Even then there would be sure to be some such questions, certainly as far as which subsections of even a specialised area are to be institutionalised and lent financial support. But for the discipline to be able to function at all, as I alluded to in my last post, it needs to be established in a university (unless done in a few people's spare time, which is hardly a very viable option), and that requires decisions as to which forms of music are to be supported.


But I get the impression that the other things I describe wouldn't count as 'musicology' by your definition either?


Depends on the time and place when it was produced and when it is studied. Victorian music-hall music may not be anything like as self-evident to contemporary audiences as it was in its own time; contemporary sub-Saharan popular music is probably received in a very different manner in the West to how it is in its place of origin. Even Western popular music from a few decades ago (or even less) undergoes modifications of cultural meaning when viewed from the perspective of the present. These are some of the things that scholars of popular music (of whom I'm no great fan for the most part, I should add - other writers on the subject outside of academia do it a lot better, though they adopt some of the strategies I'm describing) investigate and can at least potentially benefit comprehension and appreciation of the music.


Well, I'm a huge critic of many manifestations of the 'new musicology', as you know, but also know that the questions they raise won't go away and are inextricably linked to all types of musicological work.

Just to add (and I'm really playing devil's advocate now) that a fair amount of what is now considered 'classical' music was originally conceived in some sense as 'entertainment', and was also 'embedded in what's familiar to its audience for whatever reason'. I'm not sure exactly on what basis the distinction between 'classical' and 'popular' music is drawn; the only meaningful distinctions I can think of have to do with the primary social classes (and ethnicities) involved in its production and consumption, and its relationship to the marketplace.

You do like try and adjudicate on which threads/directions of threads are allowed or not on this site, don't you? Especially when things start getting tricky. I'm not going to accept such an imposed closure. Actually, this isn't a 'Ian complains about New Musicology' thread; the boundaries separating 'old' and 'new' musicology are increasingly blurred, the very narrow definition of 'musicology' you provide is on the way out (and I don't regret that), and the questions raised by the 'New Musicology' are vital ones which are relevant in all types of investigation or research into music. My beef, for what it's worth, is to do with the way it's sometimes carried out, the casual assumptions that underlie the work (especially in America, and the extremely shoddy level of scholarship.

But these questions about 'entertainment' or 'classical' (? 'art'?) music, where one draws the line, what is canonised and taught (and how it is taught) are absolutely fundamental to any discussion of music in universities, which is the subject of this thread. I imagine you think that, for example, Stockhausen should be taught in universities, in the manner of what you describe as 'musicology'. I agree it should, though do think the approach to doing so should be broader; I'd like to know why you think he should, on what basis you would assert his importance, and what sorts of things you think students could be told that would aid their comprehension of Stockhausen's work (and why/if it needs that).


Well I don't wholly agree with that diagnosis; the government's 'neo-Thatcherite' attitude is part of the issue, but by no means the whole story. The fact that, over the last few decades, there has been a significant shift, as a result of a greater number of women, ethnic minorities, etc. entering the workplace and public life (though the process is by no means yet either complete or satisfactory) in terms of the power of certain traditional elite groups has brought with it a greater amount of questioning of the cultural as well as economic hegemony of those elites. In that context, the institutionalisation of a canon traditionally associated with those elites, and the related approaches to teaching, are naturally going to come under scrutiny. This is very much the case in higher education, throughout the humanities. The type of canon, the basic assumptions that underlie certain types of valorisation, the means of investigating and analysing music, and so on, that you seem to adhere to rather unquestioningly, are no longer sustainable without a lot more justification. Now, I happen to think that some of the alternatives proposed do not constitute much of an improvement in various senses, not least because of rather naive assumptions with respect to economics. But absolutely agree that all of those things should be rigorously scrutinised, including in the case of music and approaches to it that I value most.


Consensus in itself does not necessarily imply the best approach.


To be honest, I don't particularly think your own department is especially relevant to this, unless you think it is a model for all others. But I would have thought you are aware of how, in departments with an emphasis upon composition and performance rather than musicology, there is a definite move away from the teaching of the more traditional idea of 'contemporary composition' and towards trendy cross-over, the writing of commercial music, and so on. And I'm pretty sure that has more to do with Joanna McGregor style ventures, Nyman, WARP records projects, or simply writing music for adverts, Hollywood, or hit popular songs than it does with an openness to the more radical shores of free improvisation.

Well, I do believe that it is because of a withdrawal (on many people's parts) from addressing the key issues at stake, that those who will have gradually eased out the teaching of the type of music you believe in, in the ways you believe in (which are not the same as my own, I take something of a middleground position, I suppose), in favour of the teaching of popular song writing, the total dissolution of any possible distinction between 'entertainment' and 'art', and the propagation of the unequivocal belief that 'modernism' is the last refuge of white male privilege as given musical representation, and amounts to little more than that, achieve the upper hand. And, for example, the likes of Beverly Crew of the Contemporary Music Network (sure some of you remember her opinion piece in New Notes) is certainly singing from the same hymn sheet; so in some senses are those dark forces in the background who wish to further dumb down Radio 3.

The issue above all I think is being shockingly evaded is that of music and gender. I doubt if anyone could deny that the proportion of successful women composers in new music is shockingly low. Now, on top of the usual types of issues of discrimination, the arguments of feminist musicology commonly go roughly as follows (amongst prominent advocates of this point of view are not just the well-known McClary but equally Marcia Citron, author of Gender and the Musical Canon, less publicity-seeking than McClary but also a problematic thinker): in the Baroque era, especially with the advent of the stile rappresentativo, certain categories of musical tropes were developed for the representation of male and female characters in opera. Instrumental music from the mid-18th century onwards appropriated these categories for the purposes of contrasting types of themes, thus providing an underlying gendered basis for superficially 'abstract' forms and genres. With Beethoven and well into the 19th century, more aggressive forms of privileging of the masculine tropes of musical expression came into play; reading through many of the writings on music in both 18th and 19th centuries one can see how frequently the interpretations of this music were themselves gendered (examples being the writings of Schumann, A.B. Marx or George Grove). Teaching and pedagogy reflected this, as can be seen in the writings of Hugo Riemann or Vincent d'Indy, almost invariably privileging the type of music in which the masculinist tropes assume supremacy. Modernism is to some extent a continuation of this process. Whilst I find these arguments somewhat simplistic, paying too little attention to mediation, as well as making too much of some not-especially important comments from A.B. Marx in particular (though others, including Scott Burnham and James Hepokoski, have had intelligent things to say on his work), I would be hard pressed to say that there isn't something in what they are identifying. There are also issues of music as reflecting desire and sexuality, and resisting certain forms of emotional experience, which they would say are fundamentally goal-oriented and as such reflect a very male-centered view of sexuality.

For these and other reasons (also issues of alienated male ego-driven subjectivity as opposed to more collective forms of subjectivity they would associate with other groups in society), feminist musicologists would argue not simply that there is discrimination against women in the obvious sense, but also that the whole system of values upon which a musical canon has been constructed itself reflects a thoroughly masculine set of values, to which women composers are expected to adhere if they are to get ahead. And modernism is the most extreme example of this. Furthermore, white male composers retreat into abstraction and ideas of simply the 'music itself' so as to avoid facing all these underlying determinants, which play a part in securing their own power. Again, there are many ways in which I take issue with numerous aspects of these arguments (mostly because I think the alternatives they hold up are equally if not more problematic), but certainly would not dismiss them out of hand. On the most obvious level, there is every reason to look more critically at the 'great man' construction of composition, of which Beethoven, Wagner and Stockhausen would be obvious examples, and all that entails.

Do you not think these issues are relevant, including to the teaching of music in universities? The ways in which many in the music world respond rather aggressively and dismissively to these charges, very much as feminist musicologists say they would, makes me more and more convinced that they are onto something.

Yes, I've heard that too, the innovation being that it's aerated to increase its apparent volume, hoodwinking the customer into thinking that he/she was getting more for his/her money than is the case. Start as you mean to go on.