Suchergebnisse

A survey is presented of diff studies found in 2 approaches to the relations between musicology & linguistics: comparative semiotic studies of language & music, & close collaboration between the 2 sci's. The success of these approaches, however, is dependent upon the 2 sci's having attained the same level of development. Since linguistics is presently much more advanced, the problem considered here is: 'How far can recent developments in linguistics contribute towards the elaboration of a sci'fic theory of music?' It is suggested that modern linguistics can assist in the development of musicology at a few points: in the area of traditional structuralism; with regard to the abstract notion of levels of representation as elaborated by N. Chomsky on the basis of criteria of simplicity & generality; &, most importantly, with regard to the contributions that can be made by the generative, transformational grammar evolved by N. Chomsky &his collaborators. M. Duke.

Restless, risky, dirty : (an introduction) / Birgit Abels -- Sketching cultural musicology / Birgit Abels -- It slaps and it embraces! : on psytrance, immersion, and potential facets of a transductive cultural musicology / Eva-Maria Alexandra van Straaten -- A grammar of cultural musicology : (which has no grammar) / Lawrence Kramer -- Bomb tunes and festival fliers : framing and its usefulness for cultural musicology / Charissa Granger -- Ecological close reading of music in digital culture / John Richardson -- The academicist malady writ large : music studies, the writing of polyphony and the not-quite-post-colonial Pacific ocean / Birgit Abels

Understood as a search for "the abstract principles embodied in music and the sounds of which it consists,"l music theory casts a wide net: it calls for a comparative sample and insists on a systematic methodology. As "the scholarly study of music, wherever it is found historically or geographically," musicology casts an even wider net. In practice, however, it has not been possible to transcend historical and geographical boundaries. (How often have you read an article on contemporary rock in JAMS or on Asian music in 19th-Century Music?) Obviously, any attempt to explore the juncture between music theory and music history-my particular brief from the editors of Current Musicology will not get very far on definitions alone. Are not disciplinary boundaries convenient tags sanctioned by a certain distribution of economic, political, and intellectual power? Better, then, to focus on what some theorists and some historians do than to dwell abstractly on the purviews of music theory and music history. Agawu asks these questions and more as he explains the relationship between musicology and music theory.

The study of organized sound is the business of musicology – yet this routine observation carries a wealth of complexities, especially in the context of interdisciplinary discourse. Although musicology's pluridisciplinary foundations offer open access to such disciplines as history, literary studies, mathematics, or sociology, the field's intradisciplinary discourses and methodologies have shaped musicology in ways that turn most interdisciplinary exchange into a challenge. The scholarly exploration of sound in the twentieth century presents a case in point. Meaningful research on, for example, the music of the contemporary avant-garde composer Kaija Saariaho demands highly sophisticated technical skills in the spheres of the analysis, aesthetics, and technologies of music. While one could imagine interdisciplinary research on Saariaho involving, for example, the humanities or social sciences – perhaps with respect to, say, cultural politics in the late twentieth century – the specialist areas of music research usually remain disciplinarily hermetic. My current work on music in the USA during World War II offers striking examples of the need for, yet problems of, squaring interdisciplinary engagement with intradisciplinarities. The following remarks will address some of those disciplinary intersections.

The study of organized sound is the business of musicology – yet this routine observation carries a wealth of complexities, especially in the context of interdisciplinary discourse. Although musicology's pluridisciplinary foundations offer open access to such disciplines as history, literary studies, mathematics, or sociology, the field's intradisciplinary discourses and methodologies have shaped musicology in ways that turn most interdisciplinary exchange into a challenge. The scholarly exploration of sound in the twentieth century presents a case in point. Meaningful research on, for example, the music of the contemporary avant-garde composer Kaija Saariaho demands highly sophisticated technical skills in the spheres of the analysis, aesthetics, and technologies of music. While one could imagine interdisciplinary research on Saariaho involving, for example, the humanities or social sciences – perhaps with respect to, say, cultural politics in the late twentieth century – the specialist areas of music research usually remain disciplinarily hermetic. My current work on music in the USA during World War II offers striking examples of the need for, yet problems of, squaring interdisciplinary engagement with intradisciplinarities. The following remarks will address some of those disciplinary intersections.