edit: Actually let me go a step further and agree with you a bit - I think Kipnis's point would be more clearly made if she didn't make her own perspective on the merits of the Ewell paper such a big part of that section of the article.
I'm not even sure that the actual written paper had even been published at that time: the basic arguments of the paper were first summarized in a conference presentation, and of course it is terrible form to publish a purported critique of something that hasn't even been fully presented in full detail! The whole thing has really reflected pretty badly on the authors of these 'critiques', for very good reasons overall.
> Was Schenker promoting a race that he didn't even belong to?
I think this is an error, trying to map our understanding of race onto the past like this. I don't know what race Schenker thought of himself as. He was Jewish, and he consistently asserted the natural superiority of german people and culture. That doesn't cleanly reconcile with any conception of race that I've come across, which indicates to me that those conceptions are not a useful lens here.
My goal wasn't to start up the is-schenkerian-analysis-racist-or-not quagmire here. It was to point out that I believe the author of this essay has misunderstood or misrepresented a more nuanced conflict for their own purposes.
Isn't that what Ewell is doing, by declaring that a 19th-century Jew born in modern-day Ukraine is actually a white German?
And Ewell isn't a Schenker expert - he focuses on Russian and modern music. He does self describe as: "I am an activist for racial, gender, and social justice in the field of music theory."
And he writes stuff like:
> Beethoven occupies the place he does because he has been propped up by whiteness and maleness for two hundred years, and we have been told by whiteness and maleness that his greatness has nothing to do with whiteness and maleness, in race-neutral and gender-neutral fashion. Thus music theory’s white-male frame obfuscates race and gender, one of its main goals….
Has there ever been a worthy white/male composer, or have they all been problematic racists because of their demographic information?
This guy is, basically, a clown. He, like many social-justice minded people, epitomizes Maslow's hammer. Writing in an academic style or in journals doesn't mean you have anything interesting to say. I did not agree with the author of the original article one bit, but I don't think they did any kind of disservice in their brief take on Ewell's paper(they even linked to it, which is at least a sign of good faith in my opinion).
(It's worth noting the flip side of that argument, too - we literally have historical sources telling us "when you see a composition made of big, white notes, that will sound a lot better if the performer improvises on them melodically on the spot, keeping the overall meter of the white note" (Lorenzo Penna, Li primi albori musicali). And of course, on-the-spot improvisation has been mastered to an unprecedented degree in the modern day by the "black" tradition of Jazz!)
I don't think that representation of the Ewell paper is quite accurate, though admittedly it's been over a year since I read it.
Despite being Jewish (would have had different significance later than during his time!) Schenker was a proud german nationalist and in his own words considered his method one of the ways german people could assert their superiority over other cultures.
The Ewell paper is actually pretty clear that schenkerian analysis is technically valid and quite valuable for many purposes. But also that its origins were in an explicitly racist project, and that applying it without understanding that frame could get you racist results even if you didn't intend them.
It's easy to go after this paper because it sincerely uses "critical race theory" vocabulary, but it's a solid contribution to answering the question "why are some fields so incredibly white even if no one intends them to be that way?"
The essay both-sides it, but Ewell's paper is researched and professional even with its flaws, while in context Jackson's response was fairly nasty and defensive, basically just accusing Ewell of black antisemitism.
I've been following this particular one for years (grew up on schenkerian analysis, in a musical family) and I am definitely not neutral on it. Ewell's moral rigidity on this is unpalatable sometimes and I think you could fairly call him a hothead. But the author's description of the conflict is a lot more "balanced" than the conflict itself really deserves. This is essentially an academic raising a painful point within a field that he clearly loves, and others trying to shut it down because of the embarrassment they feel it exposes them all to.
Seeing how the author misrepresents this issue to make their point makes me not really trust the rest of it. I just happen to be somewhat informed on this one.