What's the point of Musicology?
Andy Evans
missing anything worthwhile?
=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Robert Briggs
>
> I have little knowledge of musicology, despite having been a musician.
> Am I missing anything worthwhile?
Some vermicide to deal with the aftermath of opening that can, perhaps?
Samir Golescu
Mr. Evans:
> I have little knowledge of musicology, despite having been a musician.
> Am I missing anything worthwhile?
Possibly. But I don't believe you have little knowledge of musicology.
Perhaps not a lot of "hardcore" musicology -- that impooosing
Musikwissenschaft, as the Germans put it. In a looser meaning
though, musicology means "writings about music" and I am sure you read
plenty of those. As I wrote sometime before, to an extent *any* worthy
performer is also a musicologist. Perhaps less specialized than a good
professional musicologist -- after all it is to be expected that a good
musicologist that specializes in a certain area may be more fully informed
in what regards historical and analytical aspects of the area (s)he's
studying.
Nevertheless, a worthy interpreter does at least *some* musicological
work, to the extent of his/her abilities, time limits, intellectual
curiosity, and professional probity. Many an important conductor had left
writings of some worth on music after all, which writings are
"musicological" to an extent (even if often based on more essay-like,
colloquial forms of literary expression, and therefore making for an
easier reading than highly scholarly research). Many of the great
interpreters who did not publish anything could have written riches to
impart -- on a par with the aural riches unto the creation of which their
lives was devoted.
I do only abhor the extremes, whether they exist in "pure form" or not:
the musicologist who thinks his/her musical knowledge is by default deeper
as a virtue of the elected profession and that there's nothing a "simple"
music lover could experience he/she could not -- that's simply not true.
the non-musicologist (at times you can have a music lover, an amateur or
even a limited instrumentalist proud of his "exclusive
practitioner"-status) who despises not only bad/sloppy/arid musicology but
the domain in itself. "Words, words, words -- gimme sounds". I remember
asking a violinist friend if he has any idea of what the tonal plan of the
development of Brahms' Violin Concerto (I) was. He was playing the
concerto but was never concerned with this "abstract 'stuff'". In fact,
whether one defines it as musicological or not, awareness of the
compositional processes incorporated in a score should always be preferred
to an ignorance of the same (even if, I hasten to add, understanding
cerebrally the compositional workings shan't automatically entail a vivid
interpretative projection of the work, in its indivisible concreteness).
That's why, in the academic system of teaching music, I do find
regrettable that some fellow practitioners often despise (without always
understanding their work) theorists, as regrettable as I find that some
(not all) theorists seem often unable to fully connect their research --
and therefore themselves -- to the "living body of Music", being
apparently more attracted to their own, more or less relevant, analytical
schtick.
Music can be served in many ways, and good musicology can be one of them.
Composition must be the most important and by far the domain requiring
most creativity (that's why you have 10 great interpreters in history for
each [truly] great composer), but a great musicologist can at least
challenge a good interpreter, insofar the pertinence, vividness and (yes!
even) the ardor of an "abstract" analysis may reveal on occasion aspects
that go to the heart of the musical work in ways comparable to those
"living" performance does.
Perhaps the great composers of the past weren't musicologists in the
stricter sense and in all imaginable areas (they needed time to compose!),
but all of them *had* to have a strong interest in theory of music and
musical forms at least, while some of them (e.g., Bartok or Brahms) surely
had musicological interests in even more musicology-specific ways, such as
researching folklore, archival enquiries, or venturing (like Liszt,
Schumann, or Tchaikovsky) into the field of musical aesthetics and
criticism etc. etc. Musicology doesn't make anybody any more talented or
smarter -- and I will always take a truly gifted and communicative
interpreter, possible scholarship flaws in his/her professional armor
apart, over a "musicologically sound" one. However, as this is not a zero
sum game, I can hardly think of any genuine talent to have been
"destroyed" or impoverished by trying to learn more in a given
musicological field.
regards,
SG
MiNE 109
aeatarts...@aol.comnohawker (Andy Evans) wrote:
> I have little knowledge of musicology, despite having been a musician. Am I
> missing anything worthwhile?
Depends on what you mean by "musicology". For instance, biographies of
composers and performers might count. Writers can be controversial,
thought-provoking, even entertaining, or dry as dust and of interest
only to the students who must buy their books because of course
requirements.
Short list: Charles Rosen, Maynard Solomon, Richard Taruskin, Alan
Walker.
Stephen
Alex (was 'Yes')
news:20030811125317...@mb-m26.aol.com...
> I have little knowledge of musicology, despite having been a musician. Am I
> missing anything worthwhile?
It keeps people off the streets - people who overwise might end up standing behind YOU while YOU
work, saying "ooh, no, you don't want to do that. If I were doing that, I'd be doing a much better
job of it".
David7Gable
Musicology as an autonomous discipline essentially originated in the later
nineteenth century as scholars attempted to decipher the notation of early
music and prepare modern editions for performance. (The modern standard
notational system did not arise over night, and various increasingly more
sophisticated systems of notation developed in the Middle Ages.) The
preparation of editions remains a principal function of musicology.
The Germans divided Musicology (Musikwissenschaft) into two broad categories:
historical musicology and systematic musicology. An American would refer to
systematic musicology as music theory, and in the American academy you
generally elect to be either a theorist or a musicologist. Music theory has
existed for centuries and, without it, the traditions of so-called classical
music could not have existed: the traditions of Western art music have
depended on literate and learned musicians proficient in their craft.
Music theory is essentially the study of scales, intervals, chords, harmony
(which is the study of chord connection and the functional relationships among
chords), and counterpoint (which is the study of the interaction of the
individual lines unfolding through time in music). Much of music theory has a
direct and practical application: to teach basic technique to composers and
performers. Among the grand names in the history of Music Theory are Fux, who
developed a course of study of basic counterpoint on the basis of Palestrina's
practice, a course of study that is now referred to as species counterpoint and
that still forms part of the basic training of composers and many college and
conservatory music majors; Jean-Philippe Rameau, who, among other things,
introduced the concepts of tonic, dominant, and subdominant, functional labels
for three of the basic chords found in all tonal music, and the notion that
harmony is controlled by the bass; and Carl Philip Emmanuel Bach, whose
treatment of the realization of figured bass was one of the most sophisticated
in history. Developed in the early 1600's, figured bass was a system of
shorthand in which the composer supplied a bass line notated with figures,
Arabic numerals indicating which chords to play over the bass. The ability to
realize a figured bass or translate the Arabic numerals into chords was a basic
skill required of composers and keyboard players for more than two centuries.
C.P.E. Bach's writing on figured bass evinces a profound conceptual as well as
practical grasp of harmony, the conceptual grasp emerging from the practical
mastery. In the twentieth century, Music Theory has gone far beyond
traditional practical applications with the sophisticated formal study of
musical systems for its own sake.
Everything that isn't Music Theory is Musicology, although the line between the
two blurs at more than one point. Musicologists study the history of music,
which essentially means the history of the evolution of styles and the
techniques that constitute the styles. The earliest surveys of the history of
Western music date from the last quarter of the 18th century, the most famous
of which is Charles Burney's "A General History of Music from the Earliest Ages
to the present Period, to which is prefixed, a Dissertation on the Music of the
Ancients." While Burney attempted a synoptic survey of the music he knew,
musicologists tend to specialize in specific repertories: Renaissance music;
the early Baroque; Bach; 19th-century Italian opera; Schoenberg, Webern, and
Berg. In addition to history narrowly defined, musicologists study the
cultural context of developments in the history of music, and musicologists may
be cultural historians, anthropologists, critics, or some combination of the
three. Today, the cultural study of music is dominated by such political
explanations of the art as gender studies.
What is it that musicologists study? Manuscripts and documents (letters,
treatises, etc.). Musicologists decipher systems of notation, establish
chronologies (as, for example, the chronology of Bach's cantatas), produce
editions from sources studied. Musicologists working in the archives of the
Paris Opera were able to reconstruct one of Rossini's more elaborate operas, Il
Viaggio à Reims, which had not been performed since the coronation of Charles
X, for which occasion it had been composed. In recent decades, one
particularly fertile area of musicological research has been sketch studies.
Beethoven, for whom composition was an arduous and time-consuming task,
arguably left more voluminous sketches than any other composer, and in the case
of a great many works of Beethoven it is possible to trace their genesis
through numerous stages by studying the sketches. For that reason (and because
of Beethoven's immense prestige), Beethoven was the first composer whose
sketches were seriously studied. Now any composer who has left enough sketches
to admit the possibility of sketch study--and the shedding of whatever light
that sketch study can shed on compositional process--is fair game.
Another important area of musicological research is performance practice.
Musicologists study tuning and the history of tuning systems, ornamentation,
instrumentation and instrument construction, and other material factors that
have contributed to the actual sound of music in performance in various
historical periods.
As with any other discipline, the value of the research depends on the
intelligence and imagination of its practitioners. Much of theory and
musicology has a direct practical value, but the value of much of it depends on
its degree of intrinsic interest and not on any practical application. In
short, except where it has a direct practical application, neither musicology
nor theory has a point . . . has any other obligation than to be interesting.
-david gable
Larry Rinkel
news:20030811205044...@mb-m22.aol.com...
>
>
> Musicology as an autonomous discipline essentially originated in the later
> nineteenth century as scholars attempted to decipher the notation of early
> music and prepare modern editions for performance. (The modern standard
> notational system did not arise over night, and various increasingly more
> sophisticated systems of notation developed in the Middle Ages.) The
> preparation of editions remains a principal function of musicology.
>
> The Germans divided Musicology (Musikwissenschaft) into two broad
categories:
> historical musicology and systematic musicology. An American would refer
to
> systematic musicology as music theory, and in the American academy you
> generally elect to be either a theorist or a musicologist. Music theory
has
> existed for centuries and, without it, the traditions of so-called
classical
> music could not have existed: the traditions of Western art music have
> depended on literate and learned musicians proficient in their craft.
>
I don't know if it was intentional, but you seem to have left out the entire
element of analysis as practiced by scholars as diverse as Tovey, Schenker,
Keller, Rosen, Kerman, and innumerable others including our own David Gable.
This part of musicology - if indeed it is a part - is concerned with how
pieces of music are constructed, that is, with analysis of form and style;
and though it is denigrated by some as "dissection," it is the branch of
musicology of most interest to me. This is also the part of musicology Samir
refers to above when he states, "In fact,
whether one defines it as musicological or not, awareness of the
compositional processes incorporated in a score should always be preferred
to an ignorance of the same."
A valuable overview of (relatively) recent trends in musicology can be found
in Joseph Kerman's "Contemplating Music: Challenges to Musicology" of 1986.
David7Gable
>element of analysis as practiced by scholars as diverse as Tovey, Schenker,
>Keller, Rosen, Kerman, and innumerable others
Semi-intentionally and semi-unconsciously. Mainly I just ran out of steam.
>This part of musicology - if indeed it is a part - is concerned with how
>pieces of music are constructed, that is, with analysis of form and style;
>and though it is denigrated by some as "dissection," it is the branch of
>musicology of most interest to me.
Of most interest to me, too.
-david gable
Dan Koren
news:20030811125317...@mb-m26.aol.com...
>
> despite having been a musician. Am I
> missing anything worthwhile?
Counterpoint.
dk
Dan Koren
> depends on the intelligence and imagination of its
> practitioners. Much of theory and musicology has a
> direct practical value, but the value of much of it
> depends on its degree of intrinsic interest and not
> on any practical application.
Interest is in people's heads -- how can it ever be
"intrinsic"?
> In short, except where it has a direct practical
> application, neither musicology nor theory has a
> point . . . has any other obligation than to be
> interesting.
Thus spake the Great Priest of Circularity....
dk
David7Gable
>Interest is in people's heads -- how can it ever be
>"intrinsic"?
>
I mean that a piece of music or a poem has no practical value. It has no
utility. Its value is either intrinsic or non-existent, (and I wouldn't
suggest that the value has nothing to do with people's heads since art
originates in people's heads.) Similarly, the study of music or any other art
is under no obligation other than to be interesting, to make interesting
observations about the object of study. Or not. Many of the most interesting
writings on the arts go beyond what would be of practical value to, say, a
pianist or another painter. Nothing circular about this observation, however
obscurely I made it.
-david gable
David7Gable
>"intrinsic"?
>
I should have responded to you as follows: the interest in artworks is in the
artworks themselves and not in any utility that they may have. Similarly,
while much of theory and musicology serves practical ends--teaching a pianist
his scales and key signatures, creating editions--much of it has no practical
value whatsoever. Much of the most interesting writing on the arts is
interesting irrespective of any practical value it may have.
-david gable
Robert Briggs
> Andy Evans wrote:
>
> > I have little knowledge of musicology, despite having been a
> > musician. Am I missing anything worthwhile?
>
> Counterpoint.
Good point.
:-)
Clovis Lark
> Good point.
Musicology does not teach counterpoint.
> :-)
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in news:bhbhka$60m$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu:
I took counterpoint separately from all the history and literature classes.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's Fault!
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in news:bhbhka$60m$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu:
>> Robert Briggs <Robert...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET> wrote:
>>> Dan Koren wrote:
>>>> Andy Evans wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I have little knowledge of musicology, despite having been a
>>>> > musician. Am I missing anything worthwhile?
>>>>
>>>> Counterpoint.
>>
>>> Good point.
>>
>> Musicology does not teach counterpoint.
>>
>>> :-)
> I took counterpoint separately from all the history and literature classes.
Yes, you probably took it from a composer or theoretician. Few of the
musicologists I knew remembered any of their counterpoint from the dark
ages of undergrad...
Robert Briggs
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > Dan Koren wrote:
> > > Andy Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have little knowledge of musicology, despite having been
> > > > a musician. Am I missing anything worthwhile?
> > >
> > > Counterpoint.
>
> > Good point.
>
> Musicology does not teach counterpoint.
What *are* you on?
QFTCOD:
musicology n. the study of music other than that directed
to proficiency in performance or composition
When I was taught about counterpoint, it was nothing to do with
"proficiency in performance or composition"; it was all about
recognising certain structures in music composed and performed
by others.
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark wrote:
>> Robert Briggs wrote:
>> > Dan Koren wrote:
>> > > Andy Evans wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I have little knowledge of musicology, despite having been
>> > > > a musician. Am I missing anything worthwhile?
>> > >
>> > > Counterpoint.
>>
>> > Good point.
>>
>> Musicology does not teach counterpoint.
> What *are* you on?
Planet earth.
> QFTCOD:
> musicology n. the study of music other than that directed
> to proficiency in performance or composition
Counterpoint is an essential element to composition.
> When I was taught about counterpoint, it was nothing to do with
> "proficiency in performance or composition"; it was all about
> recognising certain structures in music composed and performed
> by others.
Name the structures you were taught in modal or tonal counterpoint instead
of learning to write proper polyphonic music.
Robert Briggs
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > > Musicology does not teach counterpoint.
> > QFTCOD:
>
> > musicology n. the study of music other than that directed
> > to proficiency in performance or composition
>
> Counterpoint is an essential element to composition.
Why do you persist in writing such rubbish?
While counterpoint is certainly a significant feature of many classical
compositions (and a goodly number of others), it is a *long* way from
being an *essential* element.
> > When I was taught about counterpoint, it was nothing to do with
> > "proficiency in performance or composition"; it was all about
> > recognising certain structures in music composed and performed
> > by others.
>
> Name the structures you were taught in modal or tonal counterpoint
> instead of learning to write proper polyphonic music.
Huh?