison of the Operas GILGAMESH (1972) and NUIT DES HOMMES (1996).” “Baltic and Scandinavian Identities in Flux,” Lyrica Dialogues at Harvard.

May 2012. “Ursula Mamlok: The Path to the New Music, 1960-63.” “The Woman and the Pen: Authors, Composers, Salonnières,” Lyrica Dialogues at Harvard.

May 2009. “Faith, Covenant and Revelation in the Music of Felix Mendelssohn.” “Viewing Mendelssohn, Viewing Elijah: Assimilation, Interpretation and Culture,” Arizona State University.

“NYWC/Barnard Conference on Women Composers,” IAWM [International Alliance for Women in Music] Journal 3, no. 2 (1997): 26-7. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

So - thanks for the info dump, but precisely ONE of those has any mention of Schenker, and it's a conference presentation for a non-musical organization. That's a whole buncha words, but it doesn't in any way establish Dr. Wiener as a recognized authority on this particular topic, nor does it address why a quote from him should take priority over one from, say, Clark.

It's hard to see how dropping in conference presentations on Mamlock and Sibelius has any relevance here. In fact, they are SO far from the topic, that they could be considered evidence that you are not arguing in good faith.

PianoDan (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking further at the page that was clearly cut and pasted from - those are almost entirely regional conference presentations. Of his three actual published articles, one appears to be on Ralph Shapey, one on Akemi Naito, and one on Per Nørgård. Sorry - I'm not seeing "recognized expert on Schenker" there. PianoDan (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, all. I share PianoDan's skepticism about the sentence summarizing Dr. Wiener's contribution to the controversial issue in question. In the revision history, the anonymous contributor asserted that "This sentence shows what's in the issue. It doesn't matter who the author is." No single author's contribution to the issue can represent "what's in the issue." It is important to answer why highlighting Dr. Wiener's contribution does any better job than representing what is in the issue. The most comprehensive and neutral approach would be to summarize each contributor's contribution. I am not convinced that singling out Dr. Wiener can sufficiently represent the contents of the issue. Moreover, dumping a list of Dr. Wiener's presentations does not an argument make. As the contributor who wishes to keep the sentence in question, the burden is on you to make a case by mobilizing this information as evidence. Copying and pasting this information does not constitute an argument. I respectfully invite you to make your case. SyLvRuUz (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that summarizing every single contribution would be comprehensive, but I suspect it might be overkill, especially given that NONE of the contributions were peer reviewed. PianoDan (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

To summarize:

• Dr. Wiener graduated less than ten years ago, from a prestigious program.
• Dr. Wiener has published only three peer reviewed papers, which have received a total of two citations between them.
• Dr. Wiener has no peer reviewed publications on Schenker.
• Both @SyLvRuUz: and @Davidjohnbakerphd: have concurred in these facts and their implication that Weiner is not, therefore, worthy of inclusion in this article.

I am removing the quote, since nothing has been presented to establish that it belongs in the article. If further quotes are desirable, may I suggest Suzannah Clark's contribution? Dr. Clark has an impressive publication record, and was chair of the music department at Harvard University, which places her rather higher on the notability scale. PianoDan (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on their edit summary, I suspect the anonymous contributor may have missed @Davidjohnbakerphd's contribution, as it was inserted earlier in the discussion. PianoDan (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of SMT and Yale Sources

I reverted because these sources are not reliable under RS criteria. They are the same as the Wiener article. You can't have it both ways. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you are actually asserting that Yale University and the Society for Music Theory are not notable? One of the most prestigious institutions in the country, and the professional organization for the entire field? Really? PianoDan (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say notable. I said reliable. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, let's use an actual term from WP:SOURCEDEF then: "authoritative." It's hard to think of a more authoritative source for American music theorists than the elected board of the Society for Music Theory, or a collection of music scholars with a better claim to authority than the entire music faculty of Yale. The membership in those two groups have hundreds of published papers between them. The idea that there is some equivalency between them and an early-career scholar with two citations to his name is just not sustainable. PianoDan (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It uses the word reliable. It also says that context matters. "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Yale and SMT are not reliable in this context. 24.184.26.105 (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Jackson's Court Case

Court cases, as I suspect anonymous is well aware, take a long time, and consist of a large number of filings, responses, rulings, etc. There is emphatically no need to go into the minutia of a specific court case in the article on this academic journal. The existence of the case is probably noteworthy, and can be updated to include the final decision (including the result of the inevitable appeals) when that decision exists. But each individual ruling is way outside the scope of WP:NOTNEWS (specifically, WP:TMI). PianoDan (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Tag for dead link

InternetArchiveBot recently tagged the link to Cadwallader's "Response to Philip Ewell" in the JSS 12 as "dead". The link to that article indeed is dead, but all the responses (including Cadwallader's) remain available on the same website, Bloximages. The section on the 2020 issue should perhaps refer to this; I don't quite see why it doesn't refer to all responses. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The cites to Burkhardt and Cadwallader's responses in that sentence are there because they support that sentence in particular. Not all of the respondents (for example, Clarke) supported the claims of that particular sentence. They could certainly be updated to point to a live link to their articles. PianoDan (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)