🌀 Who Decided What Music Sounds Like?

{{rh_onboarding_line}}

Play a note on a piano. Now bend it slightly upward, hovering between two keys.

To ears trained in Western classical music, that wavering pitch sounds like a mistake.

To a musician raised in the Turkish maqam tradition, or a Carnatic vocalist from Chennai, it is not an error.

It is the note.

The question worth sitting with is not which listener is right. The question is how one tradition convinced the world that its notes were the only ones that counted.

For many people over 40, weight gain does not start because they suddenly eat more. It often begins when the body handles sugar differently after meals.

Cardiologists say repeated blood sugar spikes and crashes can push the body to store more energy as belly fat, even when daily habits stay mostly the same.

Read the report on the sugar pattern researchers are studying.

Learn More Today.

Every system of knowledge carries the fingerprints of the people who built it. Music theory, as most of the world has been taught it, is no different. For centuries, European harmony was presented not as one way of understanding sound, but as the universal grammar of music itself.

Other systems (the Arabic maqam, the Indian raga, the microtonal scales woven through West African and East Asian traditions) were filed under "world music," a category that functions less as a genre label and more as a polite way of saying "interesting, but not quite theoretical."

Philip Ewell, a music theorist at Hunter College, gave this dynamic a name in 2020: the "White Racial Frame" of music theory. His argument, condensed bluntly, is that Western music theory has been taught as objective science when it is actually cultural history. What passes for universal law is, in many cases, a set of choices made by European composers and codified by European institutions. Calling it out is an invitation to ask what else has been left out of the room.

Start with the piano, because that’s where the problem becomes physical.

When you press a key on a piano, it plays one fixed note. That note cannot bend, slide, or hover between pitches. The whole instrument is built around a system called 12-Tone Equal Temperament (12-TET for short), which divides sound into twelve locked steps and assigns each one a precise, unchangeable frequency.

This setup became the global standard in the 19th century, mostly for practical reasons: it made keyboards cheaper to build and easier to use across different musical keys without retuning. Efficiency won. And in winning, it quietly closed a door.

That door led to an enormous amount of the world's music.

Across the Middle East and North Africa, musicians work within a tradition called maqam, a system of modes and melodic frameworks built around pitches that fall between the piano's fixed keys. These are not off-key notes. They are specific, deliberate intervals that carry distinct emotional weight, the way a major chord sounds hopeful to Western ears or a minor chord sounds melancholy. There is no piano key for them. There never was.

In India, classical music is built around the raga, not just a scale, but a living sonic world that includes gliding between pitches, ornamenting them, bending them at specific moments of the day or season. The music is inseparable from that flexibility.

And in Central Africa, ensemble traditions pass melodic lines between players in a kind of sonic relay, rhythmically complex, mathematically precise, and completely alien to a system built around fixed, equally spaced notes.

None of this was unknown to Western music institutions. They simply chose to file it under "world music" and move on. That label did a lot of quiet work. It acknowledged that other traditions existed while making clear they were not what music theory was for. Theory was for the European canon. Everything else was atmosphere.

For a long time, technology reinforced this. Synthesizers, recording software, and digital instruments were all built around 12-TET because that is what the Western market expected. A musician in Cairo trying to produce maqam quarter-tones on standard studio equipment had to find workarounds. In many cases, the technology simply could not do what their musical tradition required. The infrastructure said: conform or compromise.

That wall has started to come down. Software tools now allow musicians to build and play in any tuning system they choose. AI-powered pitch analysis can map and transcribe non-Western vocal styles with sufficient accuracy to document and study oral traditions (music passed down by ear for generations) without forcing them into Western notation. For producers in Lagos, Kolkata, or Beirut, this is not a niche upgrade. It means working in their own musical language without having to apologize for it.

The artists leading this shift are not looking backward. Pakistani-American vocalist and composer Arooj Aftab draws from Urdu classical music and Sufi devotional forms, weaving them into arrangements that touch jazz and ambient sound without fully becoming either. She won a Grammy in 2022, which surprised some people more than it surprised her.

Fatoumata Diawara, from Mali, builds music rooted in West African melodic tradition with a structural depth that needs no endorsement from European theory to be heard as sophisticated. What connects these artists is not a shared geography or a shared sound. It is a shared refusal to dilute what they are doing to make it legible to the gatekeepers.

Which raises the real question underneath all of this. The push now is not toward a single new universal theory that replaces the old one. It is toward something called a pluriversal model, the idea that Carnatic rhythm, Arabic modal theory, African polyphony, and European harmony can exist as fully developed, fully valid systems, none of them the reference point against which the others are judged. Not a merger. A ceasefire between hierarchies.

Whether institutions built on the old order are willing to do that (genuinely, not just decoratively) is another matter.

Here is the uncomfortable part. Institutions are good at absorbing challenges and defusing them. A conservatory that adds a Carnatic fundamentals module while keeping the core curriculum intact, or a music theory textbook that opens with a chapter on "global perspectives" before spending the next four hundred pages on Western counterpoint, has not decolonized anything. It has been redecorated.

There is also the question of who profits when Global South sounds enter mainstream Western markets. When maqam intervals appear in a pop production without credit to the tradition that developed them over a thousand years, or when Afrobeats rhythmic structures are adopted by Western producers who receive the industry infrastructure and the publishing revenue, the cultural borrowing is real, but the economic justice is not.

Dismantling a hierarchy is hard work. Rebranding it as diversity is much easier. The difference between those two outcomes depends almost entirely on whether the people making institutional decisions are willing to give up something rather than just add something.

Music theory has always been an argument over whose sounds matter. The question today is whether the institutions still running it are ready to lose.

If this made you feel at home, share it with someone who needs to hear it. And if you want more cultural decoding each week, make sure you're subscribed.

Subscribe to Culture Decoded for weekly insights on modern behavior.