New musicology

The New Musicology is a term applied to a wide body of musicology since the 1970s with a focus upon the cultural study, aesthetics, and criticism of music. It is a reaction against traditional positivist musicology (meaning primary research) of the early 20th century and postwar era. New musicology is a non-integrated movement in the musicology field, and it is influenced by feminism, gender studies, queer theory, and postcolonial studies.

Definitions and history

New musicology seeks to question the research methods of traditional musicology by displacing positivism, working in partnership with outside disciplines, including the humanities and social sciences, and by questioning accepted musical knowledge. New musicology scholars seek ways to apply anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, gender studies, feminism, and history to the study of music. The study of new musicology does not follow a consistent methodology and definitions of new musicology vary widely.

In 1980 Joseph Kerman published the article "How We Got into analysis, and How to Get Out," calling for a change in musicology. He asked for "a new breadth and flexibility in academic music criticism [musicology]" (Kerman, 1994, 30) that would extend to musical discourse, critical theory and analysis. In the words of Rose Rosengard Subotnik: "For me...the notion of an intimate relationship between music and society functions not as a distant goal but as a starting point of great immediacy...the goal of which is to articulate something essential about why any particular music is the way it is in particular, that is, to achieve insight into the character of its identity."

Susan McClary suggests that New Musicology defines music as: "a medium that participates in social formation by influencing the ways we perceive our feelings, our bodies, our desires, our very subjectivities—even if it does so surreptitiously, without most of us knowing how." (Brett, 1994).

New Musicology focuses more on cultural studies through 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, a perspective that had become common for American ethnomusicologists from the 1950s. This has caused many musicologists to question the previously held views of authenticity and make assessments based on critical musicology, which is "concerned with finding some kind of synthesis between analysis and a consideration of social meaning" (Beard and Gloag, 2005, 38).

New Musicologists question the processes of canonization. Gary Tomlinson suggests that meaning be searched out in a 'series of interrelated historical narratives that surround the musical subject' (Beard and Gloag, 2005, 123) – a "web of culture" (Tomlinson, 1984). For example, the work of Beethoven has been examined from a new perspective by studying his reception and influence in terms of masculine hegemony. This is seen as an essential contrast with the works of Schubert (especially with reference to the latter's supposed homosexuality).

Relationship to music sociology

New Musicology is distinct from German music sociology in the work of Adorno, Max Weber and Ernst Bloch. Although some new musicologists claim some allegiance to Theodor Adorno, their work has little in common with the wider field of Adorno studies, especially in Germany. Adorno's own radical comments on gender, ethnicity and sexuality are rarely taken into account. New Musicologists frequently exhibit strong anti-German tendencies, especially in regard to nineteenth-century German music theorists including Adolf Bernhard Marx and Eduard Hanslick, also the twentieth-century figures Heinrich Schenker and Carl Dahlhaus.

A fundamental distinction has to do with attitudes towards modernism and popular culture. Influential, oft-cited essays such as McClary 1989 and McClary 2006 are highly dismissive of modernist music. German music sociologists tend to be more favorable towards modernism (though by no means uncritically) and severely critical of popular music as inextricably tied to the aesthetics of distraction as demanded by the culture industry. Metzger describes 'a fascistic element' in the music of the Rolling Stones. New Musicology, on the other hand, often overlaps with postmodern aesthetics; various New Musicologists are highly sympathetic towards musical minimalism (see McClary 1990 and 2000 and Fink 2005).

Criticisms of New Musicology

Vincent Duckles writes, "As musicology has grown more pluralistic, its practitioners have increasingly adopted methods and theories deemed by observers to mark the academy as irrelevant, out of touch with 'mainstream values', unwelcoming of Western canonic traditions or simply incomprehensible. Paradoxically, such approaches have distanced music scholarship from a broad public at the very moment they have encouraged scholars to scrutinize the popular musics that form the backbone of modern mass musical culture."

Critics of the New Musicology include Pieter van den Toorn and to a lesser extent Charles Rosen. In response to an early essay of McClary (McClary 1987), Rosen says that "she sets up, like so many of the 'new musicologists', a straw man to knock down, the dogma that music has no meaning, and no political or social significance. (I doubt that anyone, except perhaps the nineteenth-century critic Hanslick, has ever really believed that, although some musicians have been goaded into proclaiming it by the sillier interpretations of music with which we are often assailed.)" (Rosen 2000).

References

    Further reading

    External links

    Wikiquote has quotations related to: New musicology
    This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, December 30, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.