This video on racism in music theory is long overdue. If you haven’t already, take the time to watch!

In 1984, I clearly remember being told, in terms, that Duke Ellington of all people was 'not worthy of study' by my Cambridge director of studies. Perhaps as a result, I went on to do a doctorate in the field not only of jazz, but of teaching jazz. I needed to prove to myself and others that complexity exists within all music, if you know where to look for it. I also wanted to work out a better means to teach that complexity within the mainstream music curriculum. My work at ABRSM proved that was possible.

The music of non-white, non-European people has long been excluded, by framing music theory and music aesthetics so narrowly. It is still the case that only certain kinds of music and analytical frame are foregrounded. This skews our concept of what counts as music-making itself. It also biases what is considered valuable towards the work of white, male 18th and 19th century classical composers.

For me as a lifelong advocate for improvisation, there is also the issue of what musical practices 'count' as important. Improvisation loses out, because conventional music theory excludes musical gestures which are created but not notated. Decision-making that takes place by the performer in the moment is rarely covered in music theory. My ex-colleague Laudan Nooshin, now at City University, is one example of a generation of academics, often in the ‘othered’ field of ethnomusicology, who have focused on solutions to this issue.

One example of this exclusion is the embellishment of rhythm and pitch, which is often where expressiveness is located. Ignoring this single area of music affects what counts as valuable and 'worthy of study' in all jazz (largely African American) and popular music, plus Indian Raags, much music from tribal West Africa, Persian and other Middle Eastern music.

We are in a time of reckoning, of great change. Why have such limited approaches to what makes music valuable stuck around for so long? Some solutions:

1) Let’s move on to an equitable approach to music aesthetics, music theory, and music education, that gives a seat at the table to all kinds of voices.

2) Let’s preserve those approaches to, for example, rhythm, melody and harmony that work across across many cultures and musical practices. There are many useful parallels between jazz harmony and classical music harmony, for example. Weren’t Fauré and Bill Evans somehow separated at birth?

3) Let’s identify most Western European approaches to music theory as contingent, because they only work for certain sorts of music. Schenker especially (oops, said that out loud!).

4) Above all, let’s ditch music theory that is grounded in racist assumptions, that have remained unnoticed because they are systemic. That is the responsibility of white people, as they created and continue to perpetuate this bias.

Racism is in the end ignorance. Other music theories exist and have done for hundreds of years. So ironically, it is the IGNORANCE of mainstream academics in Western music and music education that makes it so limited and so much less valid. We can do better.