Talk:New musicology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] This article and 'musicology'
I've tried to make the main points of this article in the section on New musicology in the article musicology. Please feel free to update that section as well. --Myke Cuthbert 21:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Formatting
somebody has wrecked the formatting of this article --Hjijch 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Further reading
The latest addition to further reading makes me realize we need full citations on these books and a justification for why someone should read them in order to learn more about New musicology (I don't think any recent book which merely uses tools of the New Musicology should be listed). I will try to add some justification for the books I know about. If the editor who added the most recent one could add that, that'd be great. --Myke Cuthbert 23:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bravo 82.2.134.157
Thanks for many improvements to the article. --Myke Cuthbert 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV in Criticisms section
It is possible to present the criticisms of New Musicology in an objective manner. However, the author of that sections obviously has an axe to grind. And it's horribly sloppy and full of uncited materials. I axed the following sentence, as it is both biased and unsubstantiated:
"New Musicologists frequently take a diametrically opposed view: implacably hostile and dismissive of most modernist music (as for example in McClary 1989
Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.
), though rarely engaging with actual works in any detail, they look very favourably upon popular music and often argue that it would be better to teach the latter than the former in institutions of higher education[citation needed]."
You can find plenty of New Musicology that does look at "detail," although one of the points is to get away from the hegemony of the ideology of formalist music-theoretical models of analysis. I've also encountered New Musicology that is critical of popular music and the social, political, and economic structures it exists in.
Lastly, refering to all New Musicology as "they" is terribly reductive. And it isn't backed up with a citation.
More should be done to clean up this section. It certainly is legitimate to include it, but let's do it the wiki-way.
[edit] More on criticisms
Some citations of those New Musicological articles that supposedly do engage with modernist works in detail would be equally welcome. Citations are supposedly required for certain negative claims, concerning the lack of impact of New Musicology outside of the English-speaking world (how does one cite to prove a lack? Does anyone have counter-examples in terms of publications) and not dealing with Adorno on gender, ethnicity and sexuality. How could either of these be shown by citation? The impact or otherwise of New Musicology on the wider musical world should also be considered by someone. The criticisms section may have an axe to grind, but that is equally true of the more 'pro' sections, for example when citing McClary's 'fastidiously declares issues of musical signification off-limits to those engaged in legitimate scholarship' without comment or critique.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.9.111 (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
