The disciplinary neighbors of musicology address other forms of art , performance , ritual and communication , including the history and theory of the visual and plastic arts and of architecture; linguistics , literature and theater ; religion and theology ; and sport. Musical knowledge is applied in medicine, education and music therapy —which, effectively, are parent disciplines of applied musicology. Historical musicology[ edit ] Music history or historical musicology is concerned with the composition, performance, reception and criticism of music over time. Like the comparable field of art history , different branches and schools of historical musicology emphasize different types of musical works and approaches to music. There are also national differences in various definitions of historical musicology. In theory, "music history" could refer to the study of the history of any type or genre of music, e.
|Published (Last):||23 February 2016|
|PDF File Size:||19.79 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.19 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Now instead of three stubs we have one regular article just waiting to be expanded to the point where it will have to be split into seperate articles. Will watch it and try to contribute, though English is not my first language and I am not that familiar with the details in how the subject is divided and studied in USA and UK, which the difference could be a point to define in the article. Today ethnomusicology is included somehow, but that was also a separate subject not long ago?
I would suggest that you hold off on making grand changes until you familiarize yourself with the topic in English speaking countries, where it appears to have more broad connotations than in Swedish. Swedish musicology is all that, and I think an article on musicolgy could and should contain all the aspects, if properly described and divided.
No problem. The difference I was not sure about but have understood from hints on AMS-list and SEM-list, among other sources was that American musicology traditionally was only music history, so you had to specify if you worked in another field music theory or ethnomusicology , and not just using the blanket title "musicologist".
In Europe there has not been this compartmentilisation of the subject, even if the university departments have had their different priorities during time, and some people underscore their loyalties to specific theories by using a special title! Best regards, good luck with your good work on Wikipedia!
The trend you describe is real, but, I think, is becoming a thing of the past. In response to your proposals I say Be bold! The German article, which follows the tradition of dividing into the larger subdisciplines of Historical M. I think that the historical development of musicology is certainly important and deserves a section of the article. I have never seen these divisions used before; if there is a citation of a major music department organized this way, I would reconsider.
I also think strongly that "New Musicology" belongs as a subset of Historical musicology. It was this "subversion within the system" that made it more threatening to some. Neither is musicology the study of music as a performing art, to become a musician or a music teacher. Forensic musicology appears to be the criminal and thus legal branch of musicology. A forensic musicologist would deal with musical crimes such as by spotting similarities between pieces to determine possible copyright infringements.
Hyacinth , 22 January UTC Forensic musicology is the designation for legal work that refers to music. This is most often concerning copyright challenges, e. It happens all the time in the show-business world, and there are musicology experts that can clarify levels of "borrowing.
Judd , 20 May UTC Reorganization[ edit ] I reorganized the article so that, after a brief definition, the principal fields of musicology are listed and described with links to articles that cover them in depth. But I wanted to make cutting sections a separate day from adding. We are not there yet, so wait with that structure until the day when musicology IS nothing but ethnomusicology. The section "What is music" in its first edition, early in started with the old question "Quid est musica?
The "historical question", in Latin, explains why I believe musicology has a relation to ancient and middle age speculation and ideas. If the field has developed in the Western world, the concept "music" and the thinking about this human activity has its roots in Western ideas and language. Do we have to deny this? The goal of the section may have been to connect it to ancient and middle age scholarship but an assertion of that connection would do far more to that end, while a description of that connect would be great.
Has any great musicologist made this argument, or is it as superficial as it sounds? It is vague and hazy. Does anyone else agree? I removed it. I seem to have earned the right to use the old formulation of that section in my own original texts now, if I wish to!! I like the new shorter formulation, commenting on the missing interest within musicolgy in the question of what music is! Strange truth, if it is so, but I suspect it could be Only in the s did musicologists, beginning with feminist musicologists in the late 80s The quote here is double-referenced.
Is the quotation by McClary or by Gaunt? Is the quote actually referring to musicology or music in general? I ask because "music I would expect a quotation about musicology to say "music [or musicology] It might also come from being a Wikipedia newbee, but why does the quotation from Harvard Dictionary of Music need a citation?
See also the discussion of the previous version of that paragraph above. In regards to "Only in the s" the word I was looking for was preceded. The Harvard Dictionary citation needs a full reference, including page number, edition, and year. As it reads now, the citations in the sentence are unnecessarily confusing. Also, is the following sentence after the quotation "Only in the s It is unclear from the way this is cited.
I also agree that the "criticism" section currently seems a bit long compared to the overall length of the article. I believe the criticism section is fine as it stands although the emphasis on pop music is a little strange -- many of these criticisms were considered to various degrees by ethnomusicologists decades before the criticism from pop music studies , but perhaps the rest of the article needs some expansion?
Even articles dealing with subjects that have very public controversies surrounding them e. Common users are very likely to search for these articles to read about the controversies; this seems less likely for musicology, and thus I think constitutes POV if only by its sheer length in this rather short article. Also, even taking the critical perspective and the criticism in the listed citations has been around at least 16 years or more , then there should either be an explanation and link to a coherent alternative to "musicology" whatever that alternative might be or there should be a more extensive section in this article dealing with various solutions to these problems.
Otherwise, the article reads as though it is about something that has had a bunch of fundamental flaws pointed out 16 years ago, and no one has thought of anything better since. Just because the article lacks certain sections is no reason to cut thos it already has.
Why not Mildred J. I hope nobody minds - it seemed like an obvious thing to do. We used to think that the white male composers of Western art music were inherently superior to all other musicians and their music was inherently superior to all other music.
That would justify regarding Beethoven as central for musicology. Now, Beethoven did not do a bad job mind you, and his shadow hung, so the cliche goes, over the entire 19th Century of Western art music and much of the 20th as well. But that is only part of musicology. He argues, directly or indirectly, that the old eurocentric androcentric view of musicology was racist and sexist.
If there is to be a picture near the top of the musicology page, it should give some idea of the diversity of music and the diversity of disciplines that address musical questions. But it is hard to imagine that, since you cannot normally see music unless you are extremely synaesthetic.
Does someone have an old or even original manuscript of "Happy Birthday", presumably the most successful composition of all time, which was apparently composed by the two women mentioned in the heading see the wiki entry?
If you consider the music of the whole world, these two budding composers have had even more influence on music history than Ludwig van. But since "Happy Birthday" has not been subject of much musicological research it is not a good example either. And by the way this page "musicology" should not be part of a project about classical music. The page on music history is a better candidate for that.
But that page should be renamed, to avoid ethnocentricity - something like History of Western art music, or - since any music is art of course - Music history of Western cultural elites. Call a spade a spade, folks. But the point is already discussed on that page. Hyacinth , 31 May UTC The sentence "Furthermore, musicology has traditionally been slow to adopt many postmodern and critical approaches now common elsewhere in the humanities," seems to violate the NPOV principle, so I have deleted it.
Did the editor perhaps have some slow musicologists in mind? Thus, e. Hyacinth , 18 August UTC I edited the lead and removed the quotation and partial cite, which read: the whole body of systematized knowledge about music which results from the application of a scientific method of investigation or research, or of philosophical speculation and rational systematization to the facts, the processes and the development of musical art , and to the relation of man in general I do not see that language in the current 4th edition of the Harvard Dictionary of Music.
It emphasizes the historical and humanistic orientation of the field, but allows as to a few specific sub-disiplines, "Musicology in this tradition has often claimed objectivity and quasi-scientific status for its methods and results. Secondary types of musicology[ edit ] Must we really put zoomusicology on the same level of discourse as ethno- and historical musicology? Every grad program in the west has ethno and historical courses, but classes in these other subfields are much less frequently offered, and papers in them less frequently published.
I agree that zoomusicology is not at the same level of importance in terms of number of people studying it, number of publications, centrality to introductory courses as historical musicology, ethnomusicology, and music theory. Instead the other fields can have a little more said about them here. I must say that I disagree with the moving of ethnomusicology between historical musicology and the New musicology. Whatever its current importance, the impact of New Musicology was its advocacy of a transformation within historical musicology and not within ethnomusicology, so historical musicology and subfield New musicology must be connected to each other.
However, new musicology cannot be understood without ethnomusicology. I believe therefore that a description of ethnomusiology must come before historical musicology my professional career is as a historical musicologist. It sounds shocking now, as it disrupts a long standing notion of the relative importance of the two fields, but so did the ordering "Female and Male" at first, and it is now commonly used.
Change it back if you like; I have no strong objection. It just seemed weird for the first subfield to be Ethno, rather than Historical Musicology, which I had always taken to be the heart and soul of musicology or at least what it used to be. Why not Kerman? There needs to be a section on the origins of musicology as a disipline, followed by two seperate sections on angloamerican musicology and european musicology very different indeed. I would volounteer to do this What a challenge!
Did you forget to post the memo? Ha ha ha ha ha! Hoorah for the big useless wiki-flamewar! Sounds fun!
New musicologists seek ways to employ anthropology , sociology , cultural studies , gender studies , feminism , history , and philosophy in the study of music. He asked for "a new breadth and flexibility in academic music criticism [musicology]" Kerman, , 30 that would extend to musical discourse, critical theory and analysis. In the words of Rose Rosengard Subotnik : "For me For Lawrence Kramer , music has meanings "definite enough to support critical interpretations comparable in depth, exactness, and density of connection to interpretations of literary texts and cultural practices" Kramer, New musicology combines cultural studies with the analysis and criticism of music, and it accords more weight to the sociology of musicians and institutions and to non-canonical genres of music, including jazz and popular music, than traditional musicology did.
Contemplating Music: Challenges to Musicology
Now instead of three stubs we have one regular article just waiting to be expanded to the point where it will have to be split into seperate articles. Will watch it and try to contribute, though English is not my first language and I am not that familiar with the details in how the subject is divided and studied in USA and UK, which the difference could be a point to define in the article. Today ethnomusicology is included somehow, but that was also a separate subject not long ago? I would suggest that you hold off on making grand changes until you familiarize yourself with the topic in English speaking countries, where it appears to have more broad connotations than in Swedish.