(Fr. musicologie; Ger. Musikwissenschaft, Musikforschung; It. musicologia).
III. National traditions of musicology
I: VINCENT DUCKLES, JANN PASLER, II: GLENN STANLEY (1), THOMAS CHRISTENSEN (2), ROBERT BALCHIN (5), TILMAN SEEBASS (6(ii)), BOJAN BUJIC (9), ERIC F. CLARKE (10), SUSAN McCLARY (11), VINCENT DUCKLES (3/R, 4 with BARBARA H. HAGGH, 6(i) with LAURENCE LIBIN, 7 with JANET K. PAGE, 8 with LYDIA GOEHR), III: JEAN GRIBENSKI (1), CAROLYN GIANTURCO (2), PAMELA POTTER (4), MILOS VELIMIROVIĆ (6, 7), VINCENT DUCKLES/GARY TOMLINSON (8), GERARD BÉHAGUE (9). MASAKATA KANAZAWA (10), PETER PLATT (11), VINCENT DUCKLES (3, 5 with DAVID FALLOWS)
2. Origins: musicology as a science.
4. Historical and systematic musicology.
Musicology, §I: The nature of musicology
The term ‘musicology’ has been defined in many different ways. As a method, it is a form of scholarship characterized by the procedures of research. A simple definition in these terms would be ‘the scholarly study of music’. Traditionally, musicology has borrowed from ‘art history for its historiographic paradigms and literary studies for its paleographic and philological principles’ (Treitler, 1995). A committee of the American Musicological Society (AMS) in 1955 also defined musicology as ‘a field of knowledge having as its object the investigation of the art of music as a physical, psychological, aesthetic, and cultural phenomenon’ (JAMS, viii, p.153). The last of these four attributes gives the definition considerable breadth, although music, and music as an ‘art’, remains at the centre of the investigation.
A third view, which neither of these definitions fully implies, is based on the belief that the advanced study of music should be centred not just on music but also on musicians acting within a social and cultural environment. This shift from music as a product (which tends to imply fixity) to music as a process involving composer, performer and consumer (i.e. listeners) has involved new methods, some of them borrowed from the social sciences, particularly anthropology, ethnology, linguistics, sociology and more recently politics, gender studies and cultural theory. This type of inquiry is also associated with ethnomusicology. Harrison (1963) and other ethnomusicologists have suggested that ‘It is the function of all musicology to be in fact ethnomusicology; that is, to take its range of research to include material that is termed “sociological”’ (see also Ethnomusicology).
Musicology, §I: The nature of musicology
Until the second half of the 19th century, the study of music was regarded not as an independent discipline but as that part of general knowledge which gave theoretical handling to specifically musical questions. It was Chrysander who in 1863 contended that musicology should be treated as a science in its own right, on a level equal to that of other scientific disciplines. The quantitative methods of natural science were brought to bear on music as a physical phenomenon by the ancient Greeks: the Pythagoreans studied number as the prime condition of musical sound, and numerical relationships as the underlying laws of harmony in music, mankind, and the spheres. This study continued throughout the Middle Ages as part of ars musica, itself part of the Quadrivium along with arithmetic, geometry and astronomy. Much later, in the 18th century, during the years spanned by the careers of Joseph Sauveur (1653–1716), Leonhard Euler (1707–83) and Ernst Chladni (1756–1827), attention was given to studies in acoustics and the physics of sound. These three men, significantly, were scientists by training: Sauveur and Euler mathematicians, Chladni a physicist. Similarly, in the 19th century many musical scholars were influenced by Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–94), an anatomist and physiologist, and Friedrich Carl Stumpf (1848–1936), both of whom worked on the psychology of hearing and sought to give tangible explanations to many aesthetic matters that had been considered intangible. Their work played an important part in a general trend towards determinism – a belief that all musical phenomena and experiences have attributable causes.
It was during this period that the German term ‘Musikwissenschaft’ came into use. Like the Latin term ‘scientia’, ‘Wissenschaft’ means ‘knowledge’, but also can be applied with equal relevance to the body of knowledge encompassing natural and cultural phenomena. ‘Musikwissenschaft’ appeared as early as 1827, in the title of a work by the German educationist Johann Bernhard Logier, and became established in the early 1860s; its acceptance was reflected in the title of the journal Vierteljahrsschrift für Musikwissenschaft, founded in 1855 and that of ‘Musikforschung’ in the name of the Gesellschaft für Musikforschung instituted by Commer and Eitner in 1868. The phrase ‘musikalische Wissenschaft’ had been in use since the 18th century and ‘Tonwissenschaft’ since the second half of the 18th century. Beginning in 1885, ‘Musikologie’ referred in Germany to a subdivision of ‘Musikwissenschaft’ roughly equivalent to ‘ethnomusicology’ (see §4 below), whereas in France, ‘musicologie’ was synonymous with the German ‘Musikwissenschaft’.
When musicologists speak of scientific method in their research, what they usually mean is the methods of the social sciences, philology or philosophy. Musicology shares with them a common respect for the use of critical standards in the treatment of evidence, the employment of objective criteria in the evaluation of sources, the creation of a coherent account involving explanation and the sharing of one's research findings with a community of informed specialists. Such principles of investigation are of fairly recent origin, born during the Enlightenment. At the end of the 17th century, the philosophical innovations of Descartes made an important impact on European thought and the methods of empiricism replaced an uncritical reliance on the authority of the Church or myth. The Benedictine scholars of the Congregation of St Maur in Paris, led by Jean Mabillon (1632–1707) and Bernard de Montfaucon (1655–1741), established the principles of Latin and Greek palaeography and diplomatic. It was an age of rationalism and scepticism, personified most vividly in the figure of Voltaire and in the work of the philosophes which culminated in the great French Encyclopédie. From this period dates the establishment of some of the major learned societies and academies of science and letters, notably those in Britain and France: the Royal Society (1662, but dating informally back to 1645), the Académie Française (1635) and the Académie des Inscriptions (1663). Musicology, insofar as it reflects the cultural aims of 17th- and 18th-century society, is a manifestation of western European thought of the past 250 years and a phenomenon of the modern world. Its geographical origins have been responsible for the shape the discipline took in much of the 20th century and also accounts for some of the criticism to which it has been subjected.
Musicology, §I: The nature of musicology
The effort to determine the scope of musicology has prompted much discussion, with the result that certain areas have come to represent the core of the discipline while others remain in auxiliary positions. Since the early 19th century, historical studies have occupied the centre ground. However, each age has brought its own scale of values to bear, and this has led to a constantly changing disposition of emphasis. For example, a typical 18th-century framework designed to contain the whole of musical learning was fashioned by Nicolas Etienne Framery in 1770. Framery's ‘Tableau de la musique et de ses branches’ (see illustration) is a hierarchical scheme encompassing the entire discipline of music, which is subdivided at first level into three branches: acoustic, practical and historical. Acoustics is then subdivided three times, and represents the quantitative sciences and metaphysics; musical history is similarly subdivided to include the study of music and musicians, native and foreign, of the past and the present. Musical practice is broken down into two parallel divisions, ‘composition’ and ‘execution’, which in turn yield further divisions, sacred and secular, vocal and instrumental, native and foreign, and then institutions and musical genres. A place is also provided within musical practice for certain major interdisciplinary areas: music and poetry, music and dance, music and theatrical setting, music and elocution, the construction of instruments, music theory and instruction. Framery's design is a thoroughly rationalistic one, comprehensive, symmetrical and essentially static.
A few years later the Göttingen music historian Johann Nikolaus Forkel (1749–1818) brought out his map of musical knowledge in a pamphlet entitled Über die Theorie der Musik, insofern sie Liebhabern und Kennern notwendig und nützlich ist (1777). The scheme was revised and presented in an expanded form in his Allgemeine Geschichte der Musik (i, 1788). Forkel offered a fivefold approach to musical knowledge embracing the physics of sound, the mathematics of sound, musical grammar, musical rhetoric and music criticism. If history is not represented here it is because Forkel took it for granted. Implicit in his scheme is a concept of growth or progressive change in which the attainment of musical powers parallels the mastery of the language arts. Forkel's historical bias is best displayed in the organization of his Allgemeine Litteratur des Musik (1792), a bibliography of writings on music from antiquity to Forkel's own time. This work is divided into two main sections, one devoted to the literature of music history, the other to the literature of theory and practice.
François-Joseph Fétis's Histoire de la musique (1869–76) presented another model of musical knowledge in going beyond the limits of Western art music. In a five-volume study that included European folk music and non-European music (especially that of China and India), it laid the foundations for ‘comparative musicology’, the origins of ethnomusicology. Two subsequent publications called Histoire de la musique, the two volumes (1913–23) written by Jules Combarieu, the first Frenchman to write a doctoral dissertation on music (1894), and the four volumes (1909–24) which won Henri Woollett the music book of the year award in Paris in 1910, also include non-Western music (especially Hindu music) as well as the history of European music starting with the Greeks.
Musicology, §I: The nature of musicology
It was Guido Adler who, in a paper printed in the first issue of the Vierteljahrsschrift für Musikwissenschaft (1855) – ‘Umfang, Methode und Ziel der Musikwissenschaft’ – codified the division between the historical and the systematic realms of music study and tabulated their substance and method. The main outline, as repeated with slight modifications in Adler's Methode der Musikgeschichte (1919, p.7), was as follows:MUSICOLOGY I. The historical field (the history of music arranged by epochs, peoples, empires, countries, provinces, towns, schools, individual artists): A. Musical palaeography (semiography) (notations). B. Basic historical categories (groupings of musical forms). C. Laws: (1) as embodied in the compositions of each epoch; (2) as conceived and taught by the theorists; (3) as they appear in the practice of the arts. D. Musical instruments.II. The systematic field (tabulation of the chief laws applicable to the various branches of music): A. Investigation and justification of these laws in: (1) harmony (tonal); (2) rhythm (temporal); (3) melody (correlation of tonal and temporal). B. Aesthetics and psychology of music: comparison and evaluation in relation to the perceived subjects, with a complex of questions related to the foregoing. C. Music education: the teaching of (1) music in general; (2) harmony; (3) counterpoint; (4) composition; (5) orchestration; (6) vocal and instrumental performance. D. Musicology (investigation and comparative study in ethnography and folklore).The ‘Musicology’ of II.D is the subdivision ‘Musikologie’ rather than ‘Musikwissenschaft’, which circumscribes the entire field.
In his tabulation Adler listed the auxiliary sciences of musicology. These are, for the historical field: general history, palaeography, chronology, diplomatic (i.e. the form of manuscript documents), bibliography (i.e. the form of printed books), library and archive science, literary history and languages; liturgical history; history of mime and dance; biography, statistics of associations, institutions and performances; and, for the systematic field: acoustics and mathematics, physiology (aural sensations), psychology (aural perception, judgment, feeling), logic (musical thought), grammar, metrics and poetics, education, aesthetics etc. More recent methodologists, notably Hans-Heinz Dräger (1955), have refined and modified Adler's scheme, adding for example recording techniques, without changing its essential polarity. Dräger, however, introduced into his scheme the categories of music sociology and interdisciplinary subjects, though leaving the main weight heavily on the two original categories. In spite of the apparent equilibrium of the two sections of Adler's outline, history carries the greater weight, as it did in Adler's career as a musicologist.
Systematic musicology is not a mere extension of musicology but a complete reorientation of the discipline to fundamental questions which are non-historical in nature. These include aesthetics and research into the nature and properties of music as an acoustical, physiological, psychological and cognitive phenomenon. A systematic approach can also be given to all of Adler's historical areas, such as, for example, a semiological approach to musical notations and typological classifications of musical forms.
Musicology, §I: The nature of musicology
In the last two decades of the 20th century, there was an explosion in the field of musicology as scholars, sought to give voice to a broader range of concerns. Some have interrogated the fundamental assumptions of historical musicology. Like their colleagues in history, they have questioned the focus on history as the product of great men, great works, great traditions or great innovations. This has led to the study of music as a social force and to histories of musics previously excluded by scholars, many of whom have tended to concentrate on the art music of social élites. Dahlhaus (1977) proposed that musicology should encompass not just stylistic history, ‘a history whose subject matter is art and not biography or social contingencies’, but also structural history, reception history and cultural history. Others, critical of traditional science and traditional historiography, have gone further, questioning the possibility of scientific objectivity and exploring the extent to which subjective elements inform any historical discourse. Some have even questioned the idea that history implies causality, preferring to define it by the mutability in anything that changes over time.
Another important trend has been in the focus on musicology as a form of criticism, or what Kerman (1985) has called ‘the study of music as aesthetic experience’. In this, musicology resembles the humanistic disciplines, especially literature, and may borrow from literary or cultural theory and new fields such as gender studies. This interest has provoked debate over whether music has its own meaning, independent of the context in which it is created, performed and heard, or whether it is inevitably socially embedded and cannot be fully understood outside these contexts, whether its meaning results from a certain kind of intentionality mutually understood by the creator and perceiver, and whether it is principally an attribute of the mind, a product of cognitive responses to sound and/or bodily ones. Underlying the manner in which these questions are explored are certain fundamental issues – assumptions about the nature of knowledge, the source of that knowledge, and how scholars should relate to the inquiry. From these differences come the enormous range of subjects and methodologies that musicology has come to comprehend.
Some, working out of the humanist tradition, continue to believe that truth is something coherent and intentional: the goal is to unveil it. They may use close analytical and critical readings of scores to reinforce or question conventional truths or, like historians embracing the theory of mentalités or Zeitgeist, to suggest specific relationships of music to the other arts and society. Those influenced by structuralist anthropologists, semioticians and/or sociologists understand truth as a product of a system of signs and music, like any language, as a ‘play of signifiers’. In Claude Lévi-Strauss's words, ‘knowledge can be objective and subjective at the same time’ and ‘history is never history, but history-for. It is partial in the sense of being biased when it claims not to be, for … one must choose, select, give up … it consists entirely in its method’. Scholars embracing this perspective understand meaning as a product of interpretation. In their studies of music, they seek to understand what its structure or narrative may represent. Some, sympathetic to Marxist ideas or Theodor Adorno, believe that music is a dialectical discourse that both reveals and conceals its relationship to language and society.
Musicologists following poststructuralist thinking tend to agree with Michel Foucault that ‘truth is linked in a circular relation with systems of power’. Sensing a crisis of authority, patriarchy, identity and ethics, they question the validity of the so-called master narratives, stories that we have come to regard as central to our understanding of Western music and musical progress – for example, the function of tonality and the importance of the narrative curve in music. Using deconstructive methods, they seek to unveil the operations of power in music, especially those related to articulations of gender, race and class, or point out how music helps to construct social identities and social spaces.
Postmodernist notions have begun to inspire questions about the validity of global, universalizing perspectives and to shift attention to the truths embedded in the local, everyday, variable and contingent aspects of music and music-making. Scholars engaged in this work see truth as always relative and subjectivity as multi-layered, contradictory and performative, as influenced by the body as well as the mind and sometimes spiritual concerns. They seek to break down hierarchies and show the multiple meanings that any music can have. They are often concerned with the physical impact of sound on the listener and with music as evoking a process, not just a presence that refers to an absence (i.e. what is represented). Sometimes the goal of their inquiry is not so much to increase knowledge of music as to restructure experience of it.
Postmodernists also tend to concentrate more on the role of the performer and listener in determining the meaning of a musical work. They analyse what is specific to individual performances, including Roland Barthes' ‘grain of the voice’, rather than the structure of written scores. They seek to understand musical expression independent from the structure, and some, music that is not written down. For postmodern scholars, the musical experience is essentially cooperative, collaborative and contingent. Listeners bring or attach meanings to music regardless of composers' intentions, often as part of a dialectics of desire that helps shape how they define what is outside themselves. The listening process is an activity that in turn shapes the personal, social and cultural identity of the listener. The desire to explore the experience of music and to understand what underlies the meanings people ascribe to it has motivated an interest in applying psychoanalytic methodologies to the study of music.
These different approaches to knowledge are reflected in different relationships to the scholarly process. A scholar can play the role of a transcendent observer, applying rigorous reason and research to a chosen study and remaining unimplicated in the results of what is learnt. This relationship involves a strict separation of the observer from the observed and a trust of the ‘other’, be it the composer or the work, and a sense that the facts provided are what is needed. Or a scholar can be self-critical, acknowledging the power of language and the interdependence of language and meaning in musicological work. This may lead the scholar to ask not only theoretical questions but also political and ethical ones which may in turn shed light on some aspect of the larger world as reflected in music. Alternatively, a scholar can focus on personal insight, considering one's personal experience of music as a source of knowledge. Taking personal relevance or one's own perspective as the point of departure makes it clear that the scholar plays an important role in producing musical meaning. At the same time, such a perspective may have limitations as to the general relevance of the insights produced.
A number of important new subfields within musicology have arisen as a result of these different perspectives. Some, such as Kerman, Taruskin and Dreyfus, have used them to criticize the historical performance movement, throwing into question the notion of an ‘authoritative’ or ‘authentic’ performance of early music. Others, following the lead of McClary and Brett, have used them to explore how gender and sexuality may influence the creation and reception of music. More and more musicologists are crossing borders and reconsidering the boundaries of their research, not only that which has separated classical and popular music, written and oral traditions, but also historical musicology from other disciplines including ethnomusicology and music theory.
2. Theoretical and analytical method.
5. Lexicography and terminology.
6. Organology and iconography.
11. Gender and sexual studies.
Musicology, §II: Disciplines of musicology
Historical method in musicology falls into two basic categories. The first is an empirical-positivistic one, with an emphasis on locating and studying documents and establishing objective (or would-be objective) facts about and from them. The second, a theoretical-philosophical one, itself has two aspects: one that addresses general historiographical problems such as change and causality, periodization and biography; and one that considers issues specific to the histories of the arts and literature, such as the forms and style, or the historical meaning or content of individual art works or repertories, whether from the perspective of style, aesthetics or socio-cultural contexts and functions. The literature on historical method has concentrated on the second category, perhaps because the first seems unproblematic and less interesting. It is or should be self-evident that serious historical scholarship of the second category, although it sometimes tends to deny the legitimacy of the first, depends on as accurate a historical record as the actual state of the discipline can provide (see also Historiography).
This essay will also emphasize theory, yet the continuing importance of positivism (which itself constitutes a philosophy of history) and empirical work should not be overlooked. In the 18th century, when a music historiography began to emerge, curiosity about ancient music for its ancientness (musical antiquarianism) was a principal motivation for empirical research, and philological interests were also strong. As the discipline developed, problems such as chronology and transmission, attribution, palaeography and textual authenticity became even more crucial, as the archives, libraries and private collections yielded ever more of their treasures.
Empirical interests were not, however, primary to the work of Hawkins, Burney and Forkel, whose histories are often considered to be the origin of ‘true’ historical thinking about music, but rather a (naive) vision of historical development – the Enlightenment idea of human progress embracing all cultural activity. In this universal-historical perspective, the emphasis on human activity and perfectibility as the basis for historical change distinguishes ideas from earlier views of the past and development; yet their conclusions about the present state of music differed. Unlike Burney, Hawkins and Forkel viewed the music of their day with alarm, and their caution foreshadowed 19th-century perspectives: (i) a notion of ‘progress with limits’ that underlies conservative historical thinking well into the 20th century, and (ii) a historicism that replaced the principle of inevitable progress with that of historical relativism and validated early music.
It was historicism that provided the single greatest impulse to the development of music historiography in the 19th century. Despite Hegel's influence on historical thinking in Germany, continuing progress (or its necessity) in music was more a concern of journalists with historical perspectives – A.B. Marx, Schumann, Franz Brendel, Wagner and Hanslick (the latter two at cross-purposes) – than of most writers of formal music history. Marx and Brendel, who explicitly identified himself with Hegel, wrote histories from this perspective, and they have been usually associated with Hegelianism (as has Ambros), but their debts to Hegel must be precisely defined: their historical thinking is shaped by the liberal nationalism and metaphysical idealism that supported Hegel's concept of progress and his aesthetics, but the dialectical approach, the essential element in his theory of historical change, is largely absent in Marx's writing and not rigorously applied in Brendel's. The dialectic method is also foreign to the historical thinking of Fétis, whose importance as a historian has been overlooked. His rationalistic (as opposed to metaphysical) belief in progress is said to have been influenced by the enlightened universal historical approach of Jules Michelet.
All over Europe, most mid-19th-century music historians turned to music and musicians from a past that was generally and tacitly understood as ending with J.S. Bach. Several historians (e.g. Ambros) planned comprehensive histories but failed to complete them, perhaps because the empirical-positivistic work in the earlier historical stages exhausted their energies. The field of biography was less orientated to the distant past, largely because of Beethoven's celebrity, the continuing interest in Mozart and Haydn and, late in the century, the fascination with Wagner. Yet the great monuments in 19th-century biography also include biographies of Bach by Spitta and Handel by Chrysander, and these are usually considered to be more important for the development of music historiography because their subject matter was more remote (see Biography).
Apart from the aesthetic impulses behind the first efforts to revive performance of Bach and Palestrina in the early 1800s, interest in old and new music as a historical phenomenon was nurtured by several strong intellectual and ideological currents in the 19th century. The deepest and broadest of them was the rise and dominance of historicism in all the humanistic disciplines and particularly the earlier emergence of the history of the visual arts. Aesthetics and theory, which had dominated music scholarship within and without the academy, began to yield room for history, a process that culminated in the establishment at the end of the century of the first university chairs explicitly assigned to music history. Surging nationalism, which in the wake of the Napoleonic period also underlay the rise of scholarly political and national history, stimulated investigations of national music traditions that sometimes assumed chauvinist character (Brendel), occasionally made use of the 18th-century advocacy of folk and popular culture associated with Rousseau and Herder, or stressed religious institutions and dogma. The identification of religion and nationalism was particularly strong in northern Germany. It led to an assertive identification of Germanness in music, coupling Lutheran tradition with an attempt to reinvigorate religious feeling through a discussion of art (Spitta). A nostalgically religious strain in Romanticism saw a purity in the arts preceding a ‘modern’ or ‘new’ time whose earlier or later beginning depended in large part on the personal aesthetics and degree of historicism in the thinking of the historian. (A ‘Heilige Tonkunst’ concluding in 1600 described the first of Carl von Winterfeld's two historical epochs in his Johannes Gabrielli und sein Zeitalter of 1834.) This attitude transcended national and denominational differences and helps to explain the widespread interest in Renaissance sacred music, in particular the Catholic repertories, which also extended into the 17th century.
Music historians struggled to impose order on the ever increasing body of music their archival work disclosed. Periodization, and the explanation of the historical developments underlying the periods, were their foremost tasks, whereby the former was often presented with disappointingly little concern for the latter. Epochs and periods based on leading figures provided a convenient mode of explanation: schools and styles grouped themselves around the great artists, who produced their art through their own genius sui generis, or drew on the culture of their time, or (commonsensically enough) in some way combined the two. The idea of the artist in cultural context shares features with the Zeitgeist theory of history that was particularly strong in Germany. Zeitgeist, which owes as much to Herder as to Hegel, solved two historiographical problems: (i) progress – music proceeded with general culture, as history advanced from period to period so too did music; (ii) meaning – music acquired meaning through its participation in general culture because it shared general culture's character. Music history benefited from its late origins; it could draw on general history and art history, which presented it with resonant period names such as the Renaissance. But shortcomings to this approach emerged towards the end of the 19th century. Music historians concentrated too much on biography, did not integrate the technical discussion of individual works in their histories, and failed to recognize music's (semi-) autonomy and its ‘organic’ development on the basis of its own materials. The solution was the formalization of the concept of style drawing again on art history (Burkhardt and Wölfflin), which became the dominating historical idea in 20th-century musicology. The strength of the concept of ‘style’ can be judged from the fact that it was as essential to Riemann, the systematic scholar, as it was to the humanist Adler (who is most closely identified with the concept), although they are usually considered to represent opposing branches of the discipline.
‘Style’ was extremely useful. It was the alternative to Zeitgeist for the explication of periodization. It also provided the language for a discussion of individual works in inherently musical terms, yet still differed crucially from non-historical, ‘theoretical’ analysis in that it retained, refined and lent rigour to established musico-historical ideas such as periods, schools, national, regional and individual styles, and made possible a comparative critical approach. Moreover, it was equally applicable to all historical periods and genres; it could support either a teleological view of historical development or a relativistic one; it could even buttress a Zeitgeist approach or a hermeneutic explication of an individual work. Although style was conceived as a value-free, objective idea, it later even served national-socialist musicology in determining the racial and folk basis of national and ethnic styles and their relative merits.
The emergence of historical musicology as a mature discipline and the development of the concept of style are inextricable. Style was the basis for the multi-volume histories (Handbuch der Musikgeschichte, Oxford History of Music), single-volume period histories (Reese, Bukofzer), genre studies, and the works part of life-and-works biographies that before and after World War II have defined the field.
Yet the concept of style has been criticized. Despite its flexibility, its major impact has been to separate musical historiography from general historiography, and to de-emphasize or even eliminate questions of meaning and function. In German musicology before the Nazi period, historians in the hermeneutic tradition advocated by Wilhelm Dilthey (1823–1911), in his day the leading German philosopher of the humanistic disciplines, recognized this danger. Arnold Schering (1877–1941), while recognizing its achievements, argued that a critical method designed to determine stylistic common denominators could not do justice to the unique structures and meanings of individual masterworks, and also perceived that the concept of style failed to explain the phenomenon of style change. In Anglo-American historical musicology the most recent major developments – the introduction of critical perspectives from linguistics and the literary disciplines, and their combination with a hermeneutics variously derived from the ‘new historicism’, Adornoesque social theory, gender studies, reception theory and history, and anthropology – have sprung from a similar dissatisfaction with the concept of style, whereby its inability to address satisfactorily the problem of meaning has been the stronger impetus. (The problems of periodization and style change, actively pursued in the 1950s and 60s – as the reports from various international musicological congresses attest – have lost their urgency. The approach of structural history, which attempts to grasp the totality of a moment in historical time rather than presenting the dynamic of historical process, is more amenable to the critical interests of ‘new musicology’.)
The rise of new critical perspectives in English-language music history also must be understood as a response to the challenges posed by the postwar vigour and status of two diametrically opposed branches of the discipline: the ‘hard’ analysis of ‘Theory’ as it became institutionalized in American and British university departments, and, within music history, grandly conceived philological-positivistic projects. The latter consisted of new critical editions of the ‘great’ composers and historical repertories (some of them exhaustive reworkings of the great monuments of 19th-century editions); thematic catalogues; RISM in all its breadth; and manuscript studies of many different kinds that made important advances in method and technique and significant contributions and corrections to questions of chronology and transmission, authenticity and compositional process. In the USA after World War II philology helped support the rapid growth of musicology, offering virtually unlimited possibilities for dissertations and publications. Yet a saturation point seems to have been reached in the mid-1980s, when the call from scholars as dissimilar as Joseph Kerman and Leo Treitler in the USA, and Carl Dahlhaus in Germany, for a historically informed criticism (Kerman) or a critically inclined historiography (Treitler and Dahlhaus) began to bear fruit.
For West German musicology, as it regrouped after the war, positivistic approaches provided necessary safe alternatives to the ideologically indefensible nature of musicology under fascism, in whose wake cultural theory of any kind had become suspect, and to the Marxist historical and hermeneutic methodologies of the GDR and the socialist bloc. It also provided a haven to non-Marxist East German and Soviet-bloc musicologists, who concentrated on such areas rather than pursuing politically sensitive topics such as meaning and historical causality. But West German musicology did not ignore style criticism or abandon traditional ‘bourgeois’ historical topics such as philosophy and aesthetics or historical music theory (which were also favoured by non-Marxist scholars in the socialist countries). And it sometimes engaged in polemical debates about historical causality and determinism, progress, formalism and the social character and content of music with its neighbours to the East. The relative cautiousness of West German historical musicology, as well as the strength of its traditions, has made it less open to the most recent (‘new-musicological’) methodological innovations than its English-language counterpart. The important exception has been in the area of reception studies, which were stimulated by the work of the Germans Hans Gadamer (philosophy) and Robert Jauss (literature) and became established in German musicology well before it was embraced by musicologists writing in English. On the other hand, in the 1990s the writings of Theodor Adorno, whose thought stimulated and challenged some of the leading German postwar historians, have become more fashionable (although perhaps less well digested) abroad than in his native country. The nature of Adorno's influence in Germany can perhaps best be measured by the work of Dahlhaus, who, despite his fascination with Adorno's ideas, rejected the sociological approach and yet fashioned his own formalist hermeneutics as a direct response to him.
Historical method in musicology has always relied on its neighbouring disciplines. It has always been a semi-autonomous field, in part through its very nature as a historical discipline, in part because the materials of music are non-semantic and its forms and images are less tied to representations of material reality than those of the visual arts before the 20th century. As a consequence of this second condition, non-formalist historians concerned with the problem of musical meaning are almost forced to borrow. While important axioms such as style and historical periodization of the historical method still seem useful and entrenched, certain traditional emphases have been under attack in recent years, for example the notion of an authentic text, or the concept of the autonomous ‘work’, or the idea of a canonic repertory (this last is paradoxical in view of the preference for ‘masterpieces’ for the application of innovative interpretative strategies). As early as the 1970s, Dahlhaus voiced concerns about the disappearance of the historical method (in its second, theoretical category) from musicology; yet the discipline, in terms of its institutional bases – the academy, the professional journal and the published book – is thriving. Will the influx of new methodologies supplant music history or give it new life? One thing is certain: its own history is one of change and adaptation, and this process is a guarantee for its continued vitality.
Musicology, §II: Disciplines of musicology
It is questionable whether it is possible to identify a single encompassing method for music theory and analysis. As an intellectual activity, Western music theory possesses an extensive and varied literature that extends virtually without interruption back to the ancient Greeks. At the same time, many non-Western cultures possess distinguished bodies of theoretical literature. Music analysis, with which theory is typically paired, has a more recent genealogy, although it too seems confoundingly diverse in practice.
Defined simply, music theories may be said to offer generalized descriptions of musical structure and behaviour. Such descriptive theories may apply only to a single composition, or they may attempt to account for and perhaps help define, a class of compositions grouped by historical style, genre or composer. From this perspective, then, it can be seen how analysis functions as a dialectical counterpart to theory. Analysis constitutes the detailed study of musical pieces from which theories may be inductively formulated, while at the same time serving to test the empirical validity and application of any theory.
Of course, the relation between theory and analysis is in reality far more complex. Many music theories, for example, are compositionally conceived and lack strong empirical verification in practice. That is to say, a given theory may arise not through induction from musical practice but be conceived a priori to guide composition. Other theories may make no empirical claims about particular compositions or historical styles and may concern themselves with more abstracted musical problems: the nature of consonance, concepts of time and metre or the ontology of tonality (to offer some contrasting examples). Still other theories may deal with aspects of musical perception by analysing compositions according to their affective qualities, or perhaps as possessing social or programmatic content.
To make sense of this diversity within the field of music theory, and perhaps to rescue the notion of music theory and analysis as constituting a coherent and discrete field of study, it is helpful to distinguish ‘traditions’ of music theory that have historically enjoyed varying degrees of pedigree. Based on suggestions made by Carl Dahlhaus (1984, p.9), three such traditions, or ‘paradigms’ might be identified: (i) Speculative, (ii) Regulative and (iii) Analytic. While the present article will not attempt to duplicate the broad historical surveys of theory and analysis found elsewhere (see Analysis, §I and Theory, theorists), it will be useful to consider individually the scope and methods historically associated with these disciplinary traditions.
(ii) Regulative and practical traditions.
Musicology, §II, 2: Disciplines of musicology: Theoretical and analytical method.
Speculative music theory (or ‘harmonics’, as it was often termed) represents the oldest and in one sense the most authentic tradition of music theory. Traceable to the earliest surviving Greek and Hellenic writings, musical harmonics encompasses the abstracted study of musical elements – sounds, intervals, rhythmic proportions, scale systems and modes – and often the place of these elements in the general cosmological order. The concern of the speculative theorist is not the application of musical material to praxis but rather the ontological essence of music – its nature and being. Aristotle characterized such knowledge as episteme theoretike, in contrast to the practical and poetic skills – praktike and poietike – of performance and composers.
In Greek thought two related branches of speculative harmonics may be distinguished: a Pythagorean tradition orientated towards mathematics and represented by Neoplatonists such as Ptolemy and Boethius, and an empirical tradition represented by theorists such as Aristoxenus. The Pythagoreans would emphasize the numerical basis of musical relations (for instance, that all musical consonances could be defined by simple ratios of integers) and see such musical relations as a model of cosmological order. The empiricists, however, were concerned with acoustical perception – the nature of musical sound and its organization into tonal systems. In neither case, though, were these theorists interested in practical music.
With varying degrees of emphasis, speculative music theory has been a continuous presence in the history of Western thought. The Pythagorean interest in the mathematical form of music was sustained within the medieval Quadrivium of numerical sciences, and found more concrete expression in various monochord and interval treatises. Most of the intricate tuning and temperament calculations found in Baroque treatises of musica theorica may also arguably be aligned with traditions of speculative harmonics. The empirical Aristoxenian tradition, however, found echo in the work of many natural scientists of the 17th and 18th centuries who studied the acoustical basis of consonance and tonality (Galileo, Descartes, Sauveur), as well as in 19th-century scientific work in the field of tone psychology (Helmholtz and Stumpf).
The more cosmological side of Pythagorean harmonics receded in the medieval West until its reinvigoration in the late 15th century under the influence of Neoplatonic thought (especially in the writings of Marsilio Ficino). Cosmological harmonics continued to hold fascination for a few individuals, although it was an interest largely motivated by esoteric or occult beliefs, as exemplified by writers such as the 17th-century German astronomer Johannes Kepler, the 19th-century French Masonic historian Fabre d'Olivet, and in the 20th-century Swiss mystic Hans Kayser (see also Music of the spheres).
In the 20th century, speculative music theory has continued to flourish, although under new names and using new tools of analysis. Much research, for example into tone psychology, timbral analysis and psychoacoustics (see §10, below), including work by James Mursell, R. Plomp, Wayne Slawson and Ernst Terhardt, can arguably be filiated to Aristoxenian traditions of empirical harmonics in that its practitioners attempt to understand the fundamental nature of discrete musical elements, albeit elements typically defined and analysed as isolated acoustical stimuli. Mathematical traditions of harmonics have also enjoyed renewed attention. Catalysed in large part by compositional problems posed by Schoenberg's method of composing with 12 notes, a number of composer-theorists, beginning in the 1950s, notably Milton Babbitt, have developed extraordinarily far-reaching mathematical theories that explore with systematic rigour possible serial relations and orderings within the equal-tempered universe of 12 pitch classes (see also Serialism and Set).
The group theoretical principles on which Babbitt based his research were found by several American music theorists to be useful in accounting for properties of – and relations between – unordered collections of pitch classes. For example, Allen Forte extended and generalized some of Babbitt's work in order to develop a theory of ‘pitch-class sets’ by which the pitch structure of a delimited repertory of pre-serial ‘atonal’ music may be accounted. David Lewin, on the other hand, worked out a number of mathematical models by which to describe the transformational mappings of isomorphically-discrete pitch collections, although the sophisticated transformational networks that he constructed may also usefully be applied to relations between chord function, key area and even metrical time points. Further research by American theorists such as John Clough on diatonic scale systems, Richard Cohn on symmetrical pitch cycles and Robert Morris on compositional spaces and contour has extended our understanding of potential pitch topographies. While much of this scholarship is intended to have practical applications for both composers and analysts, it is at heart ‘speculative’ in the most distinguished and venerable sense of the word – as an exploration of the properties and potential of musical materials. In the closing decades of the 20th century, the spectacular reinvigoration of mathematical harmonics constituted one of the most remarkable chapters in the long history of music theory.
Musicology, §II, 2: Disciplines of musicology: Theoretical and analytical method.
If music theory in its oldest and most authentic sense was understood as the ontological speculation of musical material, undoubtedly its most consequential and resonant activities have concerned the regularization of this material into systems possessing practical applications for performers and composers. Such pedagogical writings, it is true, were not at first considered to be properly ‘theoretical’ (significantly, no practical treatise before the 18th century ever presented itself under the title of ‘music theory’). But increasingly, musica theorica and musica practica were recognized, and treated, as complementary domains of investigation.
The propadeutic tradition of music theory is first evident in the West in several Carolingian manuscripts dating from the 9th and 10th centuries that sought to answer the Church's growing need to systematize, codify and notate a burgeoning liturgical chant practice. Several intersecting problems were posed that have served as an agenda of music-theoretical research ever since: clarifying a tonal space in which this music was sung; devising an efficient notation for setting it down for practice and dissemination; establishing a vocabulary for segmenting and analysing the music's structure; and, finally, classifying the repertory of chant into categories of species or ‘modes’. Later, other conceptual problems with practical implications arose to which theorists turned their attention, particularly the need to develop an accurate means to notate rhythmic duration and proportion.
With the appearance of several treatises dealing with the singing of organum and discant in the early 12th century an entirely new kind of prescriptive theory is to be seen – one that attempts to regulate the compositional process of music (or in this case, an improvisational process). By laying down rules for singing with a given chant melody, regulating what dissonances may be introduced and prescribing the opening and closing formulae of the organal voice, the anonymous authors of one notable example (the Ad organum faciendum; ed. H.H. Eggebrecht and R. Zaminer, 1970) inaugurated a species of compositional theory that would soon dominate the discipline (see also Organum).
Throughout the late medieval and Renaissance periods, the primary concern of compositional theory was the regulation of dissonance within the increasingly dense polyphonic textures written by composers or improvised by singers (see also Counterpoint and Musica ficta, §2). Another regulative problem addressed by theorists during this time concerned rhythm, and specifically the codification of a mensural system by which metrical time points could be plotted, subdivided and noted (see also Notation, §III and Rhythm, §I). For some Renaissance theorists, a particular empirical challenge was that of modal classification. The eight ecclesiastical modes inherited from monophonic chant practice (later expanded by Glarean and Zarlino to 12) could be made to accommodate expanding polyphonic and chromatic textures only with great ingenuity on the part of theorists (see also Mode, §III).
In the Baroque period, with a general stylistic evolution towards more homophonic textures and a sharper bass–soprano polarity, it was the classification of chords and an explanation of their succession that received the attention of theorists. Similarly challenging to explain and codify for theorists was a coalescing major-minor, transposable key system. Many treatises of thoroughbass from this time, though ostensibly aimed at training performers, can be seen as theoretical treatises that provided pratical answers to these questions. It is thus not surprising that the first treatise to attempt a full theory of this tonal practice – Rameau's Traité de l'harmonie of 1722 – was one that was conceived within the paradigm of thoroughbass pedagogy. Counterpoint remained important as a pedagogical discipline throughout the 18th century, although as seen in a work such as Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum, this necessitated drawing sharp distinctions between ‘strict’ styles of composition codified within his five species and a ‘free’ style of dissonance use, characteristic of the seconda pratica.
As these various examples suggest regulative music theory is possible only when there is a relatively stabilized musical practice that can be circumscribed by which a particular compositional parameter may be analysed and codified. Some of these practices may be global and cut across specific compositional styles, historical period or genres (such as shared systems of harmonic tonality, metre or timbral juxtaposition), while others may be more stylistically focussed. For theorists of the late 18th century one such stylistic issue that required attention was the nature of melody – its components, construction and development (Riepel, Koch); for theorists of the 19th century, however, it was the increasingly subversive chromatic and modulatory practices of composers that demanded explanation, as well as the more elaborate forms employed (Marx, Fétis, Reimann; see also Harmony, §4 and Form).
In the 20th century, regulative theory continued to play an important pedagogical function, although it was more typically applied in retrospect to delimited historical repertories or styles of music. (Schenker's theory of tonality is paradigmatic in this respect; Jeppesen's codification of Palestrinian ‘style’ of counterpoint and Lendvai's codification of Bartók's compositional practice are other good examples of retrospective regulative theories.) More common has been the development of original theories of composition to establish and regulate harmonic vocabulary, rhythmic structure or tonal syntax. Sometimes such theories may be rigorously formalized, as in the case of many serial theorists, such as Krenek, Eimert, Babbitt, Boulez and Perle. Other compositional theories may be more informally conceived, such as the ‘modes of limited transposition’ inventoried by Messiaen, or the theories of compositional ‘intonation’ and ‘modal rhythm’ conceived by the Russian theorists Boris Asaf'yev and Bodeslav Yavorsky. Even Cage's aleatory theory and Xenakis's stochastic method of composition can be seen as belonging to this tradition of regulative theory, although both involve elements of chance and indeterminacy. But as compositional practice in the 20th century has fractured into a multitude of individual styles and syntaxes, such broadly prescriptive theorizing has more and more given way to a particularist kind of descriptive analysis.
Musicology, §II, 2: Disciplines of musicology: Theoretical and analytical method.
It is useful to distinguish music analysis as a subdiscipline in music theory from the regulative traditions just described, even though the two are interdependent. While a fuller history and taxonomy of music analysis is recounted elsewhere (see Analysis), it will be appropriate here to say something about the methods and claims of music analysis and its relation to be broader epistemology of music theory.
In music analysis one is primarily concerned with the structure and individuating features of a particular piece of music. Typically, this involves two tasks: (1) to inventory the components of a particular composition deemed significant by the analyst; and (2) to explain the particular disposition and relationship of those components. Of course, any kind of analysis presupposes a theoretical stance: that is to say, it is not possible to undertake an analysis without theoretical presumptions, however informally conceived, that help determine the questions to pose and the kinds of language and method by which these questions may be answered. But unlike the systematic traditions of regulative theory described earlier, the goal of music analysis is normally an understanding and aesthetic appreciation of the musical piece itself as an ontologically unique artwork, not the exemplification of some broader norm of structure or syntax.
A good example of such particularist analysis is seen in E.T.A. Hoffmann's famous review of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, published in 1810. Unlike many earlier examples of music ‘analysis’ that offered generalized taxonomies of particular pieces (often using rhetorical terminology) in order to illustrate classical norms of structure and process, Hoffman undertook his analysis to reveal what was distinguishing and unique in Beethoven's composition. For Hoffmann, much of this uniqueness stemmed from the music's particular motivic material and its ingenious development. Not surprisingly, such close analytic readings were indebted to Romantic ideologies of historicism and the cult of artistic genius; far from being models for compositional emulation, the musical objects of analysis tended to be drawn from a canon of irreproduceable ‘masterworks’. Analysis revealed at once the singular features that made up a particular composition (these typically being unusual thematic and harmonic material or special deviations from formal conventions) as well as the means by which these features cohered as an organic whole, to cite a favourite metaphor of the 19th century. Of course, a more pragmatic tradition of analysis continued with the 19th-century pedagogical Kompositionslehre. That is, musical pieces might be analysed for the purpose of learning and testing norms of chordal succession or form. But by the 20th century, with the loss of a common grammar of tonality and received forms of organizational structure, music analysis was increasingly becoming piece-orientated.
Heinrich Schenker occupies a particularly important place in 20th-century music analysis, not simply because his ideas have enjoyed such unparalleled influence – especially in Anglo-American academic circles – but because his work so clearly reflects the dialectic relation of music analysis and theoretical systematization. Originating through an intensive study of a select canon of tonal masterworks (especially Beethoven), Schenker's mature theory of the Ursatz and its ‘prolongation’ through structural levels emerged only after many years of struggle and thought. Although presented as an a priori systems of tonal logic, Schenker's theory also receives empirical validation – and indeed, can only be known – through practice, albeit a practice that is highly selective and arguably self-confirming. Schenker's theory presents itself as both a universal theory of tonality and a sophisticated tool of analysis by which an individual piece of tonal music may be opened up for inspection and its individuating features of harmony, form and thematic content delineated with unprecedented precision (see Schenker, Heinrich).
At the close of the 20th century, music theory and analysis seemed finally to have matured as intellectual disciplines. Particularly in North America, although increasingly elsewhere, many academic programmes of music theory were established in universities and music conservatories alongside more traditional programmes of historical musicology. At the same time, numerous academic journals and professional societies devoted to music theory and analysis were founded, including the Journal of Music Theory (1957), Musical Analysis (1981) and Musiktheorie (1986), and the publications of the Society for Music Theory (from 1977).
It is ironic that just as music theory seems to have become institutionally accepted, strong criticisms have been voiced within those institutions concerning its conservative domain and scientistic aspirations (Kerman, 1985). Most compellingly, perhaps, many music theorists and analysts have been criticized for their penchant for considering musical pieces and styles largely from a formalistic, autonomous point of view rather than within broader historical and cultural contexts. At the same time, theorists have been faulted for too often disregarding questions of affect, expression or meaning in musical pieces at the expense of structural description.
It is true that in the course of the 20th century, much scholarship in music theory could be characterized as highly formalistic. Logical positivism, in particular, was an obvious influence on the work of many theorists such as Babbitt, who famously demanded that all analytic statements about music should adhere to strictly scientific criteria of formulation and verification (Babbitt, 1961, p.3). Other potent influences on music analysis (particularly in the 1960s) were developments in literary theory and specifically the movements of ‘New Criticism’ and structuralism, by which texts were analysed as discrete and autonomous objects standing apart from questions of historical origin or authorial intention. Certainly, a number of music theorists in their analytic work have tested a formidable array of tools and models borrowed from neighbouring disciplines that on the surface suggest positivist and structuralist pedigree, including mathematical group theory (David Lewin), cognitive psychology (Leonard Meyer, Eugene Narmour), information theory (Kraehenbuhl and Coons), generative linguistics (Lehrdahl and Jackendoff), and semiotics (Jean-Jacques Nattiez, Kofi Agawu and Robert Hatten). Probably little of this research would stand the test of Babbitt's strict rules for theoretical formulation and verification. As in many other scholarly disciplines, the explicitly positivistic and structuralist aspirations of music theory in the 1960s and 70s have considerably receded.
If in reality music theory and analysis were ever as uniformally conservative and narrow in scope as their critics have implied, it was certainly not true at the close of the 20th century. The repertories of music considered by analysts expanded dramatically to include virtually all historical periods, as well as much non-Western music and popular or vernacular musics. At the same time, many theorists showed increased sensitivity to problems of historical and social context, affective content and reception in their analyses. In particular, interpretative and critical modes of analysis (whose origins may be traced back to late 19th-century traditions of ‘hermeneutic’ analysis) are strongly evident in much recent musicological scholarship (Scott Burnham, Rose Subotnik, Brian Hyer), as are radically subjective ‘phenomenological’ modes of analysis (Thomas Clifton, Benjamin Boretz, Marion Guck) and post-Freudian theories of compositional influence and repression (Joseph Straus, Kevin Korsyn). Even issues regarding gender and sexuality so dominant in much ‘postmodern’ cultural criticism have been provocatively addressed by some recent musicologists (Susan McClary, Lawrence Kramer; see §II, below). Yet if music theory and analysis are to continue to retain identities as authentic intellectual traditions, it is perhaps desirable to maintain some degree of epistemological formalism and empirical rigour. Far from suggesting a weakness in the programme of music theory, a certain autonomy – and tension – in relation to historical musicology and cultural criticism may indeed be a healthy sign of its vitality and integrity.
Musicology, §II: Disciplines of musicology
Textual criticism embraces several central sciences: palaeography (the decipherment of handwritings), diplomatic and bibliography (the study of the formal make-up of manuscripts and printed books respectively), editorship and collation (the identification of errors in the text of a document and the reconciliation of variant readings). Ancillary to these are such sciences as the studies of printing techniques and processes, of paper manufacture, of binding, of illumination and of book illustration. All these bodies of knowledge contribute directly to the establishment of a critical text. The first five have venerable scholarly traditions extending back into the early 19th century; the rest have developed in the 20th, with such works as Charles Briquet’s Les filigranes (Geneva, 1907), Allan Stevenson’s The Problem of the Missale speciale (London, 1967) and Charlton Hinman’s The Printing and Proof-Reading of the First Folio of Shakespeare (Oxford, 1963) as landmarks.
In the context of music, the decipherment of notational systems (ekphonetic, neumatic, mensural, tablature etc.; see Notation, §I) forms an important part of musical palaeography – and also the decipherment of verbal text matter. The special demands of music on printing require study as processes; they carry their own peculiarities and tendencies to particular errors which must be known before the text can be fully elucidated (see Printing and publishing of music). The procedures of music writing, of the production and copying of the musical source, are again activities not yet fully appreciated in their own terms; to understand the ‘psychology’ of the producer of a text is half the battle in understanding the text itself (see Sources, MS, §I).
In the study of music printing the groundwork was laid by scholars such as Anton Schmid in his survey of the output of the Petrucci press (1845), by Robert Eitner, and by Emil Vogel in his Bibliothek der gedruckten weltlichen Vocalmusik Italiens (1892). Vogel’s work was carried on by Claudio Sartori in his Bibliografia della musica strumentale italiana stampata in Italia fino al 1700 (1952–68) and by Howard Mayer Brown in Instrumental Music Printed before 1600 (1965). Basic studies of early French music printers and publishers were made by François Lesure and Geneviève Thibault, of the early English by Charles Humphries and William C. Smith, and of the early Viennese by Alexander Weinmann. More recent work has concentrated on single issues in early publishing (such as Boorman’s work on the interpretation of features in madrigal publications) or individual publishers (Forney’s work on Susato, Jackson’s on Berg and Neuber, Lewis’s on Gardane).
In manuscript studies, much attention has been given in recent years to the 18th century. Studies involving stitching marks from original bindings (Dürr), paper-making and watermarks (Tyson, Wolf) and handwriting (Plath) have brought about important revisions in the chronology of the works of J.S. Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Moreover, a new understanding of the creative processes of composers – notably of Beethoven and Wagner – has developed as a result of close examination of preparatory materials such as sketchbooks, drafts and preliminary scores (see Sketch).
The principles of editing are another supporting science of musicology. They embrace not only the surface questions such as how to distinguish editorial emendation and interpretation from original readings and how to lay out suppressed readings in a critical commentary along with a description of sources (although these are matters on which no conformity has been reached among scholars), but also the much more fundamental issues of critical editing: how far editors should go in correcting and interpreting a text, and whether the variants of a particular text are separate entities or lead back hierarchically to an original exemplar – and thus whether the readings given in an edition of a work with many variant sources should seek to establish by reconstruction a hypothetical archetype, or simply present the best surviving text intact, or set out the variants or alternatives in several textual traditions (see Editing).
In music, the concepts of ‘Urtext’ and of critical edition are in principle distinct. Urtext represents an attempt to present the contents of an original source free of editorial additions (slurs, bowing marks, extra dynamics etc.): it is ‘pure’, yet is to some extent a translation into modern notation. The concept is now largely discredited, however, in that it precludes editorial intepretation or even correction. Further to the same end of the spectrum is the so-called diplomatic transcription – a hand facsimile of the original notation still much used in German dissertations but properly replaced by the photographic facsimile. The critical edition, at the other end of the spectrum, is a presentation of the text after it has been subjected to critical scrutiny and a certain construction placed on it. The issues involved in editing from an earlier notation – ‘translating’ the music – are perceptively addressed by Bent (1994).
Many scholars at the beginning of the 20th century (e.g. Aubry and Beck) were trained as philologists before turning to musical scholarship. They brought a particular awareness of the problems of textual transmission, above all to the thorny field of medieval monophony. The series Paléographie Musicale (1889–) published by the monks of Solesmes exemplifies this dual approach to textual criticism which combines facsimiles of original sources with editions in more modern notation, later to be attempted systematically by Beck in his Corpus Cantilenarum Medii Aevi (1927–38) for all surviving troubadour and trouvère songs (never completed).
Textual criticism was itself a product of the search for authenticity which began in the 19th century and preoccupied 20th-century historical thought. In music this was manifested particularly in the production of critical editions of the works of leading composers. Following the foundation of the Bach Gesellschaft in 1850, European scholars started a series of Gesamtausgaben, definitive editions of the complete works of Beethoven, Mozart, Lassus, Palestrina, Schubert, Schumann, Schütz and Victoria, among others. Few of these sets reached the state of completeness envisaged by their editors, but they marked significant steps in the development of editorial techniques and in the bibliographical control of sources. Parallel to the Gesamtausgaben were the Denkmäler sets devoted to the publication of ‘monuments’ of national music. Among the earlier projects of this nature were Franz Commer’s Collectio Operum Musicorum Batavorum (1844–58), a pioneer edition of early Flemish music, and Robert Julien van Maldeghem’s Trésor musical (1865–93). These established a continuing pattern of critical editions of historically significant music originating in Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, England and other countries. However, new discoveries and changing ideas of source and textual criticism led to increasing discontent with the 19th-century collected editions, and new editions of the work of many composers were begun in the years after World War II (including Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Schütz and Josquin). The Mozart edition was completed in 1991: even before it was finished, some Mozart scholars were pointing to the need for yet another new edition. (See Editions, historical.)
An important adjunct to text-critical study is the compilation of inventories and cataloguing of primary source materials. The towering figure in this area was Robert Eitner (1832–1905) who published numerous music catalogues and inventories in Monatshefte für Musikgeschichte (1869–1904) and who brought the results of his vast knowledge of European archives into evidence in his ten-volume Biographischbibliographisches Quellen-Lexikon der Musiker und Musikgelehrten der christlichen Zeitrechnung bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (1900–04). The ideals that Eitner initiated in this great work have served musical scholarship for a century and are still alive in the form of an ‘International Inventory of Musical Sources’ (RISM) published under the auspices of the International Musicological Society and the International Association of Music Libraries. The catalogues of the works of individual composers – those by Köchel for Mozart, Schmieder for J.S. Bach, Baselt for Handel, Hoboken for Haydn, Zimmerman for Purcell, McCorkle for Brahms, Rufer for Schoenberg, for example – often give information on the textual transmission of each individual work, enabling the user to locate all primary material and know its status. The first part of Ludwig’s Repertorium (1910) was a model of another type of source catalogue: the catalogue raisonné of the materials of a repertory laid out according to stylistic dictates and explained as an evolutionary picture (see Thematic catalogue).
Musicology, §II: Disciplines of musicology
Archives are documents issued in the process of administration, whether it be of central government or a private business, a ducal household or a parish church (see also Archives and music). They are of interest to the historian for study of the institution to which the archives refer, or for study of people or objects or events associated with that institution. Their essential feature is that they are generated automatically in the process of administration, and this makes them in principle different from almost all other sources of history. Unlike a chronicle, a diary or a newspaper report, which are selective historical accounts, they record everyday detail as faithfully as the unusual. Often the recorder does not participate in the events recorded.
As the centralization of archives into principal depositories got underway during the early part of the 19th century and the science of archive keeping began to develop, historians, following Ranke, turned to them as objective truth. ‘Ultimate history’ (Acton, 1896) seemed only a generation or two away. National series of archive transcripts were begun: Monumenta Germaniae Historica (1826–), Collection de Documents Inédits sur l'Histoire de France (1850–), the British Rolls Series and Calendars (1856–) and others. Only slowly was it realized that the proper use of archives could be made only after painstaking study of how the documents were produced, and that even then, error and fabrication could be uncovered.
Early musicological studies included some transcripts, either of entire series of documents concerning musical administration (such as Edward Rimbault's The Old Cheque-book, or Book of Remembrance of the Chapel Royal, London, 1872) or of selected items pertaining to music from more general documents (such as those in Casimiri's periodical Note d'archivio, 1924–42, relating to the Cappella Sistina in Rome), but air travel and microfilm contributed to a postwar wave of comprehensive archival studies on composers and musical activities in city, court and church. More recent archival studies have drawn on the administrative records of music printers, publishers, orchestras, opera houses and of the media, and on a broader historiographical base.
Musicology, §II: Disciplines of musicology
The lexicography of music is a form of applied scholarship the object of which is to condense, organize (normally in alphabetical order) and clarify the terms musicians use to communicate their ideas about and their experience of their art; it is commonly extended to include biographical material on individual musicians. This interest has given rise to a long tradition of dictionary-making beginning with Brossard in 1701 and extending through Walther, Rousseau, Grassineau and Koch to such distinguished modern representatives of the genre as Willi Apel's Harvard Dictionary of Music (1944, 2/1969), the subject volume (‘Sachteil’) of the Riemann Musik Lexikon (12/1967) and the first edition of Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (1948–68). After a decade described by Michael A. Keller as ‘the era of reprinters’, lexicography received a fresh impetus with the publication of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians in 1980. The present revision appears at a time when other major projects, including the second edition of Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (1994–) and The Garland Encyclopedia of World Music (1998–), are already underway, yet which may prove, for economic and practical reasons, to be the high-water mark in the history of printed reference works in general. (See Dictionaries and encyclopedias of music for a historical review of the genre and a comprehensive list of works.)
The history, purpose and practice of dictionary-making have been much discussed. According to Harold E. Samuel, ‘the lexicographer is expected to synthesize existing knowledge, not to undertake new research’. Indeed, the practice of lexicography has often been denigrated as mere compilation or popularization; yet all scholars use dictionaries, whether they acknowledge them or not. Speaking in 1969, H.H. Eggebrecht remarked that the interest and historical value of a dictionary resides more in the integrity of its conception than in the individual articles. At a practical level, ‘the art of lexicography consists largely in finding optimal compromises’. The quality of the result depends on finding contributors with the rare combination of specialist knowledge, enthusiasm for the task and a gift for dictionary style, combined with agreement on the classification and limits of topics. Jan LaRue has commented further on the natural inclination of scholars towards expansion rather than conciseness and their difficulty in committing to paper anything short of a definitive version; he suggested sending drafts of articles prepared in-house or by graduate students to consultants who would react quickly and gleefully to every error of fact and interpretation.
Among the constant problems faced by lexicographers are issues of accuracy, content, balance and bias. The derivative nature of dictionaries leads to many pitfalls; Nicolas Slonimsky has chronicled the amusing fate occasionally befalling such eminent figures as Percy Scholes, Eric Blom and Slonimsky himself, along with ‘Grove-diggers’ in general. Viorel Cosma has made numerous suggestions for overcoming discrepancies caused by questions of translation and transliteration, including the use of multilingual headwords and standardized abbreviations, together with more precise documentation of sources. Some degree of national bias in lexicography remains almost inevitable and in some ways desirable, but the general trend has been towards greater inclusiveness and objectivity. As early as 1768 Rousseau went beyond a purely eurocentric view of music, and the terminological reference works of recent decades have offered enhanced coverage of non-Western and popular music. D.M. Randel drew attention to this tendency in his edition of The New Harvard Dictionary of Music (1986), although Apel's original had been regarded as a model in its day. Stanley Sadie has argued that any possible bias in favour of the music of English-speaking countries in The New Grove dictionaries is justified, indeed appropriate, on the practical grounds that those countries are where they would principally be used and about whose musical life fuller information would be sought. Defending the Riemann Musik Lexikon against the charge of European bias, Eggebrecht stated that the balance of art music to folk music reflected the quantity and quality of existing scholarship rather than any assumed value judgment as to their relative importance. Furthermore, non-Western music can be described only in its own terms and is not necessarily susceptible to analysis by the methods of Western musicology.
Dictionaries of music reflect the use of terms in all kinds of primary sources, musical, theoretical and documentary. At the same time, they themselves become historical phenomena furnishing primary evidence of the musical mentality of past eras. It is evident that terms often change their meanings over time, and may coalesce in groups or undergo mutations; logical classifications are constantly at risk of being upset by the march of history. The phenomenon of ‘term-families’ and their behaviour was of particular interest to Wilibald Gurlitt, who projected a Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie that would trace the lineage of the vocabulary of music in a manner similar to that used in the Oxford English Dictionary. Such a work would provide a historical analysis of musical terms according to their inherent relationships and family groupings. The first issue of a handbook under Gurlitt's title, edited by Eggebrecht, came out in 1972, and his scheme was still in the process of being realized in 2000. The loose-leaf format of this work allows constant revision and updating but condemns it to a state of perpetual incompleteness. A similar approach has been adopted in biographical dictionaries where currency is of prime importance, such as Hanns-Werner Heister's Komponisten der Gegenwart, begun in 1992.
The historical analysis of terms serves as a means to gaining an understanding of the development of concepts, but there is another aspect of the relationship between word and music that confronts the musicologist with a fundamental dilemma – the need to apply verbal symbols to an art that conveys its meanings through the medium of sound. One can talk or write about music, but the experience of music itself can be known only through its own ‘language’, the language of sound. The effort to resolve the disparity between verbal and tonal discourse was a lifelong preoccupation for Charles Seeger, who saw little chance of bringing these two realms of meaning into complete coincidence. Until recently it was the inevitable fate of the musicologist to suffer what Seeger called the ‘linguocentric predicament’, from which the advent of multimedia technology now offers, in theory at least, the possibility of an escape. The CD-ROM Microsoft Musical Instruments (1992), for example, presents an introduction to the subject using text, pictures, maps and recordings to place individual instruments in their cultural and aural context. Most such products, however, are educational rather than scholarly, and sometimes openly commercial, in their objectives.
The compilation and presentation of electronic dictionaries on the World Wide Web overcomes at a stroke the limitations of space but raises more acutely the issues of content and editorial control. In the field of music, many such ventures are compiled by amateurs whose technological expertise surpasses their musicological credentials, and the results consist mainly of links to existing documents or of randomly-contributed material whose accuracy and objectivity cannot be guaranteed. Enthusiasts have created numerous terminological lists for particular musical styles, as well discographies inviting users to submit their own opinions. Among the few scholarly dictionaries of music available on-line is The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, a revision of the four-volume edition published in 1992. As compared with the printed version, this offers enhanced search facilities, factual updating and links to related sites and images, yet it remains essentially text-based and has barely begun to exploit the theoretical potential of the electronic world which it inhabits. The harnessing of that potential, in musicology as in other disciplines, will be among the foremost challenges to lexicographers of the 21st century.
Musicology, §II: Disciplines of musicology
Organology, the study of musical instruments in terms of their history and social function, design, construction and relation to performance, has interested scholars since at least the 17th century. Michael Praetorius, in Syntagma musicum (ii, 1618–19), included an important section on instruments, including some non-Western types, with realistic illustrations drawn to scale. Other technical discussions appear in encyclopedic works of Mersenne (Harmonie universelle, 1636–7) and Kircher (Musurgia universalis, 1650). Modern organologists and reproducers of historical instruments (who might be called ‘applied organologists’) have benefited from the observations of such early scholars, particularly where well-preserved original instruments are rare or non-existent (see also Organology).
In addition to providing practical information useful to performers and instrument makers, organologists seek to elucidate the complex, ever-changing relationships among musical style, performing practices and evolution of instruments worldwide. This study involves authenticating and dating old instruments by scientific means, discerning the methods by which instruments of different cultures have been designed and produced, and investigating the many extra-musical influences – such as advances in technology and changing economic conditions – that lead to innovation and obsolescence. The symbolism and folklore of instruments are subjects that organology shares with music iconography and ethnomusicology.
Since the late 18th century, interest in instruments of all kinds has served an ethnomusicological purpose by providing a common avenue of approach to the music of diverse cultures. G.A. Villoteau (1759–1838) made the first scientific study of ancient Egyptian music largely on the basis of depictions of instruments in tombs and temples; later archaeological discoveries of actual if fragmentary Egyptian instruments allowed his conclusions to be refined and corrected. Organology as an academic discipline came into its own after the 19th-century development of large, permanent instrument collections in Europe and the USA. Once these repositories were established, organologists, who were often also museum curators, confronted the challenges of comprehensive classification and description. Curt Sachs's Real-Lexikon der Musikinstrumente (1913), a pioneering effort to systematize knowledge of instruments on a worldwide basis, and the widely-adopted classificatory scheme devised jointly by Sachs and Erich von Hornbostel, were based on Victor-Charles Mahillon's research on instruments collected at the Brussels Conservatory beginning in the 1870s. Nicholas Bessaraboff, who in 1941 introduced the term ‘organology’ in the sense used here, applied a classification derived from those of Francis W. Galpin (1910, 1937) to the collection at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
The study of instruments per se became an important resource for comparative musicology (e.g. Hornbostel's adducing of panpipe tunings as evidence of a cultural connection between Brazil and Polynesia); but ethnomusicologists have tended to subordinate a purely object-orientated approach to a broader consideration of instruments' musical and social contexts. Especially in traditional and non-literate cultures, the shapes, materials and decoration of instruments, no less than their sounds, convey meaning essential to their functions; seeking to understand these features, organologists might collaborate in field research with ethnologists and native informants. Efforts to interpret ancient and prehistoric sound-producing implements have thus far usually proven inconclusive or unconvincing, in part because of the difficulty of faithfully reconstructing scattered fragmentary remains. Since primitive noisemakers often served multiple purposes, the sonic function of an excavated artefact might even go unrecognized.
Recent studies of Western instruments have produced important though sometimes controversial results in such matters as pitch and tuning, historically appropriate string materials, and the origin and dissemination of various instrument types. Technological advances (e.g. in dendrochronology and computer-assisted tomography) have broadened the scope of organological investigation and helped raise standards of connoisseurship. During the last quarter of the 20th century, John Koster and G. Grant O'Brien contributed valuable new information concerning the construction and uses of early stringed keyboard instruments, and Peter Williams explicated the obscure history of organs. Karel Moens raised fundamental questions about the authentication of antique bowed string instruments, while Herbert Heyde, a specialist in the development of woodwind and brass instruments, demonstrated the relevance of geometric proportional schemes and local units of measure to instrument design. Such studies as these depend on close examination of extant instruments and primary documentary sources, including treatises, patent claims and musical compositions, as well as iconographic evidence.
One striking conclusion to emerge from analysis of a wide range of data is that, contrary to common belief, major advances in instrument design often precede rather than result from musical style shifts, as innovative instrument makers, responding to general market conditions, introduce novel types having expressive potentials that might take generations for musicians to explore. The history of the piano and of the saxophone exemplify instances where, so to speak, the medium anticipated the message. Observations such as this demonstrate the power of organology to shift perceptions of music history.
The first generations of musicological scholars in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were acutely aware that their discipline differed from neighbouring ones in so far as the objects of their study were invisible and bound to process in time, and hence more ephemeral than the painted or the written ones. The lack of tangible evidence inevitably led scholars to explore secondary sources such as pictures and texts about music. Thus Martin Gerbert appended to his De cantu et musica sacra (1774) a few plates (xxiii–xxxiv) with pictures of medieval musical instruments from illuminated manuscripts. In the main text he discussed their shape, purpose and terms and sketched a history of the use of musical instruments in the Church (iii, chap.3). A similar approach to visual material was taken 50 years later in a study of non-Western music. G.A. Villoteau, as a member of the Napoleonic expedition to the upper Nile valley, collected pictorial material on the music life in ancient Egypt and compared it with the ethnic evidence of his own day in Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean. The results were extensive articles with illustrations published as a part of the Description de l'Egypte (1809–22).
Throughout the 19th century the motive for iconographical studies continued to be the interest in the tangible objects of past cultures (Realienforschung). Musicologists found themselves in the good company of cultural historians of various kinds. Particularly important promoters of this area of research were the antiquarian societies such as the Société Française des Antiquaires in Paris, which inspired the iconographical work on medieval music by Fétis, Coussemaker and Bottée de Toulmon published in the decade 1839–49. Since that time an interest in musical iconography, in tandem with organology and performing practice, has been a hallmark of French scholarship. It bore fruit in the foundation of the Société pour la Musique d'Autrefois in the 1920s by Geneviève Thibault and in the doctoral dissertations of Evelyn Reuter (1938) and Claudie Marcel-Dubois (1941).
Given the close contacts between art history and musicology, which led, for instance, to the adoption in musicology of the art-historical terms Renaissance and Baroque from Jakob Burckhardt and Heinrich Wölfflin, one might have expected musical iconography to be a field of intense collaboration between art historians and musicologists. That, however, has rarely been the case. Emile Mâle, the most prominent art historian in France around the turn of the century, had little influence on French musical iconography despite his very influential work on themes in medieval art. Only after World War II did French scholarship enter a new era with the publications of Albert P. de Mirimonde.
For German, Spanish, Scandinavian and British musicological scholarship, too, the initial incentive for studying works of art was the interest in objects from past cultures, and so it remained until World War II. The first anthological collections of pictures with musical subject matter began to appear, culminating in Georg Kinsky's Geschichte der Musik in Bildern (1929, translated only a year later into English, French and Italian) and Heinrich Besseler's Musikgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (1931), a historical survey with a superb selection of illustrative material. After the war, Besseler and Max F. Schneider, and later Besseler's student Werner Bachmann, published the multi-volume serial Musikgeschichte in Bildern. Before it came to a halt with the closure of the East German publishing house in 1990, it had produced 18 volumes of European and eight of extra-European material.
As early as 1914 Hugo Leichtentritt, in his article ‘Was lehren uns die Bildwerke … ?’, voiced scepticism about the indiscriminate use of pictorial evidence for the reconstruction of instruments and performance. But it was another half-century before a methodological base was laid, by Steger (1961), Winternitz (1961), Hammerstein (1964), Seebass (1973) and Droysen (1976). Since then a number of British and American scholars, such as Mary Remnant, Ian Woodfield, Edward Ripin, Howard M. Brown, Keith Polk and Colin Slim, and in Italy Elena Ferrari Barassi, have provided models of cautious and successful scholarship; McKinnon also offered methodological reflections (1982). So, to the end of the 20th century, the number of scholars using musical iconography as an auxiliary discipline is considerable. Without their efforts and those of others, successful reconstructions of musical instruments and the revival of performing practices no longer in use would not have been possible. These areas of interest have made a spectacular move forward and enabled the Early Music movement to be a serious force in the global music business. The role accorded to musical iconography in the study of performing practice and musical instruments is also acknowledged by editors of such journals as the Galpin Society Journal, Early Music, Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society and Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis, who occasionally accept articles in this area.
Interest in the visual arts as a source sui generis for the study of intellectual and social concepts of music is of a more recent date. Like literary sources, pictures can provide information about the place that society accords to music, what it thinks about music and how it is moved by music. The beginnings go back to the studies of visual symbolism in the mid-19th century (see Piper, 1847–51/R; Pougnet, 1869–70), but serious scholarship began only through the activities of the Warburg circle. There, for the first time, interdisciplinary cooperation between art history and musicology (and also literature) was set in motion. Much of the movement lost its impetus through the dislocation of the leading figures during the Nazi period, but at least two articles (Schrade, 1929, and Gurlitt, 1938) established a methodological standard that could serve, after the war, as a basis for musical iconography and iconology (in the Panofskyan sense). By the end of the 1970s it had been definitely established with the publications of Hammerstein, Winternitz, Seebass and McKinnon. A different perspective that had its sources in Besseler's approach focussed on the sociological side. Bachmann and in particular Walter Salmen are its representatives, as to a degree is Richard Leppert, who combines it with gender critique.
Meanwhile the International Association of Music Libraries had put a bibliographical network in place and began to work on its series of Répertoires. In 1972, as a parallel music-iconographical undertaking, Geneviève Thibault-de Chambure, Barry S. Brook and Harald Heckmann founded the Répertoire international d'iconographie musicale (for reports of its activities see Fontes artis musicae). It spawned a number of cataloguing centres in various countries, the publication of a bibliography (Crane, 1971), catalogues, a newsletter and a yearbook, Imago musicae. Several centres have developed software for the computerized cataloguing of pictures with musical subject matter.
The last two decades of the century brought a steady increase of scholarship that can partly be connected to the increased number of academic positions (in Italy in the early 1980s, in Spain in the 1990s). The activity in Italy surpasses that in any other country (see Barassi, 1996, and Seebass, 1994) with theses, academic courses, conferences, publications and regional cataloguing centres. Besides the traditional avenues of scholarship, such neglected fields as scenography and the iconography of folk music have attracted development there.
Research in synaesthetic questions is of relatively recent origin. It began in 1949 with Thomas Munro, who was followed by T.H. Greer (1969) and Edward Lockspeiser (1973); since then it has increased at a rapid pace. Distinguished scholarship has been produced about individual figures such as Schoenberg, Klee and Cage, but otherwise few steps have been taken beyond the collection of materials in lavish exhibition catalogues and their enumeration in surveys. The pluralism of style in the visual arts, the breakdown of traditional genres and the subjectivism of verbalizations by artists and art critics (which has also affected musicologists) have so far prevented the formation of a reliable terminology for historical analysis. Much remains for future scholars.
Research in folk music and the music of the other continents has been a stepchild of musical iconography. The model study by Jaap Kunst and Roelof Goris on Hindu-Javanese instruments (8th–15th centuries), had found no worthy successors by the end of the century. The most productive groups include the scholars interested in India and those formerly active at the Research Centre at the Kunitachi College of Tokyo. In the long run the volumes of Musikgeschichte in Bildern covering non-European countries should have their impact. In 1986 the International Council for Traditional Music established a Study Group for Musical Iconography that led to an intensification of research, with some of the results published in Imago musicae. Pluralistic methods of analysis are increasingly relevant for iconographical research in non-Western historical materials because they seem particularly apt for handling the emic-etic tensions that arise in interpretation.
See also Iconography.
Musicology, §II: Disciplines of musicology
The study of the way music has been performed has been closely connected with the historical performance movement but is by no means identical with it (see Early music). Although ‘old’ music was performed in various circles in earlier times (Bach and Handel at Gottfried van Swieten's concerts in late 18th-century Vienna; Palestrina in the churches) performers used the then ‘modern’ style with which they were familiar. The discipline can thus hardly be said to have existed (save to an unimportant extent in a few 16th- and 17th-century treatises that deal with the music of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and in the interest of 18th-century writers such as Martini and Hawkins in the same music) until after the various revivals of earlier music began in the 19th century, for example, Mendelssohn's performances of music by J.S. Bach and the publication of historical editions of old music and editions of the works of Bach, Handel and others. Most performers in the 19th century and surprisingly many in the 20th assumed that older music must be improved by performing it, for instance, on modern instruments with their greater volume and brilliance, and even editors of medieval and Renaissance music have often followed the same idea in their own way, modernizing notation to resemble that to which their contemporaries were accustomed. Other musicians, however, began to think that unexpected meanings, and unexpected beauties, might be revealed if older works were performed in a manner close to that heard by the original audiences.
An important landmark in the history of performing practice was the publication in 1915 of Arnold Dolmetsch's book on the interpretation of music in the 17th and 18th centuries, and a number of other studies appeared about the same time or in the following few decades: Beyschlag on ornamentation (1908/R), F.T. Arnold on figured bass (1931/R) and Robert Haas on performing practice in general (1931/R). Much of this early work centred on the problems of performing music by J.S. Bach and his contemporaries, and was concerned with relearning obsolete instrumental techniques and conventions of performance: improvising embellishments, realizing keyboard parts from figured and unfigured basses, adding implied accidentals, inventing appropriate scoring where none is indicated and so on. The usual sources of information were treatises, dictionaries and other contemporaneous accounts, and the notated music itself.
After World War II such scholars as Robert Donington, Thurston Dart, Frederick Neumann, Sol Babitz, Michael Collins and Putnam Aldrich refined pre-war ideas about performing Baroque music and advanced new ones; their ideas have not always been accepted by the musical world or even the scholarly community. From the 1950s the discipline enjoyed a gradual expansion: performing practices of both earlier and later periods were investigated and more sophisticated approaches were developed. Paul and Eva Badura-Skoda's study of performing conventions in Mozart's keyboard music (1957) moved research on performing practice forward from the Baroque era. The revival of medieval and Renaissance music was an active collaboration of makers, players and scholars: musical sources are often demonstrably incomplete, instruments survive only as depicted in iconographical sources and must be reconstructed, writings on musica ficta are difficult to interpret, and so on. An important figure in establishing this new style of research was Howard Mayer Brown. The investigation of the performing practices of all periods has since benefited from this type of collaboration: treatises, archival notices, literary works and works of art have been used by those investigating later practices, as well as by medieval and Renaissance scholars. Other techniques have also been added: paper analysis, for example, has been used to aid in determining the state of a manuscript at the time of a particular performance, and rigorous techniques of measurement and physical analysis have aided in the recovery of earlier techniques of instrument making, which in turn has helped in determining how instruments worked and what they sounded like.
The concept of Authenticity in performance exercised scholars in the 1980s especially: a prominent, if controversial, thinker in this area was Richard Taruskin. Studies of recordings (available only from the late 19th century; a few musical clocks and barrel organs have provided interesting evidence of earlier performing styles) have revealed, among other things, how quickly ideas of musical performance change. Investigation in the late 20th century, while continuing to treat technical aspects, also came to encompass cultural context, the acoustics of performance spaces, aesthetics, relationships between composers, and relationships between modern and old perceptions of performance.
See also Performing practice.
Musicology, §II: Disciplines of musicology
Music aesthetics seeks to answer the questions: what is music? how does it carry meaning? what is its place in human life, culture and society? What is greatness in music? Answers have been provided by some of the world's greatest philosophers: Plato and Aristotle, St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Kepler, Leibniz, Descartes, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Marx. Scholars in acoustics and psychology, such as Stumpf, Helmholtz and Seashore, have made a large contribution. In the 20th century the most significant contributions have been offered by Adorno, Dahlhaus, Ingarden, Langer, Meyer, Scruton and Zuckerkandl.
Aesthetic questions are present in almost all types of musicological writing. They arise when music historians discuss the role of music in a social milieu or the impact of personal environment on individual musical development, or liken music to other arts, or define the terms of a specific style; they are raised by acousticians who seek their bases in physical properties; they are invoked by analysts as foundations for theories and methods of operating, and underlie their attitudes towards musical material, the process of hearing and the function of performance; they appear constantly in the writings of music critics wherever the criteria for judgment of craftsmanship, imagination in composition, and technical skill and interpretative insight in performance come into play; they penetrate the works of iconographers and experts in performing practice, just as they do the deliberations of performers, when leaping the gap – imaginative, despite its historical conditioning – between evidence and statement or performance. They are thus expressed in many different styles of writing: scientific, scholarly, literary, philosophical. They also occur outside the literature of musicology, in systematic philosophical writings from Pythagoras to Leonard Meyer, and in general histories of art and culture.
Specialist writing in musical aesthetics extends back to the Middle Ages, above all in the speculative tradition which was inherited from classical Greek philosophy, and which extended through the Renaissance to the early Baroque period. It was with the theory of emotive meaning in music, the so-called theory of the Affect, that aesthetics took on a sharply different character. Scheibe and Mattheson were the most important figures in the development of this theory. In the 19th century Hanslick’s theory of music as ‘tonally moving forms’ founded a line of aesthetic thought that rejected emotional and programmatic interpretations of music, a formalism that has been followed by Combarieu, Stravinsky, Langer and others. Kurth’s theory of music as a stream of tension, and as expression of the will (in the Schopenhauerian sense) belongs to the same line of thought. Kretzschmar, on the other hand, took the view that music had meaning and emotional state, and that these could be directly deduced. There is an influential body of Marxist aesthetic or critical theory in music, particularly in the work of Adorno, Bloch, Lissa and Supičić. Many composers have contributed to the theory of aesthetics, among them Wagner, Busoni, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Hindemith, Sessions, Cage, Cowell, Schaeffer and Stockhausen.
In the last decades of the 20th century, the aesthetics of music has broadened in scope. Its arena of concerns has moved beyond the domain of classical or high music to incorporate more popular forms, diverse in social, ritualistic and cultural ramifications. Ethnomusicological research has contributed to this general broadening of scope. Feminist, semiological and more overtly political theorizing has entered into the field alongside the continuation of a formalism that dominated music theory and philosophy for a large part of the 20th century. The philosophy of music presupposed by all the areas of music has become more critical and self-aware as the tendency towards theory has predominated.
See also Criticism and Philosophy of music.
Musicology, §II: Disciplines of musicology
That music is a social activity and not just a collection of musical artefacts in organized sound was realized by the earliest writers in the Western intellectual canon. Both Plato and Aristotle stressed the importance of music as an activity in society and sought to establish criteria for its evaluation as a social phenomenon. In the subsequent development of musical thought a different tradition, emanating from Aristotle's pupil Aristoxenus and centred on the investigation of music as a pure sounding phenomenon, gained a supremacy which remained largely unchallenged until as late as the 18th century, when Charles Burney, avoiding the Aristoxenian tradition, discussed music as a phenomenon influenced by manners and social circumstances.
In the climate of an increased importance of social sciences, several 19th-century music historians, while still adhering to the idealist philosophical tradition (Winterfeld, Spitta, Jahn) sought to incorporate ideas about the social position of music and musicians into their biographical studies. However, though interested in music as a social phenomenon, Guido Adler thought of the study of musical institutions as only an ancillary musicological discipline. At the end of the 19th century and during the early 20th, advances in general sociology enabled, among others, Lalo, Combarieu, Bücher and Max Weber to formulate theories about the interdependence of musical and social phenomena.
All the major ideological currents of the 20th century left their mark on the study of music as a social phenomenon. The positivist tradition reflected itself in the fact that, on the simplest level, social phenomena relating to music were being explored quantitatively, employing statistics to determine popularity of works and authors, modes of transmission and audience response. Some adherents of the German philosophical tradition sought to establish social history of music as a critique of processes in a capitalist society, uncovering tensions arising from the confrontation of individual creativity and social dictates (e.g. T.W. Adorno). Leninist Marxists dominated the thought in the Communist bloc in the middle of the century with a rigid distinction between the ‘base’ (society, economy) and the ‘superstructure’ (cultural and artistic phenomena) – thus discrediting those aspects of Marxism that were otherwise capable of providing the social history of music with criteria by which to judge the subtle distinctions that arise between musical pursuits – either of producers or of consumer of art – and the forces of tradition and social responsibility which, consciously or subconsciously, shape attitudes and help create forms of musical life.
About the middle of the 20th century, a dilemma began to be felt about whether sociology of music and the social history of music (or, to broaden the term somewhat, sociomusicology) are a single discipline or two separate disciplines. A contention exists according to which the sociology of music is simply a narrowing of general sociological principles applied to music as an object of inquiry (approaching it ‘from the outside’), whereas sociomusicology examines social roles of music, musicians and musical institutions ‘from within’. This is in practice difficult to establish, and the rich development in the last quarter of the 20th century of the study of ‘classical’ music as a form of cultural practice, as well as the claim of ethnomusicology that not just Western art music but all musics are essentially social phenomena, to be judged by the same criteria, confirm the lack of a clear distinction.
See also Sociology of music.
Musicology, §II: Disciplines of musicology
The areas of musicology that have witnessed the strongest links with psychological studies of hearing are theory and analysis. Theories of musical organization and investigations of the human response to music have been associated since the time of classical Greek writings on music (see Barker, 1989), and music was the focus for one of the earliest contributions to modern psychology – Helmholtz's treatise of 1863, Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen als physiologische Grundlage für die Theorie der Musik, which already took account of differences between a perceptual and a musicological outlook. While asserting the importance of a scientific approach to the issue of consonance and dissonance, Helmholtz nonetheless noted that the distinction ‘does not depend … on the nature of the intervals themselves but on the construction of the whole tonal system’ (Eng. trans., p.228).
In the development of new music theory and analytical method after World War II, psychological principles played an important role. Meyer (1956R), for example, made use of Gestalt principles of perceptual organization to account for the ways in which listeners' musical expectations might be generated and manipulated, and thus for a theory of musical affect and an analytic method which gave an account of melodic and rhythmic processes based on the same principles. He later (1967) took the idea of expectation and developed it into a theory of implication couched within the framework of information theory. Meyer was not alone in associating music with information theory, but while the more formal attempts to understand musical processes and listeners' responses to them in these terms fell by the wayside as information theory failed to live up to its rather heady promises, Meyer's project, in which Gestalt and information-processing ideas were woven into music theory, continued to move forward both in another book of his own (1973) and in the work of Narmour (1977). Narmour's two subsequent volumes (1990, 1992) represent a culmination of this particular line of thought, presenting a painstaking investigation and classification of melodic processes still based very largely on Gestalt principles, but couched within the dominant paradigm of cognitive psychology.
An indication of the impetus to find common ground between psychological research and musicology was the founding in 1981 of the journal Psychomusicology (a term coined by Laske in a paper of 1977), whose position statement expressed the desire to bring together the perspectives of psychology and musicology in a consideration of music. A significant book in this domain is Lerdahl and Jackendoff's theory of tonal music (1983), which takes both the basic principles of generative theory from linguistics and perceptual principles from psychology to create a theory which states in its first sentence that the authors ‘take the goal of a theory of music to be a formal description of the musical intuitions of a listener who is experienced in a musical idiom’ (p.1). The interpenetration of listening and musicology can seldom have been more directly expressed. The form of the theory is a set of rules that generate hierarchical structural descriptions of musical surfaces, allowing for inevitable differences of interpretation and inherent structural ambiguities through the device of ‘preference rules’, which adjudicate between different interpretative possibilities in an interactive manner. Many of these preference rules are based on Gestalt principles, and the authors regard the theory as a contribution both to cognitive science and to music theory. The theory has been extended to tackle atonal music (Lerdahl, 1989), and has formed the basis of a cognitively based critique of compositional systems (Lerdahl, 1988).
From the perspective of the psychology of listening, musicology has made its mark in the recognition that empirical and modelling work should take account of the theoretical framework provided by musicology. An early example is Francès's wide-ranging treatment (1958), which considers a variety of issues, such as musical semantics and rhetoric, which have only recently made their way back into the perceptual literature. Krumhansl's research (1990) on the perception of tonal structure is another example, as is Parncutt, who has developed (1989) an explanation of harmonic function and harmonic process based on a psychoacoustic principle first investigated by Terhardt (1974). Similarly, the perception of tonality has been tackled using empirical studies based on set-theoretic principles which themselves occupy the boundary between what would be called systematic musicology in some traditions, and formal modelling or cognitive science in others (Butler, 1988–9). Other meeting-points of this kind can be found in the edited collections by Howell, Cross and West (1985, 1991) and in Bigand (1993), who considers a variety of ways in which research in music perception has contributed to an understanding of auditory cognition more generally.
A number of commentators have cautioned against a simplistic collapsing of musicological and psychological perspectives: musicology and psychology have rather different aims, and unsystematic leakage between the two can lead to shortcomings on either side being disguised and concealed (Clarke, 1989). Similarly, analysis offers a mythopoeic rather than scientific view of musical structure, and attempts to test analytical descriptions with empirical tasks are epistemologically confused (Cook, 1990); further, empirical work in the psychology of music has often been concerned with a kind of listening that is quite unrepresentative of spontaneous behaviour and is heavily influenced by the categories and concepts of musicology (Cook, 1994). Thus the attempt to compare musicological predictions or pronouncements with empirical results becomes a circular exercise with little relevance to the listening experiences of most people most of the time. While offering an optimistic view of the potential for interactions between music theory and cognitive science, Agmon (1989–90) points to misunderstandings that have resulted from confusing or collapsing different domains (physical, perceptual, cognitive) and different types of theory (‘competence’ and ‘performance’ theories).
Lastly, there have been attempts to make use of perceptual principles in constructing a theory of structure and meaning in electro-acoustic music – a development that is understandable given the inappropriateness of notation-based methods for this music. The relationship between different modes of listening has been explored (Smalley, 1992, based on those described by Schaeffer, 1966) and the dual capacity of sounds both to specify their sources and also to become bound up in the more abstract structural relationships that have been the primary focus of most theory and analysis. Windsor (1994) makes the link with perceptual theory more explicit, and opens the way for a more thoroughly perceptual theory of electro-acoustic music. A significant and closely related body of work is that of Bregman (1990), whose approach to audition has been influential in perceptually motivated accounts of polyphonic structure, melodic and harmonic organization, and the whole matter of how listeners identify an ‘auditory scene’ in the complex context of the acoustical environment. If the relationship between perceptual studies and musicology has been uneasy and uncomfortable at times, and has seen its fair share of epistemological ‘ships in the night’, there is now at least a greater awareness within musicology of the contribution that psychology might make, and equally a more musicologically informed approach within the psychology of music.
See also Hearing and psychoacoustics; Information theory and Psychology of music.
Musicology, §II: Disciplines of musicology
Until very recently musicologists rarely addressed issues related to gender or sexuality. The vast majority of the musicians examined by the field were male and assumed to be heterosexual. Because ‘male’ and ‘heterosexual’ count as unmarked categories (as opposed to ‘female’ and ‘homosexual’) within traditional epistemologies, they did not seem to require comment. Only with the rise of women's, feminist and gay and lesbian studies in the other humanities and social sciences have gender and sexuality become significant areas of research within musicology.
The first venture within the discipline to focus on gender was the attempt begun in the 1970s to recover the history of women in music. Before that time very little was known – or at least remembered – about women in music history: their name rarely appeared in textbooks or journals, except for the occasional woman (e.g. Clara Wieck Schumann and Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel) noteworthy because she was related to a famous male composer. Since then, however, there has been an explosion of information concerning women composers, performers and patrons. The women who have received extensive attention in scholarship, recording and performances include Schumann and Hensel but also Hildegard of Bingen, Barbara Strozzi, Elisabeth-Claude Jacquet de La Guerre, Amy Cheney Beach, Cécile Chaminade, Ethel Smyth, Florence Price and Ruth Crawford Seeger. Contemporary women composers have benefited from this increasing interest, and they too have received an unprecedented degree of attention from music historians, critics and performing organizations.
The first contributions in feminist musicology dealt with individual women or with specific historical contexts, but a number of pioneering books from the 1980s began piecing together more continuous accounts of women in music. Unlike the more traditional surveys that trace a succession of ‘masters’, these accounts tend to pay attention to many kinds of music-related activities besides formal composition, and they also observe far more closely the social conditions within which musicians have operated (see Bowers and Tick, 1986; Briscoe, 1987; Marshall, 1993; Neuls-Bates, 1982; Pendle, 1991; and Sadie and Samuel, GroveW).
As in other disciplines, the more musicologists have learnt about the women previously overlooked by the canon of accepted masterworks, the more they have realized the need to reassess the historical processes that had resulted in its formation – in whose interests canons operate, what gets included, what excluded, and by means of what criteria (see Citron, 1993; Bergeron and Bohlman, 1992). Similar projects have focussed on the histories of women in jazz and popular music and have altered received notions of those traditions as well (see Carby, 1990; Dahl, 1984; Davis, 1998; Gaar, 1992; Gourse, 1995; Harrison, 1988; Placksin, 1982; and Rose, 1994).
Just as many music historians have turned their attention to women musicians from earlier times, so ethnographers have come to incorporate questions concerning gender ideologies into studies of music culture, both Western and non-Western (see Herndon and Ziegler, 1991; Koskoff, 1987; and Sugarman, 1997). As ethnomusicologists have studied gender-based divisions of labour across cultures, they have helped to diminish the longstanding gap between the Western art tradition and cultures of ‘others’. For comparing structures and justifications for gendered hierarchies in different cultures sheds light not only on people in remote parts of the globe, but also on European and North American cultural practices and traditions, which have long claimed exemption from ethnographic analysis (see Bohlman, 1993, and Robertson, 1989).
Bringing women into music studies counts among the most remarkable contributions to musicology of the last 30 years of the 20th century. The number of institutions offering courses on women and music has increased dramatically, and most undergraduate music history surveys now include at least some music by women.
See also Women in music.
As soon as women became a focus for music research, the reinterpretation of male musicians as ‘gendered’ inevitably followed. Many dimensions of music study that had seemed objective began to appear in new lights, motivating innovative scholarship in several different directions.
The first cluster of publication on women in music concentrated on sources and biographical information. As musicologists turned to the music itself, however, they began reassessing the standards and analytical devices then brought to all music, without regard to intended content. This reassessment helped precipitate a move in the discipline towards criticism or interpretation. Two isolated yet influential studies of feminist-based music criticism, Rieger and Clément, appeared in the 1980s. Before their publication, musicologists had not even addressed representations of gender in the actual plots of operas, let alone the possibility of gender-encoding in non-theatrical music. Accordingly, feminist music criticism began with these pioneering volumes, which introduced into musicology the kinds of critique that had long since become familiar – almost de rigueur – in literary, art and film studies concerning cultural representations of women and men, masculinity and femininity.
The 1990s witnessed the development of several kinds of criticism focussed on gender. Some writers (e.g. Kramer and McClary) have brought a critical perspective to the study of music, often dealing in detail not only with plots or lyrics but also with the music itself. Nor do these studies usually concentrate on representations of gender alone, but they also treat class, race and exoticism, domains often mapped on to gender in operas. They also address how the music itself – its codes and more basic structural procedures – participates in the production of these representations and also predisposes listeners to certain points of view (Bellman, 1998; Lewin, 1992; and Locke, 1991).
This research has radically destabilized some of the assumptions that had sustained musicological narratives of music history. For instance, Kallberg (1992) has researched attitudes towards the genre of the nocturne and has found how ‘the feminine’ was projected on to that repertory, the composers who wrote such pieces and even the piano itself; Cusick (1993) has examined the gendered polemics of the Monteverdi–Artusi controversy; Austern (1989) and Leppert (1989) have investigated how gender has influenced musical production and performance at various moments in Western music history; McClary (1992) has been concerned with discerning how historically constituted ideas of gender, sexuality and the body have informed even the most basic of musical procedures from the 16th century to the present.
Many scholars involved in gender studies maintain strong allegiances with the music of the canon (see Abbate, 1991, 1993) and justify those allegiances by means of a variety of feminist theoretical strategies. The collections of feminist musicology of the 1990s (Blackmer and Smith, 1995; Cook and Tsou, 1993; Dunn and Jones, 1994; and Solie, 1993) offer a broad spectrum of political positions: there is no monolithic position within this area of musicology.
With the rise of gender-based criticism, other areas of music research have likewise opened up to questions of gender. Music education, for instance, long populated mostly by women under male supervision, has begun to rethink philosophical premises and revise curricular planning (see Lamb, 1987; and Green, 1997). Perhaps most surprising, given the separate nature of their discipline, a number of music theorists too have started developing ways of dealing with gender (see Guck, 1994; Hisama, 1995; Kielian-Gilbert, 1994; Lewin, 1992; Maus, 1993; Straus, 1995).
See also Feminism and Gender (i).
In most humanities disciplines, the feminist research of the 1970s had already established itself before sexuality became a matter of widespread scholarly interest. But the Gay Liberation Movement that emerged after the Stonewall riots in 1968 and Foucault's theoretical rethinking of this and other aspects of subjectivity made serious research on the history of sexuality possible for the first time in history. As a consequence, the 1980s saw the growth of scholarship focussed variously on social identities based on sexual preferences, structure of desire or erotic pleasure, histories of the body and subcultures organized around same-sex erotic inclinations.
Feminism appeared late in musicology, however, and research and theoretical work on gay and lesbian issues emerged concurrently with the growth of feminist music criticism. The individual most responsible for securing a space for such work within musicology is Philip Brett, whose work on Britten relates the relevance of the composer's homosexuality to his music. Wood and Cusick have been at the centre of lesbian work in musicology, because of both their work on women composers and their theoretical essays linking sexuality and the perception of music. The principal publication to date concerning sexuality and music is the collection edited by Brett, Wood and Gary Thomas, Queering the Pitch: the New Gay and Lesbian Musicology (1994). Some of the projects concerned with sexuality deal with specific artists (Thomas on Handel, 1994; Solomon, 1988–9, and McClary, 1993, on Schubert; see also Gill, 1995); others deal with lesbian and gay reception, especially of opera (see Blackmer and Smith, 1995; Koestenbaum, 1993; and Morris, in Solie, ed., 1993).
When research on gender and sexuality first began to appear, some musicologists objected that it would bring prurient concerns into the discipline. Far from diminishing or tainting the repertories it studies, this research has opened all music to important questions about cultural understandings of the body, gender and erotic experience as crucial aspects of subjectivity.
See also Gay and lesbian music and Sex, sexuality.
Just as there are recognizable national styles in musical composition, so too are there patterns in scholarship that owe their character to the presence of national traditions, ideas and institutions peculiar to a given country or language group. The objectives of scholarship are international, but it is instructive to follow the various native strands and note how they fuse into the total pattern. The present discussion nevertheless can only make passing reference to the principal events and individuals within the major countries.
3. Great Britain and Commonwealth.
5. Other west European countries.
11. Australia and New Zealand.
Musicology, §III: National traditions of musicology
If modern musicology is a product of the Enlightenment, then France is the logical place to begin a discussion of national schools. French learning was emulated throughout Europe as the source and centre of rationalism. The rationalistic spirit revealed itself first of all in the work of the lexicographers, in the dictionaries of Sébastien de Brossard and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, culminating in the great Encyclopédie of Diderot and D’Alembert, and beyond that in the musical volumes of the Encyclopédie méthodique (1791–1818) edited by Framery, Ginguené and Momigny. French learning was also disseminated in the writings of a group of aestheticians (notably the Abbé Dubos and Batteux) all preoccupied in some degree with the classic concept of art as ‘imitation of nature’. Much of their argument was channelled into the prevailing controversy over the merits of French as against Italian opera. Chabanon, whose thinking took account of instrumental music, was the first to make a clean break with this aesthetic.
France had less to offer in writings on music history. After the efforts of Pierre Bonnet-Bourdelot early in the century there was only one work of any significance – J.-B. de La Borde’s four-volume Essai sur la musique ancienne et moderne (1780), a provocative but uneven work important chiefly for the attention it draws to the early French chanson. In 1756 a Benedictine monk, Philippe-Joseph Caffiaux, had produced a systematic history of music from pre-history to contemporary times in seven volumes, but it was never published (MS in F-Pn). Finally, the theoretical works of Rameau were fundamental to French musical learning in the 18th century; they provided a focal point for the discussion of a host of crucial problems confronting composers and scholars alike.
After the disruptive events of the French Revolution a new generation of music scholars came to the fore. Prominent among them was Alexandre Choron (1771–1834), a man of broad knowledge and high didactic aims who was director of the Opéra in 1816 and for a brief period was involved in efforts to establish the Paris Conservatoire as the ‘Ecole Royale de Chant et de Déclamation’. His lifelong objective was to revitalize the training of musicians in France and to raise the level of musical understanding of the public in general. He was well versed in the German and classical writings on music, but Italy remained for him the prime source of musical excellence, as demonstrated in his best-known work, Principes de composition des écoles d’Italie (1808, in three volumes; 2/1816, in six). As a teacher, writer and administrator, Choron exerted a profound influence on his contemporaries.
A more direct precursor of modern historical methods was François-Louis Perne (1772–1832), whose research centred on the music of the Middle Ages and antiquity. He was among the first to transcribe the music of Machaut and the Chastelain de Couci, and he made a rather misguided effort to restore the musical notation of ancient Greece to modern practice. A model of erudition of another kind was presented by Guillaume André Villoteau (1759–1839), who was chosen to accompany Bonaparte’s army to Egypt as a member of a scientific commission to study the culture of that country. His monographs treating of Egyptian music, musical instruments and iconography are pioneer works of ethnomusicology.
The central position in French musicology in the first half of the 19th century was occupied by François-Joseph Fétis (1784–1871), whose range of musical activity was extraordinarily comprehensive, embracing history, theory, music education, composition and the sociology of music. Prodigious in energy and prolific in output, Fétis dominated the music scholarship of his generation; he is best known today for his Biographie universelle des musiciens, published in eight volumes between 1833 and 1844. The journal Revue musicale, which he founded in 1827, served as a medium for the expression of his views as a critic and historian until it merged with Schlesinger’s Gazette musicale in 1835. In 1833 Fétis left Paris to become director of the Brussels Conservatory. His series of historical concerts with commentary, given in Paris from 1832 and in Brussels from 1839, awakened public interest in the music of the past. With Raphael Kiesewetter he was one of the first to stress the importance of the Netherlands school in the history of early European music. In a competition set by the Dutch government for the best essay on the subject ‘The Contribution of the Netherlanders to the History of Music in the 14th, 15th and 16th Centuries’, Fétis’s text was rated a close second and was published along with Kiesewetter’s prizewinning work.
In the shadow of Fétis’s vigorous personality, a distinguished group of French music scholars was active in the first half of the 19th century, including Adrien de La Fage (1805–62), a pupil of Choron and friend of Baini (Palestrina’s biographer) in Rome. La Fage’s interests ranged from plainchant and the music of the Near East to music bibliography and source studies in general. He collaborated with Choron on the latter’s Nouveau manuel complet de musique vocale et instrumentale (1838–9) and wrote his own Histoire générale de la musique et de la danse (1844) emphasizing ancient and oriental practices. His best-known book was published posthumously under the title Essais de dipthérographie musicale (1864), a collection of notes and commentary related to early printed and manuscript sources, many of them deriving from Baini’s library. Several of these French scholars were archivists or librarians associated with one or more of the Parisian collections undergoing rapid expansion at that time. One such was Auguste Bottée de Toulmon (1797–1850), a lawyer by training who served as librarian of the Conservatoire from 1831 to 1848; he produced a number of important monographs, on the medieval chanson, medieval musical instruments, and the life of Guido of Arezzo.
An interest shared by many of these early 19th-century French musicologists was the improvement of church music performance through the reconstruction of organs and restoration of the authentic corpus of the chant. A leader in this movement was Joseph Louis d’Ortigue (1802–66), best known for his Dictionnaire liturgique, historique et théorique de plain-chant et de musique d’église (1854, in collaboration with Théodore Nisard). Others concerned with chant reform include La Fage, Jean-Louis-Félix Danjou (1812–66), who with Stéphan Morelot (1820–99) edited the Revue de la musique religieuse, populaire, et classique from 1845 to 1849, Alexandre Vincent (1797–1868) and Félix Clément (1822–88). In its critical approach to chant sources the work of these men foreshadowed that of the monks of Solesmes later in the century. Another important figure, Aristide Farrenc, compiled jointly with his wife, the pianist and composer Jeanne-Louise Farrenc, a 23-volume set of early keyboard music, Le Trésor des Pianistes (1861–72). A selection of early vocal music was edited by the Prince de la Moskowa (son of Marshal Ney) in his 11-volume Recueil des morceaux de musique ancienne (1843). Charles Bordes (1863–1909) was responsible for an Anthologie des maîtres religieux du XVe au XVIIe siècle and Henry Expert (1863–1952) produced several well-edited sets of Renaissance French music. Of great significance still is the work of Edmond de Coussemaker (1805–76), a Franco-Belgian lawyer who came to medieval studies through reading Fétis’s Revue musicale. Best known among his editions is Scriptorum de musica medii aevi nova series (1864–76), an anthology of medieval writings on music modelled on a similar collection produced by Martin Gerbert nearly 100 years earlier, the Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacra (1784).
All of these scholars, with the exception of Fétis, were amateurs in the best sense; they were largely self-taught in music, and pursued careers as doctors, lawyers and public officials. The French were slow in giving institutional support to research in music: it was not until 1872 that chairs in music history were established at the Conservatoire and at the University of Strasbourg (then part of Germany). By the second half of the 19th century, however, French musicology began to take on a professional character: a new generation of scholars had emerged, some, notably the medievalist Pierre Aubry (1874–1910) and Jules Ecorcheville (1872–1915), harshly critical of Fétis’s dogmatism and frequent inaccuracies. A major effort to establish France as the centre of musical learning was made by Albert Lavignac (1846–1916) and Lionel de La Laurencie (1861–1933) who joined forces to edit the great Encyclopédie de la musique et dictionnaire du Conservatoire (1913–31). La Laurencie himself produced the definitive study L’école française de violon de Lully à Viotti (1922–4). Romain Rolland (1866–1944) was one of the many contributors to the Encyclopédie. Marie Bobillier (1858–1918), who published under the name Michel Brenet, was a prolific writer on early French music. Henry Prunières (1886–1942) founded a new Revue musicale in 1920.
It was Rolland who occupied the first chair in music history at the Sorbonne (University of Paris), beginning in 1903. He was succeeded in 1912 by André Pirro, one of the giants of modern French musicology. In addition to his basic research in the music of the late Baroque (J.S. Bach, Schütz and Buxtehude) and the 15th century, Pirro claimed a long line of distinguished pupils including Yvonne Rokseth, Jeanne Marix, Geneviève Thibault, Jacques Chailley, Armand Machabey, Elisabeth Lebeau, Nanie Bridgman, Vladimir Fédorov, Paul Henry Lang and Dragan Plamenac. Pirro retired in 1937, and his successor, Paul-Marie Masson, was not appointed until 1943. Masson was succeeded by Chailley in 1952. In 1961 a third chair of musicology was created at the University of Poitiers, and Solange Corbin was appointed to it.
Outside the universities the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Sociales, where Pierry Aubry and Henry Expert taught, offered courses in musicology intermittently from 1902. In 1929 André Schaeffner founded the Department of Organology at the Musée de l’Homme in Paris (it was renamed the Department of Ethnomusicology in 1954); this was the point of departure for ethnomusicological research in France. During the 1950s musicologists also gained access to the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CRNS), which organized conferences devoted principally to the Renaissance (focussing on instrumental music, particularly for the lute, and the relationship between poetry and music) and to the interaction of music and drama. Jean Jacquot, the organizer of these ‘colloques’, also edited a vast series of transcriptions of lute music, the Corpus des luthistes. From 1961 to 1973 Geneviève Thibault (Countess of Chambure) was director of the Musée Instrumental du Conservatoire de Paris, the precursor of the Musée de la Musique in the Cité de la Musique. Thibault, who amassed a large collection of instruments and scores, trained many researchers in the fields of organology and musical iconography. Among the other senior scholars of this period was Marc Pincherle, a specialist in the history of the violin in the Baroque and Classical periods.
The most important institution for musicological research in France was founded during the German occupation (although the idea had been put forward during the Popular Front period). The music department of the Bibliothèque Nationale, created in 1942, united under one administration the three major French music libraries: the music division of the Bibliothèque Nationale (now the Bibliothèque Nationale de France), the Bibliothèque du Conservatoire and the Bibliothèque de l’Opéra. From the 1950s this department became the centre of musicology in France; among the distinguished scholars who have been associated with it are Nanie Bridgman, Vladimir Fédorov and François Lesure, the last serving as head of the department from 1970 to 1988, when he was succeeded by Catherine Massip. Since 1965 the department has been the headquarters of the Société Française de Musicologie (see below). It housed the central secretariat of RISM from 1953 to 1967, and at present accommodates the French teams of RISM and RILM.
As a result of major reforms introduced in 1969, music finally became fully accepted into French universities (see Universities, §III, 1). Eight universities, as well as the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes and the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, are authorized to award doctoral degrees in music and/or musicology. In 1999 some 30 musicologists also worked at the CNRS, most of them belonging to one of five teams: the Institut de Recherche sur le Patrimoine Musical en France, Etudes d’Ethnomusicologie, Atelier d’Etudes sur la Musique Française des XVIIe et XVIIIe Siècles (the research team of the Centre de Musique Baroque de Versailles), Ricercar (a team working within the Centre d’Etudes Supérieures de la Renaissance at the University of Tours) and the Centre d’Information et de Documentation-Recherche Musicale (associated with IRCAM, the Institut de Recherche et Coordination Acoustique/Musique).
The Société Française de Musicologie (SFM) continues to play a crucial part in the musicological life of France. In 1917, when the Société Internationale de Musique closed abruptly as a result of World War I, the SFM was founded by a small group of French musicologists headed by La Laurencie. It publishes a journal (generally twice a year), entitled since 1922 Revue de musicologie, as well as scholarly studies and critical editions; the latter activity virtually ceased in the 1970s but has been revived since the early 90s. The society’s traditional ‘communications’ or discussion meetings have been replaced since the 1970s by conferences held every two or three years, sometimes organized by the SFM alone, and sometimes in association with foreign societies. Originally a small academic society run by a few outstanding personalities who often had no connection with the life of French institutions, the SFM has slowly been transformed into an association uniting all French musicological research. In 1999 it had about 500 members.
Although France still lags behind Germany, the USA and other countries in musicology, some 40 musicological theses are now submitted annually and the number of important publications has greatly increased, including translations of foreign works (France used to be extremely backward in this respect). Essential research tools have been provided (notably the systematic inventory within the framework of RISM of the musical material of the French provinces) and French musicologists have contributed to the great international reference works (MGG1 and 2, The New Grove).
Musicology, §III: National traditions of musicology
Before World War I the state of musicology in Italy presented a contrast between the extraordinary richness of the country's archives and the failure of its scholars to make the best use of them. The reasons for this may be sought in the failure of universities to offer courses or degrees in historical music studies, in the lack of funds available for research, in the haphazard organization of certain libraries (a situation not entirely remedied today), and perhaps also in the sheer quantity of material available. One result of all this was that scholars worked, often in isolation, on whatever came nearest to hand, and it was only after the 1960s that a broader sphere of interest and a more sophisticated methodology raised the status and productivity of Italian musicology to international levels.
At the same time Italy's early contributions should not be overlooked. In the area of music theory Burney met numerous learned musicians, collectors, theorists and historians during his Italian tour (1770), and even before this Antonio Calegari, his pupil F.A. Vallotti, and Tartini at Padua were looking for a theoretical basis for music founded on mathematical principles. Vallotti's ideas were systematically expounded in treatises by L.A. Sabbatini published in Venice about the end of the century. Sabbatini had been a pupil at Bologna of Padre Martini, a central figure in the Italian musical Enlightenment, whose reputation as a historian and theorist was unsurpassed. His three-volume Storia della musica (1757–81), though incomplete, badly proportioned and marred by archaic methodology, was of wide influence; and his two-volume Saggio fondamentale pratico di contrappunto (1774–5) was an admired textbook on the contrapuntal practice of the old and new styles.
Martini's interest in the past as a lesson for the present was noteworthy, and his voluminous correspondence and library (now in I-Bc) represent in the first place a source of information about musical activity in the broadest sense. His methods were modelled on those of Muratori, the founder of modern Italian historiography, in nearby Modena.
In the area of music biography, G.O. Pitoni (1657–1743) compiled his Notizie dei maestri di cappella, containing copious information on some 1500 musicians active in Rome and elsewhere between 1000 and about 1700. Although it was never published, Giuseppe Baini drew on it for his study of Palestrina (1828) and for his projected Storia della cappella pontificia. The former is a starting-point for the 19th-century cult of Palestrina and the a cappella style, and it was soon followed by a seven-volume edition of Palestrina's works edited by Pietro Alfieri.
Extremely valuable (if not invariably accurate) documentary work on ‘local’ music history was carried out by scholars such as Francesco Caffi on the music at S Marco, Venice, Gaetano Gaspari on that of S Petronio, Bologna, and Francesco Florimo, whose account of the Neapolitan conservatories appeared in four volumes (1880–83). This 19th-century interest in local music history, often motivated by a scholar's pride in the place where he was born or brought up, continued in the 20th century (usually on a more scientific basis), for example by Francesco Vatielli at Bologna, Raffaele Casimiri at Rome and Ulisse Prota-Giurleo at Naples.
The more comprehensive outlook of 19th-century scholars led also to the formation of collections and publications of music: for example, Fortunato Santini (1778–1861) assembled at Rome a remarkable library of some 4500 manuscripts, 1100 prints and transcriptions, which ultimately found its way to Münster (now in D-MÜs). The interests of Abramo Basevi (1818–85) extended to contemporary German music as well as older Italian music, as did those of Alberto Mazzucato at the Milan Conservatory. Mazzucato's ideas on music history were systematically presented in the writings of his pupil Amintore Galli. An attempt to cover early Italian music comprehensively was made by Luigi Torchi in his L'Arte Musicale in Italia, projected in 34 volumes, of which only seven reached publication. At about the same time Oscar Chilesotti brought out a nine-volume set of early French and Italian music, mostly for lute and guitar, under the title Biblioteca di Rarità Musicali.
An influential figure in the early part of the 20th century was Fausto Torrefranca, whose writings were motivated by nationalism (Le origini italiane del romanticismo musicale, 1930) and by the ‘neo-idealistic’ philosophy and historiographic methods of Benedetto Croce (La vita musicale dello spirito, 1910). Following in the same trend was Andrea Della Corte, co-author with Guido Pannain of the first large-scale Italian history of music in 1936. Gaetano Cesari was the first Italian scholar to profit from a thorough musicological training, which he received in Munich from Sandberger and Kroyer. In 1931 he founded the historical series Istituzioni e Monumenti dell'Arte Musicale Italiana, on which Giacomo Benvenuti, another Sandberger pupil, also worked. Benvenuti inaugurated another important series, I Classici Musicali Italiani, in 1941. The Istituto Italiano per la Storia della Musica, founded in 1938, published Casimiri's edition of Palestrina and works by other Renaissance and Baroque composers. More recently Italian musicology has benefited from the outstanding scholarship of Nino Pirrotta (especially on Italian subjects of the Ars Nova and early Baroque) and Alberto Basso (his writings on Bach, and on freemasonry and music, and his editorial acumen).
A central figure in musical activity and organization during the first half of the 20th century was Guido Maria Gatti, author of several books, editor with Andrea Della Corte of what was long the standard Italian musical dictionary, editor with Basso of the dictionary and encyclopedia La musica, and music editor of two other encyclopedias. In the second half of the century Basso was the editor of several major works: Opera, a series of music guides (1973–5); with Guglielmo Barblan, the three-volume Storia dell'opera (1977); the five-volume Storia del Teatro Regio di Torino (1976–88); and the 13-volume Dizionario enciclopedico universale della musica e dei musicisti (1983–90). In 1920 Gatti founded the periodical Il pianoforte, which in 1928 became the Rassegna musicale; publication ceased in 1962, but a series of Quaderni followed. The most authoritative Italian music periodical from 1894 until it ceased publication in 1955 was the Rivista musicale italiana, published by the Bocca brothers of Turin; others include Ricordi's Gazzetta musicale di Milano (1842–1966, with several changes of title), and Note d'archivio, a mine of documentary information on early Italian music and musicians which Raffaele Casimiri edited from 1924 until his death in 1943.
In an effort to place Italian musicology on a sounder footing the Associazione dei Musicologi Italiani was founded at Ferrara in 1908 by Guido Gasperini. An important result was the publication between 1909 and 1941 of a series of catalogues of Italian libraries and archives. The project remained unfinished and the results were uneven, but many of the catalogues were of outstanding quality, notably those of the Biblioteca Estense in Modena and the libraries of the conservatories in Naples and Bologna. The association's activities ceased after Gasperini's death in 1942.
Since World War II enormous strides have been made in Italian musicology as a consequence of increased contact with scholars of other countries, resulting in the heightened appreciation of Italy's own rich heritage and the establishment of university courses in musicology-related subjects, beginning in Turin in 1925. The first chair in musicology was created in Florence in 1941, the second in Rome in 1957. At the end of the 20th century, music history was being taught at some 30 universities; few, however, offered a wide range of courses in musicology. Fully fledged departments of music existed only at the universities of Pavia at Cremona (Scuola di Paleografia e di Filologia Musicale, founded in 1952), Bologna (Dipartimento Arti Musica Spettacolo, 1970), Macerata at Fermo (Scuola Diretta Fini Speciali in Musicologia e Pedagogia Musicale, 1989) and Cosenza (Discipline delle Arti, della Musica e dello Spettacolo, 1990). A few universities also offer courses in ethnomusicology (usually limited to the traditional music of Italy). Journals and series of publications associated with universities include Esercizi: musica e spettacolo (from 1991), Studi musicali toscani (from 1993), Il saggiatore musicale (from 1994) and Studi e testi musicali (from 1992). In 1987 a large-scale, multi-volume history of Italian opera, Storia dell'opera italiana, was begun, under the editorship of Lorenzo Bianconi and Giorgio Pestelli.
In 1964 the Società Italiana di Musicologia was founded (with Barblan as president). In 2000 it had about 800 members. The society publishes a biannual journal, the Rivista italiana di musicologia, as well as conference proceedings, catalogues, editions of music and books on music history. When outside funding for RISM was discontinued, the cataloguing of music sources directed by Elvidio Surian for the society was interrupted. Private associations were formed to carry on the enormous task, and they now exist in almost all regions of the country. Through their efforts many catalogues of private and public collections have been published. The reference centre for these activities is the Ufficio Ricerca Fondi Musicali in Milan, established by Claudio Sartori in 1964. However, Italy still lacks a coordinated national computer system, which would make all such information generally accessible.
The Società Italiana del Flauto Dolce, founded in 1969, was influential in the teaching of the recorder in schools and, especially through its early music summer schools, encouraged interest in pre-19th-century instruments and literature. In 1992 the society became the Fondazione Italiana per la Musica Antica; it publishes the annual journal Recercare.
The Istituto di Studi Verdiani at Parma, the Accademia Tartiniana at Padua, the Fondazione Rossini at Pesaro, the Fondazione Gaetano Donizetti at Bergamo, the Fondazione Locatelli at Cremona, the Fondazione Salieri at Legnago and the Istituto Liszt at Bologna are all engaged in scholarly research into those composers whose names they bear. The Fondazione Cini at Venice has assembled an important collection, in photographic reproduction, of Venetian musical sources, as well as organizing conferences on Venetian opera. Courses and conferences are also arranged each year at Siena by the Accademia Chigiana; the proceedings are published in Chigiana. Two other important research journals are the Nuova rivista musicale italiana, published by Italian Radio, and Analecta musicologica, published by the Istituto Storico Germanico in Rome.
Musicology, §III: National traditions of musicology
Musicology in Britain has grown out of certain particularly strong and long-lived traditions: the collecting and study of musical instruments, the science of acoustics, the performing of early music (with the allied practices of textual criticism and editing) and to some extent also the collecting and editing of folksong. The development of music history as a scholarly discipline came, in a sense, rather later, although it has roots extending back to the 17th century. Its pre-Victorian manifestations were very much part of the amateur tradition of music study that has always been an element of British musicology. In those earlier times, all music other than contemporary music was termed ‘ancient music’ and thought of as the domain of the ‘antiquary’.
Roger North (1653–1734) stands at the beginning of the English Enlightenment and was a man in whom the spirit of the Enlightenment was clearly visible. Furthermore, he represents an abiding tradition in British musical scholarship in placing emphasis on music not as a subject for speculation but as a living art to be enjoyed and understood in performance. North, a member of a distinguished family, was trained for a career in law but retired in 1688 to devote himself to music and gardening. He regarded himself as an amateur musician. He cultivated music in its widest dimensions, was fascinated by the ideas that move men to create it, and filled notebooks with observations related to theory and musical composition, history, aesthetics and performing practice. These views were consolidated in a series of treatises of which The Musicall Grammarian and Memoires of Musick were the most important. He continually redrafted and revised his writings but never brought them to publication. North, though not a profound music historian or speculative theorist, had vision and a lively curiosity, and was free from pedantry.
A more traditionally orientated musician was J.C. Pepusch (1667–1752). His fame rests chiefly on his association with John Gay as musical arranger of The Beggar’s Opera (1728), but his contemporaries knew him as a student of ancient music and theory. The crowning achievements of English music historiography in the 18th century were the general histories of Charles Burney and John Hawkins. Hawkins’s General History of the Science and Practice of Music appeared complete in five volumes in 1776. The first volume of Burney’s General History of Music from the Earliest Ages to the Present was issued in the same year, but the author did not finish his work until 1789. The magnitude of these accomplishments is astonishing considering that Hawkins and Burney worked independently and without significant antecedents.
The two main preoccupations of 19th-century music historians were church music and the Elizabethan ‘Golden Age’ of English music. The critical study of church music arose at about the time that the monks of Solesmes were beginning their work in France on plainchant; it was associated in part with the Oxford Movement for liturgical reform, and later with the so-called English Renaissance at the end of the century. Two scholars represent the study of church music at the turn of the century: Walter Howard Frere (1863–1938), Bishop of Truro, and Edmund H. Fellowes (1870–1951), a minor canon of St George’s Chapel, Windsor. Frere was concerned with the study of medieval plainchant, but he also did much to establish the forms of liturgy in late medieval England, particularly the Use of Sarum, and produced editions of the main Sarum liturgical books. His work was continued by Dom Anselm Hughes (1889–1974). Fellowes produced his standard history of English Cathedral Music from Edward VI to Edward VII (1942) and biographies of Byrd (1923, superseded by a second in 1936) and Gibbons (1925), as well as studies of the English madrigal and its composers and many editions of 16th- and 17th-century sacred and secular music (see below).
The first important 20th-century history of music in English was The Oxford History of Music (1901–5), written from very different standpoints by H.E. Wooldridge, Hubert Parry, J.A. Fuller Maitland, Henry Hadow, Edward Dannreuther and H.C. Colles, with an introductory volume by Percy Buck. Parry in particular, in his volume on the 17th century, took a Darwinian evolutionary approach to music history which he had already applied in The Art of Music (1893, enlarged as The Evolution of the Art of Music, International Scientific Series, lxxx, 1896), and which has characterized much English historical writing since. The successor to OHM, The New Oxford History of Music (1954–86), was under the direction of Egon Wellesz and Jack Westrup – two great Oxford historians, the latter one of the most influential minds in English music historiography – and Gerald Abraham, noted particularly for his work on Russian and east European music. Another scholar of profound influence, in England and internationally, was Edward J. Dent (1876–1957), professor at Cambridge, whose main field of research was Italian Baroque opera, and who did much to bring little-known music of the past and present to a wider audience.
British historical writing prides itself on its strong critical tradition, cultivating descriptive and evaluative prose. An interest in musical aesthetics goes back to the 18th century, with a group of writers concerned chiefly with the relationship between music and poetry. Its principal member was Charles Avison, a composer-critic whose Essay on Musical Expression appeared in 1752. A few years later John Brown published his Dissertation on the Union and Power, the Progressions, Separations, and Corruptions of Poetry and Music (1763), which was followed by Daniel Webb’s Observations on the Correspondence between Poetry and Music (1769) and James Beattie’s Essays on Poetry and Music (1776).
Occasional reviews of music and musical performances began to appear during the second half of the 18th century in monthly journals such as the Gentleman’s Magazine and European Magazine, but it was not until the early 19th century, with such publications as The Harmonicon (1823–33) and the Musical World (1836–91) that independent music journalism was firmly established. The Musical Times, which has been in continuous publication since 1844, combines unusually wide coverage of musical events with well-informed criticism and articles of general and scholarly interest. The Musical Antiquary (1909–13) was short-lived but set a new standard in the presentation of musical scholarship, while both the title and the contents of Music & Letters (founded 1920) are representative of the best traditions in English musicology. Newspaper music journalism has always been of a high standard, elegant and well informed. Among the most famous critics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were George Bernard Shaw, Ernest Newman and Neville Cardus, and these were followed by Martin Cooper, William Mann, Jeremy Noble, Andrew Porter, Stanley Sadie, Paul Griffiths and others in the principal newspapers and weekly and monthly magazines.
The tradition of collecting musical instruments is a very old one, and Britain houses several fine collections which furnish primary material for research. These include the Russell Collection of keyboard instruments in Edinburgh, the Bate Collection of wind instruments in Oxford, the Cobbe Collection of keyboard instruments in Surrey, and the collections at the Ashmolean, Oxford, and the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Horniman Museum and the Royal College of Music, London. Francis Galpin (1858–1945), working at the same time as Hornbostel and Sachs, was one of the first to write in a scholarly way about instruments in his Old English Instruments of Music (1910). He investigated not only European instruments but also those of the Near East, and his private collection numbered more than 500 instruments. The Galpin Society, founded in 1946, publishes an annual journal which is indispensable to anyone interested in early instruments, with articles by such scholars as Philip Bate, Anthony Baines and Peter Williams (who also edits the important Organ Year Book, founded 1970). The quarterly Early Music, which started publication in 1973, devotes many of its pages to articles on instruments.
The twin traditions of performing and editing early music go back to the 18th century. Pepusch was one of the founders of the Academy of Ancient Music in the 1720s, the first of a British series of associations devoted to the performance of early music. Others were the Apollo Society (1731), the Madrigal Society (1741) and the Noblemen’s and Gentlemen’s Catch Club (1761). The repertory of these singing societies was drawn from English and Italian partsongs of an earlier period together with contemporary catches and glees.
The members of the Dolmetsch family were the most influential figures in the early 20th century in bringing about performances of Renaissance and Baroque music on authentic instruments such as lutes, viols, recorders and crumhorns. Arnold Dolmetsch (1858–1940) pioneered the accurate restoration of old instruments and the making of reproductions; he also researched and edited early instrumental music, and instituted festivals of early music. The Viola da Gamba Society (founded 1956) and the Lute Society (1948) continue to encourage authentic performance, and produce their own journals as forums for the discussion of performing practice, instruments and sources. This activity resulted in the setting up from the 1950s onwards of many instrument makers who based their designs on original instruments, as well as of a number of professional groups whose players were thoroughly versed in early performing practice and whose singers were trained in vocal production and ornamentation appropriate to specific musical styles.
These developments led to a sharp rise in the performance of early music in the 1950s by groups under directors who were also scholars and university teachers, among them Thurston Dart, Denis Stevens, Gilbert Reaney and, later, Raymond Leppard. With their work generously fuelled by the BBC and record companies (notably L’Oiseau-Lyre), they paved the way for younger musicans who mostly held no university position but were active publishing scholars and enthusiastically subscribed to the ideals of their predecessors: among them were David Munrow, Christopher Hogwood, Michael Morrow, Andrew Parrott and many others.
The performance of 17th- and 18th-century opera, particularly the operas of Monteverdi, Purcell and Handel under Westrup at Oxford University from the 1920s onwards and under Anthony Lewis at Birmingham University in the 1940s to 1960s, was an important venture. Lewis, on the staff of the BBC from 1935 and in charge of music on the Third Programme in the mid-1940s, brought such music to a still wider public. The spirit of all these operatic ventures derived from the work and teaching of Dent, who saw performance as the ultimate goal of scholarship.
The histories by Burney and Hawkins were remarkable for their extensive examples of early music, and the English were among the first to edit early music on a large scale. A collection, Cathedral Music, was projected by John Alcock and Maurice Greene and completed by William Boyce between 1760 and 1778. The edition, representing a continuous tradition from Tye and Tallis to Purcell and Croft, was further revised and expanded in 1790 by Samuel Arnold. It was Arnold who made the first collected edition of the works of a major composer, namely Handel. The set was issued in 180 instalments between 1787 and 1797 and, for its time, was a creditable undertaking, but unfortunately Arnold, for all his enthusiasm, was not equipped to fulfil his promise that the work would be ‘correct, uniform, and complete’. The many collections of catches and glees that appeared at intervals thoughout the century displayed great antiquarian interest. One of the most conspicuous examples of this kind was Thomas Warren’s Collection of … Catches, Canons, and Glees (c1775–), which contained 652 pieces, many of them transcribed from 16th-century sources. Another edition devoted to the music of the past was William Crotch’s Specimens of Various Styles of Music (1807–8), one of the first historical anthologies of music designed for teaching purposes. Crotch’s selection is unusual in the amount of folk or national music that it contains, of both Eastern and Western origin. John Stafford Smith published a similar anthology in 1812 under the title Musica Antiqua: a Selection of Music of this and other Countries from the Commencement of the 12th to the Beginning of the 18th Century.
The British Musical Antiquarian Society published music of the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods, and also of Purcell, between 1840 and 1847 (three decades before Eitner began his Publikationen). The Purcell Society, founded in 1876, embarked on its edition of Purcell’s music in 1878, in collaboration with the publishing firm of Novello; it was eventually completed with volume xxxiii in 1965, but has continued with the active publication of revised and updated versions of the earlier volumes – another tradition that can be found throughout British musicology.
In 1898 John Stainer published his collection of medieval music, Dufay and his Contemporaries. The earliest English counterparts of the great German and Austrian Denkmäler editions, which began in 1892, were the publications of the Plainsong and Mediaeval Music Society (founded 1888), which date from 1891 onwards, Edmund Fellowes’s 36-volume English Madrigal School (1913–24) and 32-volume English School of Lutenist Song-Writers (1920–32), and the jointly edited Tudor Church Music (1922–9). Fellowes also produced a collected edition of the works of Byrd (1937–50). Thurston Dart later revised much of Fellowes’s work, as well as engaging in several important projects of his own. His editorial methods, which combined exact scholarship with sympathetic awareness of the needs of performers, were widely imitated. He was associated with the most important series of British scholarly editions to appear since World War II, Musica Britannica, launched in 1951 by the Royal Musical Association, with Anthony Lewis as general editor and Stainer & Bell as publishers.
As early as 1851 a learned society had been founded in London ‘for the cultivation of the art and science of music’. This was the Musical Institute of London, presided over by John Hullah. It was dissolved two years later, but in 1874 the Musical Association (since 1944 the Royal Musical Association) was founded by John Stainer and William Pole ‘for the investigation and discussion of subjects connected with the art and science of music’. The ‘science’ referred to was acoustics, a study strongly cultivated in Britain from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th by such scholars as Pole himself (a civil engineer by profession), Alexander Ellis, James Jeans and Alexander Wood; its major practical manifestation was the scientifically designed Royal Festival Hall, built in 1951. Since its formation the RMA has extended its activities, and its published Proceedings (continued from 1987 as the Journal of the Royal Musical Association), together with a Research Chronicle and a series of RMA Monographs, now constitute a major contribution to English musicology.
From its earliest times British musicology has placed great emphasis on research into folksong and popular music. The tradition extends from Bishop Percy’s Reliques (1765) and Edward Jones’s Musical and Poetical Relicks of the Welsh Bards (1784) to the 20th century. Joseph Ritson (1752–1803) introduced critical methods in place of the casual amateurism of Percy, and the Anglican clergyman John Broadwood was one of the first to collect (in 1843) songs directly from the lips of living singers. His methods were followed by his niece, Lucy Broadwood, and by another clergyman, Sabine Baring-Gould. Two of the leading 19th-century students of British popular song were Edward F. Rimbault (1816–76) and William Chappell (1809–88). Rimbault was a versatile if not very precise scholar who played an active part in the formation of both the Musical Antiquarian and the Percy Societies. William Chappell is best remembered for his Popular Music of the Olden Time (1845–9), a work of enduring value. Towards the end of the century Frank Kidson, Cecil Sharp and Ralph Vaughan Williams were collecting and editing folksongs – still part of a living tradition. Kidson was a founder-member of the Folk Song Society in 1898; Sharp and Vaughan Williams later became members. In 1932 the society joined with the English Folk Dance Society (founded 1911) to form the English Folk Dance and Song Society. Later studies in English folk music have owed much to the research and activities of Maud Karpeles, A.L. Lloyd and Frank Howes, editor of the Folk Song Journal and its successor the Journal of the English Folk Dance and Song Society from 1927 to 1945.
Many later British scholars adopted a more anthropological approach to the study of Britain’s folk music, and much research has been undertaken into the folk music of non-European countries, notably by Hugh Tracey, A.M. Jones and John Blacking on African music, Laurence Picken on Chinese music and Turkish folk instruments, and an important group of scholars at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, working on Indian music in particular.
In 1740 the young James Grassineau, encouraged by Pepusch, published A Musical Dictionary. This turned out to be something more than the mere translation of Brossard’s Dictionaire that had been planned, and was in fact the first substantial work of its kind in the English language. Busby’s Complete Dictionary (1786), Burney’s articles for Rees’s New Cyclopaedia (1802–20), Busby’s Musical Biography (1814) and Sainsbury’s Dictionary of Musicians (1824) are among the more important lexicographical works between Grassineau’s and the first edition of Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians. This was completed in 1890 and, in its subsequent revisions, has remained the most comprehensive and authoritative English-language work of its kind. Percy Scholes’s Oxford Companion to Music (1938) showed a more idiosyncratic approach to lexicography, but contained much information not readily accessible elsewhere, and Eric Blom’s Everyman’s Dictionary of Music (1946) was more useful and reliable than its small size might suggest. Both these works subsequently appeared in several new editions.
The role of the universities in the advancement of British musicology was not a prominent one before World War II, although the influence of isolated scholars such as Donald Tovey at Edinburgh and Dent at Cambridge was profound on those students who came into contact with them. Oxford and Cambridge have continued to play a leading role, partly because of their rich archival resources, but also because of the example and teaching reforms of Jack Westrup at Oxford and Thurston Dart at Cambridge. Dart was also for a time professor at King’s College, London University, and his influence was felt by a whole generation of British scholars.
Since the appointment (however brief) of overseas scholars such as Joseph Kerman, Howard Mayer Brown, Pierluigi Petrobelli, Thomas Walker and Reinhard Strohm to positions in British universities in the early 1970s, and the preparation of the 1980 New Grove with a much wider international contribution (authorial and editorial) and scope than any hitherto, musicology in Britain became far more strongly aware of currents elsewhere. The growth of British universities that began in the 1960s and continued well into the 90s has provided employment for enormously more musicologists; and a change in the method of national funding in the late 1980s, for the first time explicitly connected to research output, has led to a growth in both quantity and diversity in British musicology.
Musicology, §III: National traditions of musicology
Musicology, §III, 4: National traditions of musicology: Germany and Austria
Modern musicology owes much of its formation and development to the contributions of German and Austrian scholars, regarded internationally as leaders in the field from the 19th century to the mid-20th. Several standard historical works of the 17th century were the works of Germans: Sethus Calvisius's De origine et progressu musices (1600), Praetorius's Syntagma musicum (1614–18) and W.C. Printz's Historische Beschreibung der Edelen Sing- und Kling-Kunst (1690). Martin Gerbert wrote the first scholarly history of sacred music, De cantu et musica sacra, in 1767, and compiled an anthology of medieval treatises, Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacra, in 1784. Pioneer works in lexicography included J.G. Walther's Musikalisches Lexicon (1732) and Johann Mattheson's Grundlage einer Ehren-Pforte (1740). E.L. Gerber revised Walther's work and proceeded to compile the largest biographical lexicon up to that time, Historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkünstler (1790–92), and the four-volume Neues historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkünstler (1812–14).
J.N. Forkel is considered one of the founders of modern musicology; his Allgemeine Litteratur der Musik (1792) was the most comprehensive bibliography of music books to that time. He also wrote a history of music (Allgemeine Geschichte der Musik, 1788–1801) and the first Bach biography (Über J.S. Bachs Leben, Kunst und Kunstwerke, 1802). German writers trained in classical philology thereafter set the standards for biographical music research (Otto Jahn's W.A. Mozart, 1856–9; Philipp Spitta's J.S. Bach, 1873–80; Friedrich Chrysander's Händel, 1875–82; and Hermann Abert's revision of Jahn's Mozart, 1919–21). In Vienna, R.G. Kiesewetter, a civil servant in the Austrian War Ministry, wrote an outline of music history (Geschichte der europäisch-abendländischen Musik, 1834) alongside studies ranging from secular song of the Middle Ages and early monody to Arab music, tuning and temperament, and medieval instruments. Anton Schmid, head of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, was a specialist in the history of music printing and wrote the first critical biography of Gluck (1845). C.F. Pohl wrote a scholarly biography of Haydn (1875–82). Kiesewetter's nephew A.W. Ambros produced a five-volume history of music to 1600 (Geschichte der Musik, 1862–82) which set standards for subsequent research. These works, as well as Carl von Winterfeld's Der evangelische Kirchengesang (1843–7), contributed greatly to musicology's increasing focus on early music.
Until the late 19th century musicology was still practised largely outside the academy. The University of Vienna was the first to recognize it as scholarly discipline with the appointment of the music critic Eduard Hanslick as professor of music history and aesthetics in 1861 and his promotion to full professor (Ordinarius) in 1870. German universities were slower to acknowledge the field, even though Germany ultimately surpassed all others in the strength of its musicology curricula. Forkel and D.G. Türk had been appointed university music directors in 1779 in Göttingen and Halle respectively, but the first Ordinarius positions in musicology at those universities came as late as 1918 in Halle (Abert) and 1920 in Göttingen (Friedrich Ludwig). Carl Breidenstein was the first musician to occupy a professorship in music (Bonn, 1826), but that university did not appoint an Ordinarius in musicology until 1915 (Ludwig Schiedermair). The first German position comparable to Hanslick's was that of Gustav Jacobsthal (Strasbourg, 1897), and two more chairs were established in the next 12 years (Hermann Kretzschmar in Berlin, 1904; Adolf Sandberger in Munich, 1909). Even Hugo Riemann never attained the rank of Ordinarius, despite his incomparable productivity and his mastery in music theory, history, aesthetics, acoustics, keyboard instruction, performing practice, editing and lexicography (his highly regarded Musik Lexikon appeared in its 12th edition between 1959 and 1975).
As the 20th century approached, German and Austrian scholars set standards for creating catalogues and indexes for research purposes and critical editions of musical works. Vast amounts of newly discovered source materials were made accessible through Robert Eitner's ten-volume Biographisch-bibliographisches Quellen-Lexikon (1900–04), Eitner, Lagerberg, Pohl and Haberl's Bibliographie der Musik-Sammelwerke des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts (1877), Ludwig's Repertorium organorum recentioris et motetorum vetustissimi stili (1910), Emil Vogel's Bibliothek der gedruckten weltlichen Vocalmusik Italiens (1892) and Johannes Zahn's six-volume Die Melodien der deutschen evangelischen Kirchenlieder (1889–93). Thematic catalogues of the works of major composers first appeared with Köchel's catalogue of Mozart's works in 1862 and Nottebohm's Beethoven catalogue in 1868. Collaborative critical editions of the works of a single composer (Gesamtausgaben) started with the establishment of the Bach-Gesellschaft in 1850, followed by editions of the works of Handel (1858), Palestrina (1862), Mozart (1876), Schubert (1883), Beethoven (1884) and Lassus (1894). The most ambitious editorial projects were the government-sponsored scholarly editions of early music from German-speaking regions, the ‘monuments’ (Denkmäler) series, the largest of which date to the last decade of the 19th century (Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Österreich began in 1888, Denkmäler deutscher Tonkunst in 1889 and Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Bayern in 1900). Germans and Austrians were also the prime motivators in organizing the discipline. The first journal dedicated to serious music scholarship was a joint German-Austrian venture, Vierteljahrsschrift für Musikwissenschaft, edited by Chrysander, Spitta and Guido Adler (professor in Prague, later Hanslick's successor) from 1885 to 1894. Oskar Fleischer spearheaded the founding of the International Music Society and its scholarly journal, Sammelbände der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft, in 1904. The organization disbanded at the outbreak of World War I, but Adler successfully revived it as the International Musicological Society in 1927, with its journal Acta musicologica.
Musicology, §III, 4: National traditions of musicology: Germany and Austria
In the first decades of the 20th century, German-Austrian musicology emerged as a highly diversified area of scholarly inquiry, with intellectual traditions converging from philology, art history, hermeneutics and Dilthey's influential philosophy of Geisteswissenschaften (‘humanities’). The history of style, already established in other humanities disciplines, was adapted to musicology by Adler and further developed by Riemann into a synthetic approach incorporating music analysis, history and aesthetics. Kretzschmar, stressing the importance of cooperation between musicology and music practice, looked at music history by separate genres in the series he edited entitled Kleine Handbücher der Musikgeschichte nach Gattungen (1905–22). Specialization became more common in such areas as medieval and Renaissance music (Heinrich Besseler), notation (Johannes Wolf), Gregorian chant and history of the mass (Jacobsthal and Peter Wagner), Classical and Romantic music (Abert) and performing practice (Arnold Schering). German musicologists also continued to explore innovatory ways of presenting music history in such formats as anthologies of old music (Schering's Geschichte der Musik in Beispielen, 1931) and in iconography (Georg Kinsky's Geschichte der Musik in Bildern, 1929). Adler enlisted colleagues to contribute to a collaborative music history, the Handbuch der Musikgeschichte (1924), which served as a model for Ernst Bücken's Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft (1927–31) and a later series of the same title edited successively by Carl Dahlhaus and Hermann Danuser (1980–95).
As scholars in the humanities began to perceive the impact of science and technology on contemporary society, musicologists were also encouraged to open their minds to applications from natural sciences and social sciences. Research in systematic and comparative musicology laid its foundations in the first three decades of the 20th century at centres in Berlin (under the guidance of Carl Stumpf, Erich von Hornbostel and Curt Sachs) and Vienna (under Richard Wallaschek and Robert Lach). Working in the Psychology Institute at Berlin University, Stumpf built up a large archive of sound recordings from around the world and brought in collaborators from diverse fields, such as Hornbostel (with a doctorate in chemistry), Otto Abraham (a physician), Max Wertheimer (an authority in Gestalt psychology), and the musicologists Sachs, Georg Schünemann, Marius Schneider and Wolf. A recorded sound archive was established in Vienna in 1889, and Wallaschek, appointed to the University of Vienna in 1897, wrote extensively on the music of various cultures, aesthetics and psychology. Lach, appointed to the faculty in 1920, contributed to a variety of methodological issues, transcribed and analysed recordings, and shared an interest in oriental music with his colleague Egon Wellesz, best known as an expert in Byzantine music. Younger members of the Vienna school included Siegfried Nadel, Albert Wellek and Walter Graf.
At the outbreak of World War I, the International Music Society was disbanded, and travel restrictions and limited research funding compelled German scholars to stay at home. This led musicologists to pay closer attention to Germany's own musical traditions. H.J. Moser's three-volume Geschichte der deutschen Musik (1920–24) was the first comprehensive survey devoted exclusively to German music. During this period a profusion of studies focussed on the music of specific locales in Germany, societies dedicated to the performance and research of regional music were established, and plans were laid for local Denkmäler editions. The study of German folksong, until that point the exclusive domain of German philologists interested only in the texts, received more attention from musicologists. The Deutsches Volksliedarchiv in Freiburg, founded in 1914 by John Meier, collected and organized vast numbers of folksongs in text form, without their melodies. A serious study of melody came with the establishment of the Archiv Deutscher Volkslieder in Berlin in 1917, under the direction of Max Friedländer. It became a major centre for cataloguing folktunes and, under Hans Mersmann's direction, expanded its collection to include the music of contemporary amateur movements.
The end of World War I marked an organizational turning-point for German musicology with the establishment of the Deutsche Musikgesellschaft (with its scholarly journal, the Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft) and the Institut für Musikwissenschaftliche Forschung zu Bückeburg. Serving the dual aims of renewing severed ties with scholars from former enemy nations and promoting work on German music, these institutions helped win academic recognition for musicology and asserted Germany's leading role in musicological research. In the years up to World War II, full professorships in musicology were established in Halle, Breslau, Göttingen, Leipzig, Heidelberg, Kiel, Freiburg, Cologne, Frankfurt and Königsberg.
Musicology, §III, 4: National traditions of musicology: Germany and Austria
After Hitler's rise to power in 1933 there was unprecedented government involvement in musicology (see Nazism). Discriminatory laws forced many musicologists to emigrate; most were of Jewish descent or, in the case of Leo Schrade, had a Jewish spouse, and many went on to enrich musicological scholarship abroad. The departure of Sachs and Hornbostel (the only Jewish musicologists holding faculty positions), along with several of their students, left a vacuum in systematic musicology and forced the dissolution of the Gesellschaft für Vergleichende Musikwissenschaft (founded in 1930 as the Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der Musik des Orients) and its journal, the Zeitschrift für vergleichende Musikwissenschaft. The Jews and spouses of Jews who stayed behind suffered greatly. Kinsky's private library was seized and he was sentenced to hard labour; released in 1944 with a serious illness, he died in 1951 in severely reduced financial circumstances. Willibald Gurlitt was dismissed from the University of Freiburg because of his Jewish wife, was banned from public speaking, publishing and academic work, and endured Gestapo surveillance and discrimination against his children.
Despite the immeasurable loss of personnel, German musicology reaped significant tangible benefits from Nazi government sponsorship. Most notable was the Nazi education ministry's resurrection of the virtually defunct Bückeburg-Institut and its move to Berlin. Now called the Staatliches Institut für Deutsche Musikforschung, it incorporated the Berlin folksong archive, the instrument collection of the Hochschule für Musik and the Deutsche Musikgesellschaft's scholarly journal, Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft (renamed Archiv für Musikwissenschaft). It established a second journal, Deutsche Musikkultur, for musicological articles directed towards a general readership, as well as publishing two bibliographies. All existing Denkmäler projects fell under the institute's control and subscribed to uniform editorial principles; supervised successively by Besseler and Friedrich Blume, they were published as the series Das Erbe Deutscher Musik. The institute also laid the groundwork for the most ambitious musicological reference work of the postwar period, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, with Blume as general editor.
The Nazi propaganda ministry sponsored publications and employed musicologists as consultants for musical activities. The ‘scientific’ branch of Himmler's SS published musicological monographs and articles, funded archival research projects in ancient and medieval music, and organized field research for the collection of folksongs from ethnic Germans and their ‘racial kin’. The Rosenberg Bureau, formed by the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg, enlisted musicologists to evaluate scholarly writings for their ideological content, to compile a music lexicon, to contribute to a comprehensive directory of Jews in music and to assess the value of musical treasures plundered during the war.
With the annexation of Austria into ‘Greater Germany’ in 1938, Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Österreich was immediately incorporated into Das Erbe Deutscher Musik, and Austria's folksong archives became part of the Staatliches Institut. Of the few remaining leading musicologists of Jewish descent, Wellesz and O.E. Deutsch left for England, and Karl Geiringer, dismissed as curator of the Gesellschaft für Musikfreunde, went to the USA. Wilhelm Fischer was suspended from his position in Innsbruck and was compelled to do forced labour until the end of the war. Vienna lost ground in comparative musicology as Lach retired and Erich Schenk was appointed in his place. The Nazi Education Minister also authorized a new musicology position in Graz and appointed Herbert Birtner. The Nazi propaganda ministry underwrote the Bruckner Gesamtausgabe, formerly funded by the Schuschnigg government, and Hitler commissioned a new Mozart Gesamtausgabe.
Under the Nazis unprecedented advances were made in German folk-music research and its applications for everyday use (in the work of Kurt Huber, Marius Schneider, Walter Wiora, Fritz Bose, Mersmann, Werner Danckert, Joseph Müller-Blattau, Gotthold Frotscher, Wilhelm Ehmann and Siegfried Goslich), and there was steadily increasing interest in German music, its history and its distinguishing characteristics (pursued by Moser, Bücken, Müller-Blattau, Gurlitt, Hans Engel and many more). A revival of music biographies, previously shunned by musicologists as ‘positivist’, generated the series Die Grossen Meister der Musik (edited by Bücken, 1932–9) and Unsterbliche Tonkunst (edited by Herbert Gerigk, 1936–42, and published by the Rosenberg Bureau); both displayed a decided emphasis on German composers. A short-lived preoccupation with racial science attracted much attention, particularly when the first musicological conference in the Third Reich in 1938 adopted ‘Music and Race’ as its theme and featured a keynote speech by Blume on its methodological ramifications. For the most part, however, German musicology failed to make any significant progress in either accepting or rejecting the ideologically charged theories proposed by race theorists and amateur musicologists such as Richard Eichenauer, and generally avoided inquiries into the ‘Jewish Question’.
Musicology, §III, 4: National traditions of musicology: Germany and Austria
German musicology suffered during World War II not only from the loss of valuable personnel and widespread damage to libraries and publishing houses, but also from its 12-year isolation from the international scholarly community. After the war scholars in both Germany and Austria directed their energies towards renewing international ties and reviving the publishing industry. Blume founded the Gesellschaft für Musikforschung in 1946 and served as its first president, advocating the resuscitation of large-scale ventures established during the Third Reich with state and private funding. The Gesellschaft drew members from around the world, many of whom contributed to the revival of Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart in 1949. In addition to its own journal Die Musikforschung (established in 1948) and Gurlitt's privately funded Archiv für Musikwissenschaft (1952), two international journals, Acta musicologica and Fontes artis musicae, were based in Germany. The establishment of the Répertoire International des Sources Musicales was a German initiative, planned by Hans Albrecht and Blume, supported by international funds, and published by Bärenreiter and Henle. In Austria, numerous international societies dedicated to individual composers arose after the war and made significant contributions to research and the publication of editions. The Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum produced the Mozart-Jahrbuch from 1951, the Haydn Society advanced the continuation of a Haydn-Gesamtausgabe under the editorial direction of J.P. Larsen, and the Bruckner Gesamtausgabe resumed under Leopold Nowak. A Johann Joseph Fux-Gesellschaft was established in 1955 and proceeded to publish Fux's complete works, and an International Chopin Society was founded in Vienna in 1952 and began publication of the Chopin-Jahrbuch in 1956, edited by Franz Zagiba. Other societies include the Franz-Schmidt-Gemeinde, the International Liszt-Center, the Internationale Hugo-Wolf-Gesellschaft, the Johann-Strauss-Gesellschaft and the Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Schubert-Forschung.
Many musicologists in the western zones of occupation were allowed to continue their careers as before, but the musicology establishment disassociated itself from the Nazi past, most notably by publicly ostracizing Moser for his overtly nationalistic writings. The Soviet zone, on the other hand, strove to evict all former Nazis between 1945 and 1948, and encouraged those driven out of Nazi Germany as Communists and Jews (such as the musicologists Georg Knepler, E.H. Meyer, Nathan Notowicz and Harry Goldschmidt) to return to help build the new German Democratic Republic. Interest in sustaining publishing activities begun before the war, especially in the face of competition from the USA, led to Besseler's appointment in Jena and then in Leipzig, despite the active role he played in the Third Reich. Valued for his skills as an organizer and editor, Besseler succeeded in collaborating with Leipzig's famous music publishing houses. The Jahrbuch der Musikbibliothek Peters was revived in 1956 as the Deutsches Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft, the Neue Bach-Ausgabe began in 1954, and the series Musikgeschichte in Bildern began in 1961.
Much early postwar scholarship continued to concentrate on German and Austrian music, with a strong emphasis on critical source studies. New and revised thematic catalogues for the works of Bach, Beethoven and Haydn were published, along with new complete critical editions of the works of Bach, Mozart, Schütz, Handel, Telemann, Gluck, Spohr and Reger. The first task in Austria after the war was to regain control over Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Österreich; this was achieved with the re-establishment of the Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe von DTÖ and the resumption of editorial work, supervised successively by Schenk and Othmar Wessely. Although the study of folk music ceased to be as well organized as before the war, research flourished under Felix Hoerburger in Regensburg, where the materials from the Berlin archive had been stored during the war, and at the Freiburg archive, where Walter Salmen and Wiora worked and where the Jahrbuch für Volksliedforschung resumed publication. These and other researchers (Doris and Erich Stockmann, Ernst Klusen, Müller-Blattau and Wolfgang Suppan) investigated German folk music, while others (Bose, Hans Hickmann, Marius Schneider and Graf) turned their attention to non-European traditions as well. Graf revived the Vienna school of comparative musicology, and the Austrian education ministry established the Österreichisches Volksliedwerk and supported the publication of its yearbook.
Academic musicology experienced another spurt of growth in the postwar era as new chairs were established at the universities in Mainz, Marburg, Münster, Jena, Tübingen, Hamburg, Saarbrücken, Würzburg and West Berlin. Gurlitt returned to the Freiburg department, which continued to grow and diversify under him and his successor, H.H. Eggebrecht. Medieval and Renaissance concentrations continued in Göttingen in the work of Heinrich Husmann and Ursula Günther, and in Cologne (Fellerer and Heinrich Hüschen), and spread to Frankfurt (Ludwig Finscher and Helmut Hucke), Regensburg and Erlangen (both under Bruno Stäblein), and Berlin (Rudolf Stephan and Dahlhaus). In Austria, departments outside Vienna gained prominence. The department in Graz was directed successively by Hellmut Federhofer, Wessely and Rudolf Flotzinger. Wilhelm Fischer directed the department in Innsbuck until 1956, followed by Hans Zingerle and then Salmen, who emphasized folk-music research, music of the Classical period and musical iconography. A new musicology department came into being in Salzburg in 1966, focussing on the research and editorial production of music of local significance.
The division of Germany into two separate states resulted in the distribution of important source materials between the two countries, compelling East and West German musicologists to collaborate in a number of ventures, such as the Neue Bach-Ausgabe and the Hallische Händel-Ausgabe, both of which were published simultaneously by East and West German houses. Yet different philosophies and methodologies developed in the East and West, and in 1968 East Germans withdrew from the Gesellschaft für Musikforschung. East German musicology promoted a sociological approach, a Marxist interpretation of music history (see Marxism), work in music education, the study of folk music and the music of the workers movement, collaboration with other eastern Bloc countries, and a closer relationship between scholarship and music-making. Musicologists were affiliated with the Verband Deutscher Komponisten und Musikwissenschaftler, which produced the journal Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft, begun in 1959, as well as the more practically orientated Musik und Gesellschaft, begun in 1951. Until the 1970s, subject areas denigrated by communist ideology as ‘formalist’ and bourgeois, such as atonal music and jazz, could not be researched. Restrictions on travel abroad compelled East German musicologists to concentrate on available resources; thus the archives located in East Germany facilitated extensive work on Bach, Handel, Telemann, Schumann, Reger and Vivaldi. With access to foreign literature seriously limited, and scholars and students restricted in their choice of subject matter and its interpretation or even excluded from studying musicology because of their own and their families' political or educational background, a number of musicologists attempted to flee to the West. The study of musicology, available at six universities (Berlin, Jena, Halle, Rostock, Greifswald and Leipzig), had shrunk significantly by the late 1980s.
In the meantime, musicology in the West had been developing new strengths in areas of music research suppressed by the communists. West Berlin became an important centre for the study of the Second Viennese School by virtue of both its musical life and the concentration of engaged musicologists (Stephan, Dahlhaus, Reinhold Brinkmann and Elmar Budde). Other scholars pursued research in jazz and rock music and in systematic musicology at the universities and at the Staatliches Institut. In the wake of the student rebellions in the late 1960s, university reforms allowed students greater input into their curricula, and a new generation of scholars started to question the positivist approaches and emphasis on objectivity that had been nurtured in German musicology since World War II. Musicology in the 1980s yielded critical assessments of Germany's recent past, musicology's relationship to musical practices, new theoretical approaches to the interpretation of music history and an upsurge of interest in the music of the 19th century. Germany's reunification resulted in further reflection on the course of the discipline, a restructuring of musicological institutions and the reshuffling of personnel.
Musicology, §III: National traditions of musicology
The smaller countries of western Europe have naturally leant heavily on their larger neighbours in the development of musicological studies, and in particular many of them have leant on Germany. Their own traditions have been relatively late in developing and have not always been distinctive – depending, to some extent, on the musical past of the country concerned. A typical case is that of Switzerland, at the junction of three larger cultures. Scholars in that country have worked extensively on the history of Swiss music (notably the Protestant psalm), and have been avid in the production of dictionaries and periodicals; but apart from a continuing interest in medieval and Renaissance studies it would be hard to discover any national pattern in the work of such distinguished scholars of different generations as Peter Wagner, Jacques Handschin, Kurt von Fischer and Martin Staehelin. The activities of the Schola Cantorum Basiliensis, with which August Wenzinger and Wulf Arlt have worked, show an interest in the practical application of musicological knowledge.
Studies of performing practice, and of instruments, have been prominent in the Low Countries, typified by the instrument collecting of D.F. Scheurleer (1855–1927) and more recently by the conservation work of J.H. van der Meer, the performances of Gustav Leonhardt, the publications of Frits Knuf, and the historical instrument designs of Flentrop. The (since 1995: Koninklijke) Vereniging voor Nederlandse Muziekgeschiedenis, founded in 1868, is the oldest musicological society in the world. Albert Smijers became the first reader in musicology in a Dutch university (Utrecht, 1928), shortly after beginning his complete edition of Josquin. Partly through his influence, Dutch musicology has always been primary in research on the music of Josquin (with the New Josquin Edition in progress since 1987) and Obrecht (three editions, the second incomplete, the third, the New Obrecht Edition, ed. Chris Maas, 1983–99), even though neither composer was Dutch. Other interests were represented by scholars as diverse in their interests as Joseph Smits van Waesberghe, a chant scholar, and Frits Noske, whose work on song and opera covered the 17th to 19th centuries and whose interest in socio-musicology represented a significant new trend. The convergence of historical, sociological and ethnomusicological traditions (inherited primarily through Jaap Kunst, organologist and scholar of Indonesian music) typifies much Dutch musicology since the 1970s.
In Belgium the study of musicology made an impressive start with the famous competition of 1829 to write an essay on the importance of Low Countries music just before the establishment of Belgium as an independent country in 1830: the contribution by François-Joseph Fétis perhaps paved the way for his appointment as the first director of the Brussels Conservatory in 1833. His massive output of scholarly and educational writings over the next decades – not least his Biographie universelle des musiciens (1835–44) – helped to establish Belgian musicology as a serious topic. His pupil Edmond Vander Straeten similarly published an enormous quantity of archival research, particularly in his eight-volume La musique aux Pays-Bas avant le XIXe siècle (1867–88). Musicological studies were introduced at universities in 1931, partly through Ernest Closson’s initiative. A specially influential figure was Charles Van den Borren, who at Brussels and Liège taught Suzanne Clercx-Lejeune, Albert Vander Linden and Robert Wangermée; his son-in-law was Safford Cape, with whom he founded the Pro Musica Antiqua ensemble.
Very different traditions have influenced Spanish musicology, with such scholar-priests as Higini Anglès, José María Llorens Cisteró and José López-Calo prominent in the uncovering of their country’s heritage of ecclesiastical music. But important work was early accomplished by M.H. Eslava y Elizondo (1807–78) in his ten-volume Lira Sacro-Hispana and F.A. Barbieri (1823–94) in his edition of the early 16th-century Cancionero Musical de Palacio. The true father of modern Spanish musicology, however, was Felipe Pedrell (1841–1922), a composer, teacher, writer and music editor. He is best known for his editions of sacred music by early Spanish composers, Hispania Schola Musica Sacra (1894–8), and keyboard music by Cabezón, and especially for the complete edition of the works of Victoria. Iberian musicology received a decisive new impetus from the 1992 Madrid congress of the International Musicological Society, as well as from the rise of a new generation of scholars who were not priests and had been trained in the universities of Germany and elsewhere.
Scandinavian scholars, though much occupied with their national musical past, have tended to look to the German-speaking countries, particularly Switzerland, for their training. Tobias Norlind (1879–1947), the senior Swedish figure, studied at Leipzig and Munich; his pupil Carl-Allan Moberg (1896–1978), considered the founder of Swedish musicology, studied in Vienna and Fribourg; and Moberg’s successor, Ingmar Bengtsson, studied in Basle. Moberg’s research embraced early Swedish music and Swedish folksong. In 1947 Moberg was appointed to the first chair at the University of Uppsala (where musicology had been taught since 1927); chairs were later established at Göteborg and Lund. Other signal initiatives in Sweden have been the institute for acoustics (under Johan Sundberg) and the Corpus Troporum (under Ritva Jacobsson), both at the University of Stockholm. In Denmark musicology has been longer established: Angul Hamerik (1848–1931) was awarded the earliest doctorate in music (1892) and obtained the first lectureship in musicology at Copenhagen (1896); he was a teacher of Erik Abrahamsen (in 1926 the first Danish professor of musicology) and the great Palestrina scholar Knud Jeppesen (the first professor at Århus, 1946). Jens Peter Larsen’s work on the Classical era, and the involvement of several Danish scholars in Byzantine studies, have helped give the country’s musicology a special character as well as an international standing. In Norway the first musicological chair was established in 1956 at Oslo, for Olav Gurvin (1893–1974), who had studied in Heidelberg and Berlin; he and Ole Sandvik (1875–1976) had given the first regular university lectures in music in 1937–9. Folk music studies form the bulk of these men’s work; the investigation of the national musical past, including the Protestant church music tradition, has always occupied an important place in Scandinavia. There are now institutes of musicology at the universities of Oslo, Trondheim and Bergen. The founder of Finnish musicology was Ilmari Krohn (1867–1960), who studied at Leipzig and Weimar, and founded the Finnish Musicological Society in 1916; his chief work was on theory, church music and Finnish folk music. Musicology is now also taught at the universities of Turku, Jyväskylä, Tampere and Oulu. Alongside many journals and the recently begun critical edition of Sibelius, the strength of Finnish musicology can be seen from the six-volume Suuri musiikkitietosanakirja (Keuruu, 1989–92).
Musicology, §III: National traditions of musicology
Scholarly investigation of Russian music history began in the 18th century, notably after the rule of Peter the Great (1689–1725), when sustained contacts with west European countries were established. The first significant publications in Russia were by foreigners, for example Leonhard Euler's Tentamen novae theoriae musicae (1739) and a lecture by G.W. Krafft (1701–54) on consonance (delivered in Latin in 1742 and published in Russian in 1744). Both were well-known mathematicians. Jacob von Stählin was the first to publish information about music in Russia; his ‘Nachrichten von der Musik in Russland’ appeared in Haigold's Beylagen zum neuveränderten Russland, ii (Riga and Leipzig, 1770). The first music periodical established in Russia was published by a German: Johann Daniel Gerstenberg's Magasin musical de St. Pétersbourg (1794). Towards the end of the 18th century the Russians began investigating their musical legacy by collecting folksongs (Vasily Trutovsky) and studying the rich domain of church music. The first to assemble data on Russian chant was Yevfimy Bolkhovitinov (1767–1837), better known as Metropolitan Yevgeny of Kiev, whose 1797 lecture on the subject was published two years later.
Some early 19th-century Russian writers preferred to study European music. Count Grigory Orlov (1777–1826), for example, published his Essai sur l'histoire de la musique en Italie (1822), and Aleksandr Ulïbïshev and Wilhelm von Lenz their writings on Mozart and Beethoven. Aleksandr F. Khristianovich (1835–74) collected folktunes in Algeria in 1861 and published them in Cologne in 1863 under the title Esquisse historique de la musique arabe aux temps anciens avec dessins d'instruments et quarante mélodies notées et harmonisées par Alexandre Christianowitsch.
Prince Vladimir Odoyevsky, though an amateur, played an important role in the study of Russian music and may be viewed as one of the founders of musicology in Russia. Despite some earlier work, it was in the 1860s that the scholarly investigation of Russian chant history began, with the research of Dmitry Razumovsky, Stepan Smolensky, Ivan Voznesensky and especially Vasily Metallov and Antonin Preobrazhensky.
Apart from an article by Aleksey Veselovsky in Russkii vestnik (July 1866, pp. 97–163), the first significant attempt at a history of Russian music in the Russian language was Vladimir Mikhnevich's Istoricheskiye ėtyudï russkoy zhizni: ocherk istorii muzïki v Rossii v kulturno-obshchestvennom otnoshenii (‘Historical studies of Russian life: essay on the history of music in Russia in relationship to culture and society’, 1879). In the next four decades, leading to the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1917, a number of writers specialized in aspects of Russian music history. Probably the most significant were Vsevolod Cheshikhin (1865–1934), a historian of Russian opera, and Nikolay Findeyzen, founder and editor of the important periodical Russkaya muzïkal'naya gazeta (1893–1918) and of the annual Muzïkal'naya starina (‘Musical past’; 1903–11). Findeyzen's lifework, Ocherki po istorii muzïki v Rossii s drevneyshikh vremyon do kontsa XVIII v. (‘Essays on the history of music in Russia from the earliest times to the end of the 18th century’; 1928–9), is still the most comprehensive survey of Russian music. The high level of analytical and historical musicology attained in the pre-revolutionary period is also exemplified in articles by a variety of writers on the 19th century and on contemporary music in the periodical Muzïkal'nïy sovremennik (‘The musical contemporary’; 1915–17), edited by Andrey Rimsky-Korsakov, biographer of his father and a first-rate scholar. However, this and all other pre-revolutionary music periodicals were suspended after the 1917 revolution.
There were significant developments between the wars. Perhaps most far-reaching and internationally recognized was the publication of original scores of Musorgsky's works under the editorship of Pavel Lamm, starting in 1928. This gave a strong impetus to systematic, critical study of sources. Even more significant were attempts to re-examine the basic postulates of music as an art, its components and its impact on the listener. These problems were studied from a theoretical point of view with a strong tendency to formulation in Marxist terms and, from the 1930s, in accordance with the officially promulgated concepts of Socialist realism. Among the leaders of these studies were Boris Asaf'yev (who also wrote under the pseudonym Igor Glebov), a scholar of great erudition who formulated the concept of intonatsiya dealing with the creation of audio-imagery by association with familiar melodic patterns, and Boleslav Yavorsky, the creator of a concept of harmonic rhythm in his theory of ‘auditory gravitation’. Important in the historical field was Tamara Livanova, whose works, especially her classic book Ocherki i materialï po istorii russkoy muzïkal'noy kulturï (‘Essays and documents on the history of Russian musical culture’, 1938), are among the most scholarly in Russian musicology, as are also Boris Yarustovsky's on dramaturgy. A number of scholars have tried to write comprehensive histories of world music, notably Roman Gruber.
In the years immediately following World War II, Russian musicology continued to focus on aspects of Russian music and on the artistic development of non-Russian ethnic groups in the USSR. In the 1950s and 60s the number of scholars increased dramatically, and the scope of their research expanded beyond the narrow confines of Russian music. Books, periodicals and yearbooks appeared in unprecedented quantities. Music bibliography (which had its roots in pre-revolutionary Russia) kept most scholars informed about trends outside the USSR, although most foreign publications were unavailable. Retrospective bibliographies were compiled for periods hitherto inadequately covered, for example in Livanova's Muzïkal'naya bibliografiya russkoy periodicheskoy pechati XIX v. (‘Musical bibliography of the Russian periodical press in the 19th century’; 1974). Lexicography also became highly developed: Boris Shteynpress, Izrail' Yampol'sky and Grigory Bernandt (1905–86) were prominent in this area. Yury Keldïsh, author of a history of Russian music and an account of music in 18th-century Russia, was chief editor of a collective work on the music of all the peoples of the USSR, Istoriya muzïki narodov USSR (begun in 1970); he was also the editor of the largest Russian music encyclopedia, Muzïkal'naya ėntsiklopediya (1973–82), as well as chief editor of the first Russian equivalent of the Denkmäler series, Pamyatniki Russkoy Muzïki. In 1983 Keldïsh initiated a multi-volume history of Russian music.
Another publication of great significance was Semyon Ginzburg's anthology of Russian art music up to Glinka, Istoriya russkoy muzïki v notnïkh obraztsakh (‘History of Russian music in music examples’, 1940–52). Biographical studies of Russian composers and analytical discussions of their works have proliferated, and, after a period of neglect, scholarly studies of Russian church music and its history were resumed by Maxim V. Brazhnikov, Nikolay D. Uspensky and many younger scholars. Vladimir Protopopov has studied both Western and Russian polyphony, while Abram Gozenpud is the most erudite investigator of the traditions of Russian opera. Notable theorists of music include Viktor Tsuckermann (1902–88), Lev Mazel' and Yury Kholopov. The participation of Russian musicologists at international conferences, which after many years of ideological control started to increase in the 1960s, continues in an obvious attempt to keep pace with scholarship in western Europe and North America.
With the break-up of the USSR at the end of 1991, Russia emerged somewhat diminished in size yet still the culturally dominant member of a loose family of nations. All periodicals with the word ‘Soviet’ in their titles were discontinued; thus the ‘official’ monthly magazine Sovietskaya muzyka was replaced by the quarterly Muzykal'naya akademiya. Muzïkal'naya zhizn' (‘Musical life’) survives as a monthly chronicle of musical events, albeit somewhat reduced in scope, while a number of other periodicals fight for survival under uncertain economic conditions. The publishing of books, which in the former USSR was subsidized by the state, now depends on the market economy and foreign subsidies. Similar financial difficulties have since 1992 forced the scholarly research institutes, which in the Soviet era largely controlled the content of publications, to reduce their personnel, programmes and field expeditions.
Musicology, §III: National traditions of musicology
In the past musicology in Eastern Europe was preoccupied with the history of church music and opera, with local music history, and increasingly with folk music. More recently Marxist ideology fostered the systematic and social study of music, and it is in this part of the world that the Sociology of music first became an independent discipline with rigorous standards.
Before 1989 most European countries followed the Soviet model in establishing scholarly institutions as state-funded research institutes within an Academy of Sciences. Since the disintegration of that system, the worsening financial situation has resulted in a reduced number of publications, which are now dependent on commerical sponsorship.
The first important musicological publication on Polish music was the biographical dictionary Les musiciens polonais et slaves anciens et modernes (1857) by the pianist and amateur scholar Wojciech Sowiński. In the same year Józef Sikorski founded a significant periodical, Ruch muzyczny, but it lasted only five years. An anthology of the rich legacy of church music, Monumenta Musices Sacrae in Polonia (1885–96), was initiated by Józef Surzyński. Many 19th-century scholars focussed on Chopin, including Maurycy Karasowski, who also wrote the first history of opera in Poland (Rys historyczny opery polskie, 1859). The first full-scale history of Polish music seems to have been that by Aleksander Poliński, Dzieje muzyki polskiej (1907). No fewer than eight Poles obtained doctorates in musicology at German universities in the first decade of the 20th century. In 1911 the first chair in musicology was established in Poland, in Kraków. By World War I a group of scholars was already producing significant and lasting work. Among the next generation of scholars were Hieronim Feicht, Jósef Chomiński and Zofia Lissa, a leading thinker in musical aesthetics and historiography and one of the most influential musicologists in eastern Europe. The two main centres of publication for music scholarship are Warsaw and Kraków, to which must be added Bydgoszcz, where triennial conferences for scholars of eastern European music have been held since 1966 under the title Musica Antiqua Europae Orientalis. Among the most distinguished scholars of the last few decades are Stefan Jarociński, Zygmunt M. Szweykowski, Mirosław Perz, Irena Poniatowska and Zofia Chechlińska.
Romania had a forerunner of musicology in the humanist Dimitrie Cantemir, who wrote a description of Romanian music (1716), studied Turkish music and devised a notational systsem for recording it. Before the 20th century there were individual attempts at collecting church music, notably by Anton Pann; Eusebius Mandyczewski, the great scholar and editor active in Vienna, was of Romanian origin. Modern scholarship began only after World War I with the ethnomusicological studies of Constantin Brǎiloiu and the musicological work of George Breazul and Ioan D. Petrescu, who studied church music and its relationship to Byzantine music. Distinguished scholars of recent years include Gheorghe Ciobanu, Viorel Cosma (the very erudite lexicographer), Octavian Cosma, and Romeo Ghircoiasiu.
In Bulgaria, except for some studies in folk music, scholarly activities did not really begin until the work of Ivan Kamburov and Stojan Brashovanov, author of the first history of Bulgarian music (1946). Since 1945 there has been a much greater emphasis on scholarly work, supported by the Institute of Musicology founded in 1948 as part of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Until the early 1990s, the dominant figure in musicology was Venelin Krastev, who was responsible for the first comprehensive encyclopedia of Bulgarian music. Among younger scholars, Stefan Lazarov, Lada Brashovanova and Bozidar Karastojanov have concentrated on Bulgarian music of the last two centuries, and on the Byzantine roots of its ecclesiastical music.
The first systematic gathering of data about Czech musicians seems to be the Allgemeines historisches Künstler-Lexikon (1815) of Bohumír Dlabač. The beginnings of a more systematic study of the Czech and Slovak musical past appear in the works of Otakar Hostinský, who trained a generation of scholars, among the Dobroslav Orel, Otakar Zich and most notably Vladimir Helfert, a fine scholar particularly active after the creation of an independent Czechoslovakia in 1918. Otakar Šourek devoted himself to the study of Dvořák. The three most important centres of musicological studies are Prague, Brno and Bratislava. In Prague scholarly activities were long directed by Bohumír Štědroň, joint editor of the dictionary Československý hudební slovník (1963–5). The important centre in Brno was long directed by Jan Racek, who has not only written a comprehensive history of Czech music up to the beginning of the 19th century and been principal editor of the series Musica Antiqua Bohemica, but has also specialized particularly in Italian monody.
Since the separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic, the Bratislava group (originally formed around Orel), which fostered publications like Musica Slovaca, has produced a number of significant writers. The finest anthology of Czech music before Smetana was prepared by Jaroslav Pohanka. Historical studies are supported by a profusion of periodicals and publications of high quality.
Hungarian musical scholarship before 1918 was closely tied to that of Austria. Liszt’s writings about Gypsy music aroused much interest in traditional folk music, on which Kodály and Bartók later contributed studies. The first Hungarian music periodical, Zenészeti lapok (‘Musical journals’), was founded in 1860 by Kornél Ábrányi, and Emil Haraszti did much to make Hungarian music known in other countries. Modern musicological studies came into their own after 1918, especially in the work of Bence Szabolcsi, pre-eminent as a student of the distant past as well as of more recent developments in Hungarian music; Otto Gombosi, a medievalist of unusually broad erudition; and Dénes Bartha, well known for his work on Haydn as well as on Hungarian music. The Haydn and Bartók studies of László Somfai are in the forefront of research on those composers. Benjamin Rajeczky’s studies of Gregorian chant have led to the formation of a group of scholars headed by László Dobszay which, in cooperation with the Institut für Musikwissenschaft at Regensburg, is the nucleus for periodic gatherings of medievalists known as Cantus Planus.
In the former Yugoslavia the 19th-century beginnings of music historiography can be traced to those areas belonging to the Austrian empire before 1918. Perhaps the most significant figure was the ethnomusicologist Franjo Kuhač, who fancifully claimed Croatian origin for Haydn, Tartini and Liszt. In Slovenia Peter Radics published Frau Musica in Krain (1877), which marks the beginning of interest in the Slovenian musical past; the first true scholar, however, was Josef Mantuani, long active in Vienna. Dragan Plamenac was a scholar of international reputation whose interests centred on the music of the 14th to 16th centuries; his contributions to scholarship include an edition of Ockeghem’s works. The greatest progress in musicology since 1945 has been achieved in Slovenia; at the University of Ljubljana the first and so far the only chair of musicology was founded in 1962; it was occupied by Dragotin Cvetko until his death in 1993. Andrej Rijavec, Marija Koren and others continue to publish Muzikološki zbornik, the musicological annual started by Cvetko in 1966. In Croatia the teacher and author Josip Andreis trained a whole generation of fine scholars; and Ivo Supičić created an important centre for the sociology and aesthetics of music in Zagreb before moving to France. A number of scholars around Stanislav Tuksar have produced studies of distinctively Croatian musical traditions. In Serbia the beginnings of music historiography were made by the composer–scholars Miloje Milojević and Kosta Manojlović. Several studies on the history of Serbian music were produced by Stana Đurić-Klajn, editor of a number of journals. The most significant recent achievements in historical musicology have been Dimitrije Stefanović’s and Danica Petrović’s studies of ecclesiastical chant. Musicological studies are mainly centred on research institutes in Belgrade (founded in 1948), Zagreb (1967) and Ljubljana. Cooperative efforts, however, were dealt a severe blow by the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991–2.
Musicology, §III: National traditions of musicology
Musicology, §III, 8: National traditions of musicology: The USA
Musicology was slow to respond to Ralph Waldo Emerson's call for distinctive American contributions to humanistic disciplines in an address ‘The American Scholar’ (1837), for the field was at that time scarcely in existence in a formal sense in Europe. It began in the USA in the later 19th century with distinctive though necessarily isolated achievements by scholars who lacked the institutional bases that were later created by the development of the field as an intellectual enterprise. To its earliest phase belong such efforts as J.S. Dwight's Journal of Music (1852–81), which included material on music history, and the work of Lowell Mason, who combined the roles of music teacher, editor and collector of rare music. Intellectually more distinguished though geographically more isolated was the achievement of A.W. Thayer (1812–97), the great pioneer of serious Beethoven biography, who spent all his later life as US consul at Trieste.
The first important American-based scholar, in the true sense, was Oscar George Theodore Sonneck (1873–1928), who was born in the USA, trained in Germany and for 15 years was chief of the Music Division of the Library of Congress (1902–17). Sonneck was not only instrumental in building the great music collection of the Library of Congress; he was also the author of essays and studies on a variety of music-historical subjects and the compiler of a bibliography of early American music and of a richly annotated Catalogue of Opera Librettos Printed before 1800 (1914). He was also the founder-editor of the Musical Quarterly (published first by G. Schirmer and later by Oxford University Press) which began publication in 1915 and long remained the most widely circulated American periodical containing serious writing on music.
Between the wars American musicology began to establish its roots in American institutions of higher learning and formed the professional ties that would make possible its growth as a scholarly discipline. As early as 1915 the Musical Quarterly had issued a programme for the field in an article by Waldo Selden Pratt entitled ‘On Behalf of Musicology’. Although the term ‘musicology’ at first rang strangely in American ears, the field by the early 1930s was beginning to acquire in academic circles the status accorded to other branches of humanistic scholarship. A seminal figure in the establishment of musicology in the American university was Otto Kinkeldey (1878–1966). Like Sonneck, Kinkeldey was trained in Germany, where he was not only awarded the PhD but was also in 1910 named Royal Prussian Professor of Musicology at the University of Breslau. On returning to the USA in 1914 he became head of the Music Division of the New York Public Library, and in 1930 professor of musicology at Cornell University, the first such chair to be established in an American university.
Kinkeldey was the first president of the American Musicological Society, founded by a group of nine scholars and teachers on 3 June 1934 in New York. By the late 1990s the society, whose Journal has been issued regularly since 1950, had a national membership of more than 4500, making it the largest professional association in the USA devoted to music scholarship. In 1961 the society was host to the eighth congress of the International Musicological Society in New York, the first such congress held off European soil; in 1977 the twelfth congress met at Berkeley, California. Although members of the AMS are active in every field of study, the bulk of their efforts has been undeniably directed towards the Western historical tradition. In response to this orientation the Society for Ethnomusicology was founded in 1954; this society still serves as the primary professional organization in the field of musical ethnography and issues its own journal, Ethnomusicology. Despite this formal separation there have always been signs of mutual awareness of the common interests that can unite traditional musicological disciplines and their ethnomusicological counterparts. For example, the important set of essays entitled Musicology (1963), published in the series Humanistic Scholarship in America, was written by two scholars who were then principally distinguished for their work in music history, Frank Ll. Harrison (from Great Britain) and Claude V. Palisca, and by the ethnomusicologist Ki Mantle Hood. (After this book Harrison devoted himself to full-time teaching and research in the field of ethnomusicology.)
A third general orientation within American musicology was solidified with the founding of the Society for Music Theory in 1977. This society represents scholars primarily engaged in music analysis and speculative music theory. Still other, smaller societies share membership and sometimes meetings with these large umbrella groups: these include the Sonneck Society, devoted to the study of American musics, and the Center for Black Music Research.
Since the first American PhD in musicology was awarded at Cornell University in 1932 (to J. Murray Barbour), the field has spread widely among universities. Music in any form was relatively late in entering American university curricula as a separate subject, but it has undergone enormous growth in the past century (see Universities, §III, 4). Today few universities or colleges in the USA can fail to offer, in addition to practical vocal and instrumental music-making, at least elementary courses devoted to music theory and to music history in one or more of its phases. Most offer much more, including courses in theory, analysis and related fields, a full range of courses in the history and literature of music, and courses in one area or more of non-Western musics, jazz and popular music.
The large number of PhDs awarded in musicology since 1945 is indicative of a growing population of American-trained scholars, but also indicates the creation of university positions on a larger scale than before, although conditions of economic retrenchment since the 1970s have reduced the earlier trend. In part, the significant role of American musicology in every field of study now being pursued in the discipline is attributable to its substantial number of practitioners, to the location of its research bases in universities, and to the research support available to American scholars through such private organizations as the Guggenheim Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies and the federally supported National Endowment for the Humanities. Even more, it is attributable to the contributions of a score of eminent scholars who, in the generation after Kinkeldey, can be said to have created the field in its more modern forms in the USA. Among these seminal teacher-scholars were three of the founder-members of the AMS: Gustave Reese, Charles Seeger and Oliver Strunk. The first and last of these trained generations of scholars at, respectively, New York University and Princeton University. To their names must be added those of Paul Henry Lang, Glen Haydon, Donald J. Grout, Charles Warren Fox and Arthur Mendel.
During the Nazi regime a large number of significant figures in musical scholarship emigrated to the USA, including Willi Apel, Manfred Bukofzer, Hans David, Alfred Einstein, Karl Geiringer, Otto Gombosi, Paul Nettl, Erich Hertzmann, Edward Lowinsky, Curt Sachs, Leo Schrade and Emanuel Winternitz. All these men taught at major institutions and had vital roles in the training of younger American scholars; all of them, furthermore, published their work in English and brought European backgrounds and modes of approach to the fields in which they specialized. With the recovery of Europe after World War II, the increasing internationalization of the discipline was felt in many ways: in the resumption of European travel and research by American scholars, in their contacts with foreign scholars and scholarly enterprises, and in the presence of other major foreign scholars in American teaching posts; among the latter was Nino Pirotta, who taught at Princeton, Columbia, and then for many years at Harvard before returning to his native Italy. Such teachers as these laid the foundations for the postwar generation of American scholars, among them Barry S. Brook, Howard Mayer Brown, James Haar, Daniel Heartz, Joseph Kerman, Jan LaRue, Lewis Lockwood and Claude V. Palisca.
By the 1970s musicology in the USA had become a solidly established field of scholarship embracing a vast spectrum of interests. At distant ends of the arc these interests coalesced in the work of large groups of scholars sharing common approaches: at one end a group concerned with Western historical musicology in all its forms, fields and sub-disciplines (ranging from archival work and narrative history to performing practice, which manifested itself in, for example, the pioneer work of the New York Pro Musica and the authentic instrument designs of such men as Hubbard and Dowd); and at the other end, a group of ethnomusicologists more and more deeply involved in anthropological and ethnographic approaches. In addition to these more or less clearly definable segments of the active scholarly population, there was abundant evidence of the opening of the discipline to new or formerly less emphasized areas such as speculative and descriptive theory and analysis (notably Milton Babbitt, Allen Forte and Leonard Meger), contemporary music, folk and popular music, and the music history of the American continent (to which such scholars as Gilbert Chase, Robert Stevenson and H. Wiley Hitchcock contributed substantially).
Perhaps the greatest challenge facing American musicology in the 1970s was to make its impact felt outside the academy – on the world of performance, in conservatories, in concert life, and even in the commercialized music industries. By 1980 American musicology had barely breached the long-established barriers that divided the forces of serious intellectual life from the vast media that produce and disseminate music and musical culture. Several results of this situation can be noted: the continued isolation of scholarship from practical musical life, the proliferation of much traditional misinformation, the generally low level of music criticism in the mass media, and the perpetuation of long-established and deeply entrenched attitudes about music, largely inherited from the 19th century. One important question facing many musicologists was whether scholarly knowledge of and about music might come to be more strongly felt in American society in the future than it had been in the past.
Musicology, §III, 8: National traditions of musicology: The USA
Despite the willingness of American musicologists to embrace new approaches and subject matters that were in many cases unimaginable (or undesirable) for earlier generations of scholars, American musicology has failed significantly to enlarge its role outside the academy. The reasons are various. While contemporary American culture offers some niches for ‘public intellectuals’, there is little public place for the musical intelligentsia, and what space there is tends to be occupied by performers rather than scholars. (Crossover figures who pursue dual careers as both accomplished concert performers and serious scholars are rare.) Moreover, musical studies have been broadly implicated in recent ‘culture wars’ in the USA. 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.
At the same time, the growing diversity of musical scholarship in the 1980s and 90s served in the most general way to blur the discipline's longstanding focus on individual musical styles, genres, composers and works. In the process scholars asserted more and more clearly approaches to musicology that endeavour to understand music as acts of expression in a sociocultural context; these approaches were relatively undersung in the postwar period, even though they had been anticipated by musicologists from the time of Guido Adler. This diversification of emphasis has strengthened the ties of musicology to other interpretative disciplines within the academy, notably anthropology (especially in its culturalist guises), sociology (again in culturalist versions such as those derived from Weber) and history (especially its non-positivist hermeneutic and philosophical modes). It has linked musicology with emergent fields of cultural studies and performance studies. It has led many musicologists to explore a broad range of cultural theory – including latter-day feminism, new conceptions of ethnicity and race, and poststructuralist views of language and subjectivity – that has been prominent in literature (and especially English) departments in the USA. Not least, it has underscored the affinities between European-orientated musicology and ethnomusicology, notwithstanding the lingering defensiveness with which these subdisciplines regard each other. In sum, these new emphases engage musicology more and more deeply in central agendas of today's humanistic academy.
Few if any of the approaches prominent in recent American musicology have broken with the empirically based reasoning and evidentiary standards that have characterized Western scholarly work at least since the Enlightenment. The criticism of Joseph Kerman (1985), for example, is fundamentally allied to the ‘positivistic’ researches he has at times disdained; his critical exegeses are based as profoundly on argument from musical and non-musical evidence as are positivistic histories and philology; and both of these approaches are likewise allied to the novel scholarly strategies that have emerged since the mid-1980s. Nevertheless, most of these newer approaches are committed in one fashion or another to understanding music-making as an act situated in a cultural or ideological context. Even when they circle back towards individual works, they question musical claims to autonomy, absoluteness or transcendence and treat handed-down evaluations and canons with suspicion. Indeed in many cases they challenge the basic conception of discrete, self-identical works that has tended to guide musicologists since the beginning of the discipline.
The turn away from objective historicism, in which the historian was seen as an inert observer of past objects and facts, has led in two directions. The first endeavours to describe an ‘effective’ history, a tradition in which the historical object and the historian stand in mediated relation to one another. This approach looks back through Collingwood at least to Nietzsche, but owes its recent elaboration especially to Hans-Georg Gadamer. The formulation of Gadamer's ideas in music-historical terms preoccupied the German musicologist Carl Dahlhaus, who exerted a strong influence on American musicology from the 1980s. Leo Treitler heralded the effective-historical approach in the 1960s, and it is exemplified in his more recent writings on the reception history of Gregorian chant; in Richard Taruskin's studies of Russian music and the philosopher Lydia Goehr's examination of the Western musical canon; and in the work of historically sensitive music analysts such as Scott Burnham.
The second alternative to objectivist historiography is more explicitly political, endeavouring to reveal the structures of power that inform and shape acts of music-making (or even of music scholarship-making). Such ideology critique looks back on another influential German, Theodor Adorno; it emerges fully formed in his Versuch über Wagner, much of which dates from the 1930s. His brand of critique was ushered into American musicology especially by Rose Rosengard Subotnik, in essays written in the late 1970s and 1980s. Adorno's hermeneutics of suspicion in the face of prevailing relations of power may be sensed more or less clearly in much recent scholarship, especially that scrutinizing the formation of the Western canon (e.g. Bergeron and Bohlman, 1992) or emphasizing feminism, gender studies or queer studies (e.g. McClary, 1991; Solie, 1993; Brett, Thomas and Wood, 1994). It is felt also in popular music studies (e.g. Taylor, 1997), though this area remains somewhat underdeveloped in the USA in comparison with the UK and Canada, where it was nurtured by sophisticated traditions of Marxism and grew along with the cultural-studies orientation they spawned.
In its broadest implication, musicological ideology critique moves beyond the political, narrowly conceived, to assert the view that the self is largely constituted, in body and psyche alike, through the action of social forces and the corollary view that the play of these forces may be witnessed in music-making. As language may be considered to form a crucial element of such forces, it is not surprising that some recent American musicology has selfconsciously exploited post-Saussurean language theory (with its shift from ideas of reference to the view that meaning emerges from relations among words) and its outgrowths (for instance, in Lacan's psychology, Barthes's narrative theory, Derrida's grammatology or Foucault's archaeology). Scholars have brought these theories to bear in critical exegeses of individual works (e.g. Kramer, 1990; Abbate, 1991), as well as describing broad discursive systems in which acts of music-making, traditions of performance or conceptions of music do not merely represent but actively constitute particular subjectivities (e.g. Floyd, 1995; Tomlinson, 1999).
While a focus on individual works, however theorized, has usually gravitated towards a text-centred view of musical study, a more general discursive approach can at times move away from scores towards performative views and a focus on aspects of musical traditions, even élite European ones, not conducive to inscription. This division represents a reformulation of the oral/written dichotomy that long differentiated musicology and ethnomusicology in the USA. As non-ethnographic musicology has given increasing attention to performative aspects basic to the traditions it scrutinizes, the divide between written and unwritten traditions has eroded. This development has been particularly clear in jazz studies, an area that long seemed intent on legitimizing its subject matter through construction of a canon of masterworks analogous to the European art-music canon, but which recently has taken large strides in the direction of performative analysis (e.g. Berliner, 1994; Monson, 1996). The development can be witnessed also in other areas, even ones as close to the heart of musicology's old objective historiography as Renaissance studies. Recent rethinking of issues such as modality and Tinctoris's shadowy cantare super librum has raised broad questions concerning the status of the work-concept around and after 1500 (e.g. Bent, 1983).
Perhaps the broadest division in recent American musical studies is between a scholarship that aims finally, through whatever congeries of new and conventional means, at exegesis of the musical work or act itself, and a scholarship that sees musical utterance not as its endpoint but as the inception of an investigation of trans-musical human concerns – a scholarship that aims, in other words, to exploit music in order to describe particular configurations of human culture and ideology. Such work allies itself with goals that until recently were more evident in ethnomusicology than historical musicology. As it proliferates it once again blurs boundaries between the two fields that were always questionable (as Frank Ll. Harrison asserted in 1963), if seldom questioned. Thus one scholarly trajectory leads back towards the musical act or work, but with a panoply of scholarly technique perhaps more varied and certainly more questioning of culture-transcending values than that of earlier decades. The other leads towards broader considerations of human aspiration and limitation, armed with tools that aim to guard against the too-frequent universalisms of earlier scholarship. In the coming years the truest measure of the success of the diversification in subject matter and method of American musicology may well be its ability to sustain and interwine these two strategies.
Musicology, §III: National traditions of musicology
In most Latin American countries musicology has been understood primarily as the history of music. With few exceptions, interest has centred on local art music activities, frequently related to concurrent western European trends. Several national music histories written in the early 20th century stressed the achievements of individual composers and the development of musical institutions; interpretative or critical analysis did not become part of musicological work until the 1960s. Latin American music historians, however, early on showed a special concern for integrating music within the social history of an era or a country. In addition, their nationalist ideology forced them to consider at least some aspects of folk and popular music (see below).
Lack of access to primary source material, both historical and musical, hindered the development of musicology in the region; only after World War II was it established as a research discipline in some areas of Latin America and the Caribbean. Journals such as the Revista brasileira de música (1934–44), the Revista musical chilena (from 1945) and the Revista de estudios musicales in Argentina (from 1949) published articles on Latin American topics. Systematic bibliographical compilations also began to appear in this period, notably Gilbert Chase's A Guide to Latin American Music (1945), the Bibliografia musical brasileira (1820–1950) by L.H. Corrêa de Azevedo, C. Person de Matos and M. de Moura Reis (1952), and the Organization of American States series Composers of the Americas (1955–72). The first important dictionary dealing with the whole of Latin America was Otto Mayer-Serra's Música y músicos de Latinoamérica. Major international dictionaries and encyclopedias have given serious attention to Latin American music only since the 1970s. New national music dictionaries and periodicals have appeared since that time, but most are predominantly descriptive rather than critical.
The central figure in Hispanic-American historical musicology concerned with music before 1900 is Robert Stevenson. Among the leading Latin American musicologists in the early postwar years were Carlos Vega in Argentina and Lauro Ayestarán in Uruguay. Francisco Curt Lange, editor of the six-volume Boletín latinoamericano de música (1935–46), supported his campaign of ‘Americanismo musical’ out of his Inter-American Institute of Musicology, established in Montevideo in 1945. Lange was one of the first South American scholars to study colonial music archives in Argentina and Brazil. These, together with archives in Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Uruguay, have been extensively catalogued since the 1940s, and modern editions of colonial church music have also appeared. Until the 1970s, however, musicology was not an area of academic priority in many countries. A number of well-known scholars, such as Mário de Andrade, Renato Almeida, Alejo Carpentier and Vasco Mariz, were not trained as musicologists, and many composers turned to musicology as well. In the last quarter of the century the field received more attention in universities, which now provide systematic training, frequently leading to doctoral study in Europe or North America. The work of the younger generation of scholars has resulted in publications of source and thematic catalogues, editions, recordings and critical analyses of colonial and 19th-century music.
Corrêa de Azevedo observed that ethnomusicological research preceded historical musicology throughout Latin America. The first students of native American music were the numerous European travellers, missionaries and scientists who had varying degrees of contact with Indian and mestizo cultures during the colonial period. In the late 19th century cultural historians began to study local oral cultural phenomena, reacting primarily against the domination of European and European-related music in Latin America under the control of élite social classes. The first music histories of various Latin American countries, beginning in the 1920s, acknowledged traditional, folk and urban popular music. This awareness was fostered by the emergence of nativist-nationalist intellectual and artistic movements such as the Mexican post-revolutionary Aztec Renaissance, the afrocubanismo trend, the Peruvian-Andean indigenismo movement and the Brazilian modernismo. For the most part, however, field research was not undertaken seriously until World War II. This has resulted in a better, more representative account of various aspects of folk and traditional music, but the majority of ethnomusicologists and music folklorists have maintained an essentially descriptive approach to such music. Because of this emphasis, neither music folklore nor the incipient Latin American ethnomusicology of the last four decades of the 20th century contributed substantially to a general theory of ethnomusicology. Since the 1980s, however, a broader conceptual approach to ethnomusicological studies has emerged, especially in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Brazil, Mexico and Cuba.
An important issue for Latin American ethnomusicologists has been the study of origins within the tri-ethnic make-up of Latin American music (Iberian, Amerindian, African). Generalizations have frequently resulted from the search for ‘pure’ retention of a given musical trait believed to be attributable to a specific cultural root. This diffusionist, evolutionist and neo-colonialist attitude is reflected in the influential theories of Carlos Vega, who raised the characteristics of regional songsters (cancioneros) to the level of universal criteria. A more basic problem has been a lack of conceptual distinction between ‘music folklore’ as thought of and practised throughout Latin America and ethnomusicology. Music folklore has had little or no theoretical and methodological formulation; the social uses and functions of music, for example, are hardly mentioned in most studies of folk and popular music. Until the late 20th century, Latin American researchers in the field tended to believe that they possessed unique understanding of the music and culture of their country, without questioning the objectivity of their observations. However, most Latin American folklorists and ethnomusicologists come from the dominant social groups, which in general exhibit a high degree of eurocentrism. Rather than blindly following the lessons of European or American ethnomusicology, Latin American scholars must attempt to formulate theoretical objectives based on their own conceptualization of research problems and purposes in specific countries. The problems of cultural hegemony and cultural populism in some regions of Latin America must also be faced; for example, consideration of the internal market pressures exerted by the multi-national music industry that tend to alienate folk communities, precipitating changes or requiring adaptive strategies, has become a necessity in the study of these communities.
Like historical musicology, Latin American ethnomusicology has suffered from a lack of attention in institutions of higher learning. Schools of music, conservatories and university music departments recognize the need to provide at least a general introduction to local musical traditions, but most continue to treat ‘music folklore’ as an exotic subject. When it is recognized as a discipline in its own right, ethnomusicology tends to receive more attention from social scientists than from musicians, although younger musicians trained either abroad or in anthropology are developing a broader conception of the field (see Béhague, 1993).
Musicology, §III: National traditions of musicology
Japan's long tradition of music scholarship began in the 12th century when Emperor Goshirakawa in his retirement compiled Ryōjin hishō, a collection of popular songs of the time. In 1233 Koma-no-Chikazane completed a ten-volume study of court music (gagaku) and dance entitled Kyōkun-shō. Other important works on gagaku include Taigen-shō (1512) by Toyohara-no-Muneaki and Gakka-roku (1690) by Abe-no-Suehisa. Zeami (c1363–c1443) discussed the aesthetic principles of nō theatre in a series of writings, notably the Kadensho (‘Book of Flowers’). Seikyoku ruisan (1839; published 1847) by Saitō Gesshin is a detailed study of vocal music in the Edo period. Konakamura Kiyonori provided a history of traditional Japanese music and dance in Kabu ongaku ryakushi (1887).
Tanaka Shōhei (1862–1945) and Kanetsune Kiyosuke (1885–1957), both physicists, were the precursors of modern musicology in Japan; the former is known for his study of temperaments, the latter as a music critic and collector of folksongs. Tanabe Hisao (1883–1984), one of Tanaka's pupils, is regarded as the first Japanese musicologist in the European sense; he studied music of Japanese and other Asian traditions. Outstanding among his pupils are Kikkawa Eishi, a specialist on Japanese music, and Kishibe Shigeo, a leading scholar of Asian music. Hayashi Kenzō made a detailed study of ancient instruments, and Machida Yoshiaki (Kashō) collected folksongs extensively. In 1936 they and other scholars founded the Society for Research in Asiatic Music. Koizumi Fumio was the leading ethnomusicologist in Japan in the 1950s and 60s; he was followed by Fujii Tomoaki, Tokumaru Yosihiko, Tsuge Gen'ichi and Yamaguti Osamu. Among the outstanding younger scholars of Japanese music are Hirano Kenji, Yokomichi Mario and Kamisangō Yūkō. Tanimoto Kazuyuki is the foremost authority on Ainu music.
Tsuji Shōichi (1895–1987), a Bach scholar, was the first Japanese musicologist to specialize in European music. After World War II the field grew significantly, led by Nomura Yosio and Hattori Kōzō, and in 1952 the Musicological Society of Japan was founded to promote studies of Western music. Younger Bach scholars include Sumikura Ichirō, Kobayashi Yoshitake, Isoyama Tadashi and Higuchi Ryuichi. Ebisawa Bin has written extensively on Mozart. Other areas of scholarly activity include Romanticism (Mayeda Akio, Morita Minoru and Osaki Shigemi), contemporary music (Funayama Tadashi and Takeda Akimichi) and early music (Toguchi Kosaku, Minagawa Tatsuo, Kanazawa Masakata and Imatani Kazunori).
The majority of Japanese universities do not have a department of music or musicology. As a result, students seeking a higher degree in musicology usually pursue his or her study within a Department of Literature or Aesthetics (e.g. Tokyo University or Osaka University), or of Education (e.g. Tokyo Gakugei University or Nagoya College of Music). There were about two dozen such institutions in 2000.
The first institution with a higher degree programme in musicology was the Tokyo Geijutsu Daigaku (Tokyo National University of Fine Arts and Music; MA in 1963, and PhD in 1976). The example was followed by the Musashino College of Music (MA in 1964), the Kunitachi College of Music (MA in 1968), the Osaka College of Music (MA in 1968) and Elisabeth University of Music in Hiroshima (MA, 1990; PhD, 1993). By the end of the 20th century several other institutions had started a graduate programme in musicology, most offering only a masters degree.
Musicology, §III: National traditions of musicology
Musicology in Australia and New Zealand constitutes a Western intellectual tradition within a culturally complex Asian-Pacific environment. The high importance of indigenous music studies, the conspicuous presence of transplanted traditions from Europe and South America and the propinquity of Oceanic and Asian traditions have long encouraged a confluence of musicological and ethnomusicological disciplines. Most university music courses combine studies in both disciplines from the first-year undergraduate level. The confluence colours even the most overtly eurocentric studies by encouraging a dialectic between literacy and orality, tradition and innovation. Moreover, by giving immediacy to questions of aesthetics, meaning and interpretation, it fosters consideration of the particular nature of mainstream Western musical culture.
Concerted developments in music research began after World War II, though serious studies had been made in both indigenous Australian and Maori music from early in the 20th century. In New Zealand, university music departments were from their beginnings associated with humanities faculties and readily able to take advantage of postwar developments in music scholarship emanating from the USA and Europe. In Australia the first musicologically orientated music department (as opposed to those with a vocationally-based structure) was founded in 1948 at the University of Sydney by the English scholar Donald Peart. He was soon joined by another English musicologist, Peter Platt, who was later able to build on work began by Mary Martin at the University of Otago in New Zealand. Andrew McCredie, who studied in Sydney, Scandinavia and Hamburg, developed a musicology department at the University of Adelaide with an important postgraduate school owing its ethos to American and continental European models.
In Australia, important centres of musicological study are the universities of Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne (the latter housing the Grainger Museum and the Centre for Australian Music Studies), the University of Queensland, the University of Western Australia, Monash University in Melbourne, the University of New South Wales in Sydney and the University of Western Sydney. The principal centres in New Zealand include the universities of Auckland, Christchurch, Otago and Wellington. The region's most distinguished scholars in Western musicology have included Gordon Anderson, David Tunley, Jamie C. Kassler and Richard Charteris in Australia, and John Steele in New Zealand. Roger Covell and John M. Thomson have done pioneer work in Australian and New Zealand studies respectively; Thomson was the first editor of the journal Composer (1963–6) and founding editor (1973–86) of Early Music.
The Musicological Society of Australia was founded in 1963 by Peart, Dene Barnett, Ian Spink and others; Peart served as its first president. In 1976, on the initiative of Graham Pont and Michael Kassler, the society became a truly national body with regional chapters that sponsored an annual conference and study weekends. The society's occasional journal Musicology became an annual from 1985 under the title Musicology Australia. The New Zealand Musicological Society dates from 1981; Warren Drake was its first president. The society holds a yearly conference and publishes the annual Research Chronicle. Other scholarly journals include Miscellanea Musicologica (from 1966), Studies in Music (1967–92), Music in New Zealand (1988–96), Context (from 1991), Australasian Music Research (from 1996) and Perfect Beat (from 1992). The anthropological journal Oceania and publications of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies are of great importance in the field of indigenous music research.
MGG1 (‘Musikwissenschaft’; W. Wiora and H. Albrecht)
MGG2 (‘Musikwissenschaft’; R. Cadenbach and others)
F. Chrysander: Preface and Introduction to Jb für musikalische Wissenschaft, i (1863), 9–16
G. Adler: ‘Umfang, Methode und Ziel der Musikwissenschaft’, VMw, i (1885), 5–20
G. Adler: ‘Musik und Musikwissenschaft’, JbMP 1898, 27–39
H. Kretzschmar: ‘Kurze Betrachtungen über den Zweck, die Entwicklung und die neuesten Zukunftsaufgaben der Musikhistorie’, JbMP 1907, 83–96
H. Riemann: Grundriss der Musikwissenschaft (Leipzig, 1908, rev. 4/1928 by J. Wolf)
G. Adler: Der Stil in der Musik, i: Prinzipien und Arten des musikalischen Stils (Leipzig, 1911, 2/1929/R)
W.S. Pratt: ‘On Behalf of Musicology’, MQ, i (1915), 1–16
L. Schiedermair: Einführung in das Studium der Musikgeschichte (Munich, 1918, 4/1947)
J. Wolf: ‘Musikwissenschaft und musikwissenschaftlicher Unterricht’, Festschrift Hermann Kretzschmar (Leipzig, 1918/R), 175–9
G. Adler: Methode der Musikgeschichte (Leipzig, 1919/R)
H. Kretzschmar: Einführung in die Musikgeschichte (Leipzig, 1920/R)
E. Bücken: ‘Grundfragen der Musikgeschichte als Geisteswissenschaft’, JbMP 1927, 19–30
E.J. Dent: ‘Music and Music Research’, AcM, iii (1931), 5–8
E. Haraszti: ‘Fétis fondateur de la musicologie comparée’, AcM, iv (1932), 97–103
H. Edelhoff: Johann Nikolaus Forkel: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Musikwissenschaft (Göttingen, 1935)
O. Kinkeldey: ‘Changing Relations within the Field of Musicology’, PAMS 1936, 42–57
E.J. Dent: ‘The Historical Approach to Music’, MQ, xxiii (1937), 1–17
W.D. Allen: Philosophies of Music History (New York, 1939, 2/1962)
W. Gurlitt: ‘Der gegenwärtige Stand der deutschen Musikwissenschaft’, DVLG, xvii (1939), Referaten Heft, 1–82
C. Seeger: ‘Systematic and Historical Orientations in Musicology’, AcM, xi (1939), 121–8
G. Haydon: Introduction to Musicology (New York, 1941/R)
K.G. Fellerer: Einführung in die Musikwissenschaft (Berlin, 1942, 2/1953/R)
J. Wolf: ‘Musik und Musikwissenschaft’, Von deutscher Tonkunst: Festschrift zu Peter Raabes 70. Geburtstag, ed. A. Morgenroth (Leipzig, 1942), 38–44
P.H. Lang: ‘Musical Scholarship at the Crossroads’, MQ, xxxi (1945), 371–80
S. Clercx-Lejeune: ‘Définition de la musicologie et sa position à l'égard des autres disciplines qui lui sont connexes’, RBM, i (1946–7), 113–16
O. Kinkeldey: ‘Musical Scholarship and the University’, JRBM, i (1946–7), 10–18
P.H. Lang: ‘On Musicology’, MQ, xxxiii (1947), 557–64
W. Franck: ‘Musicology and its Founder, Johann Nicolaus Forkel (1749–1818)’, MQ, xxxv (1949), 588–601
J. Handschin: ‘Musicologie et musique’, IMSCR IV: Basle 1949, 9–29
R. Wangermée: ‘La musique ancienne contre la musique d'aujourd'hui’, Polyphonie, iii (1949), 12–29
C. Seeger: ‘Music and Musicology in the New World’, HMYB, vi (1949–50), 36–56
H. Engel: ‘Die Entwicklung der Musikwissenschaft, 1900–1950’, ZfM, Jg.111 (1950), 16–22
C. Seeger: ‘Systematic Musicology: Viewpoints, Orientations and Methods’, JAMS, ii (1951), 240–48
R. Wangermée: François-Joseph Fétis, musicologue et compositeur (Brussels, 1951)
F. Blume: ‘Musikforschung und Musikleben’, GfMKB: Bamberg 1953, 7–23
H.J. Moser: ‘Über den Sinn der Musikforschung’, Festgabe für Hans Joachim Moser (Kassel, 1954), 158–70
J. Handschin: ‘Der Arbeitsbereich der Musikwissenschaft’; ‘Belange der Wissenschaft’; ‘Gedanken über moderne Wissenschaft’; ‘Humanistische Besinnung’; ‘Über das Studium der Musikwissenschaft’; ‘Vom Sinn der Musikwissenschaft’, repr. in Gedenkschrift Jacques Handschin, ed. H. Oesch (Berne and Stuttgart, 1957), 23–8; 60–69; 51–59; 376–84; 38–50; 29–37
A. Mendel, C. Sachs and C.C. Pratt: Some Aspects of Musicology (New York, 1957/R)
C.N. Brăiloiu: ‘Musicologie et ethnomusicologie aujourd'hui’, IMSCR VII: Cologne 1958, 17–28
J. Chailley, ed.: Précis de musicologie (Paris, 1958, 2/1984)
A. Mendel: ‘Evidence and Explanation’, IMSCR VIII: New York 1961, ii, 3–18
W. Wiora: ‘Musikgeschichte und Urgeschichte’, STMf, xliii (1961), 375–96; repr. in Historische und systematische Musikwissenschaft (Tutzing, 1972), 88
W. Wiora: ‘Musikwissenschaft und Universalgeschichte’, AcM, xxxiii (1961), 84–104
T.W. Adorno: Einleitung in die Musiksoziologie: zwölf theoretische Vorlesungen (Frankfurt, 1962, 2/1968; Eng. trans., 1976)
W. Graf: ‘Neue Möglichkeiten, neue Aufgaben der vergleichenden Musikwissenschaft’, SMw, xxv (1962), 231–45
A. Machabey: La musicologie (Paris, 1962, 2/1969)
K.G. Fellerer: ‘Musik und Musikwissenschaft’, A Ettore Desderi (Bologna, 1963), 61–9
F.Ll. Harrison, M. Hood and C.V. Palisca: Musicology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963) [incl. F. Harrison: ‘American Musicology and the European Tradition’, 3–85; M. Hood: ‘Music, the Unknown’, 217–326; C.V. Palisca: ‘The Scope of American Musicology’, 89–213]
E.C. Krohn: ‘The Development of Modern Musicology’, Historical Musicology, ed. L.B. Spiess (New York, 1963), 153–72
A. Wellek: Musikpsychologie und Musikästhetik: Grundriss der systematischen Musikwissenschaft (Frankfurt, 1963, 3/1982)
A.P. Merriam: The Anthropology of Music (Evanston, IL, 1964)
Musicology and the Computer; Musicology 1966–2000: New York 1965 and 1966 [incl. ‘Computer Applications to Music and Musicology; Bibliography’, 229–70, and papers by L. Dittmer, J. LaRue, E. Lippman, L. Lockwood, C.V. Palisca, F. Zimmerman, A. Mendel]
E.A. Lippman: ‘What Musicology Should Be?’, CMc, no.1 (1965), 55–60
C. Dahlhaus: ‘Historismus und Tradition’, Zum 70. Geburtstag von Joseph Müller-Blattau, ed. C.-H. Mahling (Kassel, 1966), 46–58
G. Abraham: ‘Musical Scholarship in the Twentieth Century’, SMA, i (1967), 1–10
F. Blume: ‘Das musikalische Kunstwerk in der Geschichte’, Festschrift Bruno Stäblein, ed. M. Ruhnke (Kassel, 1967), 9–27; repr. in Syntagma musicologicum II: gesammelte Reden und Schriften 1962–1972, ed. A.A. Abert and M. Ruhnke (Kassel, 1973), 47–67
F. Blume: ‘Historische Musikforschung in der Gegenwart’, IMSCR X: Ljubljana 1967, 13–25; repr. in Syntagma musicologicum II: gesammelte Reden und Schriften 1962–1972, ed. A.A. Abert and M. Ruhnke (Kassel, 1973), 34–47; Eng. trans., SMA, ii (1968), 1–14
E. Doflein: ‘Historismus und Historisierung in der Musik’, Festschrift für Walter Wiora, ed. L. Finscher and C.-H. Mahling (Kassel, 1967), 48–56
V. Ernst: ‘Über die Einheit von historischer und systematischer Musikwissenschaft’, BMw, ix (1967), 91–7
F. Grasberger: ‘Musik und Forschung: ein historischer Rückblick’, ÖMz, xxii (1967), 641–6
L. Schrade: ‘Eine Einführung in die Musikgeschichtsschreibung älterer Zeit’, De scientia musicae studia atque orationes, ed. E. Lichtenhahn (Berne, 1967), 17–34
L. Treitler: ‘On Historical Criticism’, MQ, liii (1967), 188–205
H.C. Wolff: ‘Grenzen der Musikwissenschaft’, Festschrift für Walter Wiora, ed. L. Finscher and C.-H. Mahling (Kassel, 1967), 66–72
H.A. Brockhaus: ‘Musikwissenschaft als Leitungswissenschaft’, MG, xviii (1968), 747–54
D.J. Grout: ‘Current Historiography and Music History’, Studies in Music History: Essays for Oliver Strunk, ed. H. Powers (Princeton, NJ, 1968/R), 23–40
R. Heinz: Geschichtsbegriff und Wissenschaftscharakter der Musikwissenschaft in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Regensburg, 1968)
H. Kier: Raphael Georg Kiesewetter (1773–1850), Wegbereiter des musikalischen Historismus (Regensburg, 1968)
V. Konen: ‘Zur Verteidigung der historischen Musikwissenschaft’, Kunst und Literatur, xvi (1968), 199–207
H. Federhofer: ‘Gegenwartsprobleme der Musikforschung’, Musikerziehung, xxii (1968–9), 147–9
A. Liess: ‘Zur Problematik der Musikgeschichte als Wissenschaft und Unterrichtsfach’, Musikerziehung, xxii (1968–9), 6–11, 55–60
L. Treitler: ‘The Present as History’, PNM, vii/2 (1968–9), 1–58
A. Liess: ‘Aktuelle Probleme der Musikgeschichtsschreibung’, NZM, Jg.130 (1969), 139–41
E.H. Meyer: ‘Über die wechselseitige Beziehung musikwissenschaftlicher und kompositorischer Tätigkeit’, BMw, xi (1969), 235–44
H. Tischler: ‘And What is Musicology?’, MR, xxx (1969), 253–60
A. Wellek: ‘Gegenwartsprobleme systematischer Musikwissenschaft’, AcM, xli (1969), 213–35
W. Wiora, ed.: Die Ausbreitung des Historismus über die Musik (Regensburg, 1969)
V. Duckles: ‘Patterns in the Historiography of 19th-Century Music’, AcM, xlii (1970), 75–82
H.H. Eggebrecht, ed.: ‘Symposium: Reflexionen über Musikwissenschaft heute’, GfMKB: Bonn 1970, 617–97; see also Musikwissenschaft heute [pre-publication of statements made at IMSCR XI: Copenhagen 1972]
J. Maillard: ‘The Many Faces of Medieval Musicology’, SMA, iv (1970), 1–18
B.S. Brook and L.B. Plantinga, eds.: ‘Patterns in the Historiography of 19th-Century Music’, AcM, xliii (1971), 248–83 [from symposium with statements by W. Austin, B.S. Brook, V. Duckles, V. Féderov, G. Knepler, F. Lesure, L. Lockwood, R.M. Longyear, F. Noske, P. Petrobelli, L.B. Plantinga, A. Ringer, B. Schwarz, M. Velimirović, R. Wangermée]
C. Dahlhaus, ed.: Einführung in die systematische Musikwissenschaft (Cologne, 1971)
M. Hood: The Ethnomusicologist (New York, 1971, 2/1982)
A.D. McCredie: ‘Systematic Musicology: some Twentieth-Century Patterns and Perspectives’, SMA, v (1971), 1–35
B.S. Brook, E.O.D. Downes and S. Van Solkema, eds.: Perspectives in Musicology (New York, 1972) [15 papers on perspectives and lacunae in musicological research]
W. Wiora: Historische und systematische Musikwissenschaft (Tutzing, 1972)
G. Chase: ‘The Musicologist as Historian: a Matter of Distinction’, Notes, xxix (1972–3), 10–16
F. Blume: ‘Musik und Musikwissenschaft’, Syntagma musicologicum II: gesammelte Reden und Schriften, ed. A.A. Abert and M. Ruhnke (Kassel, 1973), 1–13
O. Elschek: ‘Gegenwartsprobleme der musikwissenschaftlichen Systematik’, AcM, xlv (1973), 1–23
‘Musikvetenskap: synpunkter på en översikt’, STMf, lvii/1 (1975), 7–56 [contributions by J. Bärmark, I. Bengtsson, O. Edwards, P. Gronow, S. Hansell, K. Johannesson, F. Krummacher, P. Lindblom, A. Lönn, F. Mathiassen, T. Stenström, J. Sundberg, M. Tegen]
C. Dahlhaus: Grundlagen der Musikgeschichte (Cologne, 1977; Eng. trans., 1983)
J. Shepherd and others: Whose Music? A Sociology of Musical Languages (London, 1977/R)
P. Petrobelli: ‘Musicologia: ma quale?’, RIM, xiv (1979), 184–7
D. Stevens: Musicology: a Practical Guide (London, 1980)
D.K. Holoman and C.V. Palisca, eds.: Musicology in the 1980s: Methods, Goals, Opportunities (New York, 1982)
G. Tomlinson: ‘The Web of Culture: a Context for Musicology’, 19CM, vii (1983–4), 350–62
L. Treitler: ‘What Kind of Story is History?’, 19CM, vii (1983–4), 363–73; repr. in Music and the Historical Imagination (Cambridge, MA, 1989)
J. Kerman: Contemplating Music: Challenges to Musicology (Cambridge, MA, 1985)
J.-J. Nattiez: Musicologie générale et sémiologie (Paris, 1987; Eng. trans., 1990 as Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music)
N. Kenyon, ed.: Authenticity and Early Music (Oxford, 1988)
K.F. Heimes: ‘Musicology in Terms of the Sociology of Knowledge: a South African Vignette International Library of African Music’, Symposium on Ethnomusicology VIII: Durban 1989, 10–23
Tendenze e metodi nella ricerca musicologica: Latina 1990
E. Tarasti: ‘Semiotics as a Common Language of Musicology’, La musica come linguaggio universale: genesi e storia de un'idea, ed. R. Pozzi (Florence, 1990), 133–49
L. Treitler: ‘History and Music’, New Literary History, xxi (1990), 299–319
P. Bohlman: ‘On the Unremarkable in Music’, 19CM, xv (1991–2), 203–16
Hermeneutik im musikwissenschaftlichen Kontext: Salzburg 1992
L. Kramer: ‘The Musicology of the Future’, Repercussions, i/1 (1992), 5–18
Musicology and Archival Research: Brussels 1993
P. Bohlman: ‘Musicology as a Political Act’, JM, xi (1993), 411–36
O. Elschek, A. Schneider and V. Zvara, eds.: ‘The Present State of Systematic Musicology’, Systematische Musikwissenschaft, i/2 (1993), 107–389
V. Emond and others, eds.: ‘Actes du colloque “Musicologie historique et musicologie théorique: une coexistence est-elle possible?”’, Canadian University Music Review/Revue de musique des universités canadiennes, xiv (1994), 161–82
E. Rieger: ‘“Gender Studies” und Musikwissenschaft: ein Forschungsbericht’, Mf, xlviii (1995), 235–50
M.A. Roig-Francoli: ‘Teoria, analisis, critica: reflexiones en torno a ciertas lagunas en la musicologie española’, Revista de musicologia, xviii/1–2 (1995), 11–25
L. Treitler: ‘History and Music’, History and … Histories within the Human Sciences, ed. R. Cohen and M.S. Roth (London, 1995)
S. Ehrmann-Herfort, ed.: Musikwissenschaft und Berufspraxis (Darmstadt, 1996)
T. Seebass: ‘Vergleichend-systematische Musikwissenschaft: Beiträge zur Methode und Problematik der systematischen, ethnologischen und historischen Musikwissenschaft’, ÖMz, li (1996), 299–301
K.O. Edstrom: ‘Fr-a-g-me-n-ts: a Discussion on the Position of Critical Ethnomusicology in Contemporary Musicology’, STMf, lxxix (1997), 9–68
J. Pasler: ‘Directions in Musicology’, AcM, lxix (1997), 16–21
M. Chimènes: ‘Musicologie et histoire: frontière ou “no man's land” entre deux disciplines?’, RdM, lxxxiv (1998), 67–78
R. Fink: ‘Elvis Everywhere: Musicology and Popular Music: Studies at the Twilight of the Canon’, American Music, xvi (1998), 135–79
N. Cook and M. Everist, eds.: Rethinking Music (Oxford, 1999)
Theoretical and analytical method
MGG2 (‘Geschichtsschreibung’; G. Knepler)
C. Sachs: ‘Kunstgeschichtliche Wege zur Musikwissenschaft’, AMw, i (1918–19), 451–61
G. Adler: Methode der Musikgeschichte (Leipzig, 1919/R)
C. Sachs: ‘Die Musik in Rahmen der allgemeinen Kunstgeschichte’, AMw, vi (1924), 255–61
E. Bücken: ‘Grundfragen der Musikgeschichte als Geisteswissenschaft’, JbMP 1927, 19–30
W.D. Allen: Philosophies of Music History: a Study of General Histories of Music 1600–1900 (New York, 1939, 2/1962)
K. von Fischer and H.H. Eggebrecht: ‘The Concept of the “New” in Music from the Ars Nova to the Present Day’, IMSCR VIII: New York 1961, i, 184–202; ii, 112–17
W. Wiora: ‘Musikgeschichte und Universalgeschichte’, AcM, xxxiii (1961), 84–104
W. Wiora: ‘Ethnomusicology and the History of Music’, SMH, vii (1965), 187–93
D.J. Grout: ‘Current Historiography and Music History’, Studies in Music History: Essays for Oliver Strunk, ed. H.S. Powers (Princeton, NJ, 1968), 23–40
R. Heinz: Geschichtbegriff und Wissenschaftscharakter der Muskwissenschaft in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Regensburg, 1968)
B. Meier: ‘Zur Musikhistoriographie des 19. Jahrhunderts’, Die Ausbreitung des Historismus über die Musik, ed. W. Wiora (Regensburg, 1969), 169–207
V. Duckles: ‘Patterns in the Historiography of 19th-Century Music’, AcM, xlii (1970), 75–82
G. Knepler: ‘Music Historiography in Eastern Europe’, Perspectives in Musicology, ed. B.S. Brook, E.O.D. Downes and S.V. Solkema (New York, 1972), 227–48
H. Oesch, ed.: ‘Musicology Today’, IMSCR XI: Copenhagen 1972, 167–218
W. Dömling: ‘Über den Einfluss kunstwissenschaftlicher Theorien auf die Musikhistorie’, JbSIM 1974, 7–45
G. Knepler: Geschichte als Weg zum Musikverständnis: Beiträge zur Theorie, Methode und der Musikgeschichtsschreibung (Leipzig, 1977)
W. Freitag: Der Entwicklungsbegriff in der Musikgeschichtsschreibung: Darstellung und Abgrenzung musiktheoretischer Epochen (Wilhelmshaven, 1980)
W. Wiora: Ideen zur Geschichte der Musik (Darmstadt, 1980)
L. Treitler: Music and the Historical Imagination (Cambridge, MA, 1989)
P. Gossett: ‘Carl Dahlhaus and the “Ideal Type”’, 19CM, xiii (1989–90), 49–56 [review of Nineteenth-Century Music]
M.C. de Brito, ed.: ‘Historiography’, IMSCR XVI: London 1997, 22–8
C.-H. Mahling and S. Münch, eds.: Ethnomusikologie und historische Musikwissenschaft: gemeinsame Ziele, gleiche Methoden? Erich Stockmann zum 70. Geburtstag (Tutzing, 1997)
M. Babbitt: ‘Past and Present Concepts of the Nature and Limits of Music’, IMSCR VIII: New York 1961, 398–403; repr. in Perspectives on Contemporary Music Theory, ed. E.T. Cone and B. Boretz (New York, 1972), 3–9
Musical Grammars and Computer Analysis: Modena 1982
T.W. Adorno: ‘On the Problem of Music Analysis’, MAn, i (1982), 169–87
C. Dahlhaus: Die Musiktheorie im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, i: Grundzüge einer Systematik (Darmstadt, 1984)
M. Babbitt: Words about Music, ed. S. Dembski and J.N. Straus (Madison, WI, 1987)
I. Bent: Analysis (Basingstoke and New York, 1987)
N. Cook: A Guide to Music Analysis (London and New York, 1987)
J. Dunsby and A. Whittall: Music Analysis in Theory and Practice (London and New Haven, CT, 1988)
Music Theory Spectrum, xi/1 (1989) [Papers read at the 10th Annual Meeting of the Society for Music Theory, Rochester, 1987]
M. Brown and D. Dempster: ‘The Scientific Image of Music Theory’, JMT, xxxiii (1989), 65–106
D. Damschroder and D.R. Williams: Music Theory from Zarlino to Schenker: a Bibliography and Guide (Stuyvesant, NY, 1990)
I. Bent: ‘Music Theory: Margin or Center?’, Theoria, vi (1992), 1–21
S. Burnham: ‘The Criticism of Analysis and the Analysis of Criticism’, 19CM, xvi (1992–3), 70–76
T. Christensen: ‘Music Theory and its Histories’, Music Theory and the Exploration of the Past, ed. C. Hatch and D.W. Bernstein (Chicago, 1993), 9–39
Bollettino di analysi e teoria musicale (1994–)
A. Pople, ed.: Theory, Analysis and Meaning in Music (Cambridge, 1994)
A. Kreutziger-Herr, ed.: ‘Theorie der Musik: Analyse und Deutung’, HJbMw, xiii (1995) [incl. H. Fuss: ‘Zur jüngeren Entwicklung der musikalischen Analyse in den USA: Darstellung und Kritik wichtiger Neuerscheinungen der siebziger und achtziger Jahre’, 29–122]
E. Marvin and R. Hermann, eds.: Concert Music, Rock, and Jazz since 1945: Essays and Analytical Studies (Rochester, NY, 1995)
P. van den Toorn: Music, Politics, and the Academy (Berkeley, 1995)
V.K. Agawu: ‘Analyzing Music under the New Musicological Regime’, Music Theory Online, ii/4 (1996)
P. McCreless: ‘Rethinking Contemporary Music Theory’, State of the Art: Refiguring Music Studies in the 1990s, ed. A. Kassabian and D. Schwarz (Charlottesville, VA, 1996)
A. Krims, ed.: Music/Ideology: Resisting the Aesthetic (Amsterdam, 1998)
M. Baroni, R. Dalmonte and C. Jacoboni: Le regole della musica: indagine sui meccanismi della comunicazione (Turin, 1999)
C. Dahlhaus: ‘Zur Ideengeschichte musikalischer Editionsprinzipien’, FAM, xxv (1978), 19–27
Music in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Cambridge 1979 [incl. M. Bent: ‘Some Criteria for Establishing Relationships between Sources of Late-Medieval Polyphony’, 295–317; S. Boorman: ‘Limitations and Extensions of Filiation Technique’, 319–46]
Datierung und Filiation von Musikhandschriften der Josquin-Zeit: Wolfenbüttel 1980 [incl. S. Boorman: ‘Notational Spelling and Scribal Habit’, 65–109; M. Just: ‘Zur Examinatio von Varianten’, 129–52; T. Noblitt: ‘Filiation vis-à-vis its Alternatives: Approaches to Textual Criticism’, 111–25]
M. Bente, ed.: Musik, Edition, Interpretation: Gedenkschrift Günter Henle (Munich, 1980)
S. Boorman: ‘The Uses of Filiation in Early Music’, Text: Transactions of the Society for Textual Scholarship, i (1984), 167–84
G. Feder: Musikphilologie: eine Einführung in die musikalische Textkritik, Hermeneutik und Editionstechnik (Darmstadt, 1987)
P. Brett: ‘Text, Context and the Early Music Editor’, Authenticity and Early Music: a Symposium, ed. N. Kenyon (Oxford, 1988), 83–114
L'edizione critica tra testo musicale e testo letterario: Cremona 1992 [incl. T. Noblitt: ‘Criteria for Choosing between Stemmatically Equivalent Texts’, 213–32; R. Strohm: ‘Does Textual Criticism have a Future?’, 193–211]
M. Bent: ‘Editing Early Music: the Dilemma of Translation’, EMc, xxii (1994), 373–92
M. Caraci Vela, ed.: La critica del testo musicale: metodi e problemi della filologia musicale (Lucca, 1995)
J. Grier: ‘Musical Sources and Stemmatic Filiation: a Tool for Editing Music’, JM, xiii (1995), 73–102
J. Grier: The Critical Editing of Music: History, Method, and Practice (Cambridge, 1996)
G.T. Tanselle: ‘Textual Instability and Editorial Idealism’, Studies in Bibliography, xlix (1996), 1–60
S. Boorman: ‘The Musical Text’, Redefining Music, ed. N. Cook and M. Everist (London, 1997), 695–725
A. Cappelli: Lexicon abbreviatarum: dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane (Milan, 1899, 6/1961/R; Eng. trans., 1982)
J. Stiennon: Paléographie du Moyen Age (Paris, 1973, 2/1991)
J.-L. Lemaître: Répertoire des documents nécrologiques français (Paris, 1980/R)
L.E. Boyle: Medieval Latin Palaeography: a Bibliographical Introduction (Toronto, 1984)
La musica a Roma attraverso le fonti d'archivio: Rome 1992
M. Parkes: Pause and Effect: an Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Aldershot, 1992)
J. Dubois: Sources et méthodes de l'hagiographie médiévale (Paris, 1993)
O. Guyotjeannin, L. Morelle and M. Parisse: Les cartulaires (Paris, 1993)
O. Guyotjeannin, J. Pycke and B.-M. Tock: Diplomatique médiévale (Turnhout, 1993)
A. Wathey: ‘Musicology, Archives and Historiography’, Musicology and Archival Research: Brussels 1993, 1–26
J. Berlioz and others: Identifier sources et citations (Turnhout, 1994)
H.H. Eggebrecht: ‘Aus der Werkstatt des terminologischen Handwörterbuchs’, IMSCR V: Utrecht 1952, 155–64
J.B. Coover: ‘Lacunae in Music Lexicography’, Music Lexicography (Denver, 2/1958, 3/1971), pp.xi–xxv
C. Seeger: ‘The Music Process as a Function in a Context of Functions’, YIAMR, ii (1966), 1–36
‘Internationales Zusammentreffen der Musiklexikographen: Brno, 1 Oktober 1969’, SPFFBU, H6 (1971), 87–109 [incl. contributions by H.H. Eggebrecht, B. Sťědroň and J. Fukač]
V. Cosma: ‘Die Rolle der nationalen lexikographischen Schulen im Kontext der zeitgenössischen Musikwissenschaft’, SPFFBU, H6 (1971), 111–14
V. Duckles: ‘Some Observations on Music Lexicography’, College Music Symposium, xi (1971), 115–22
N. Slonimsky: ‘Lexicographis secundus post Herculem labor’, Notes, xxxiii (1976–7), 763–82
J. LaRue: ‘How to Write the Next “Grove”: an Unexpected Application of Newton's Third Law’, JM, ii (1983), 453–5
D.M. Randel: ‘Defining Music’, Notes, xliii (1986–7), 751–66
E.F. Livingstone: ‘From Fétis to New Grove’, Modern Musical Librarianship: Essays in Honor of Ruth Watanabe, ed. A. Mann (Stuyvesant, NY, and Kassel, 1989), 95–105
V.C. Mahillon: Catalogue descriptif & analytique du Musée instrumental du Conservatoire royal de musique de Bruxelles (Ghent, 2/1893–1922, repr. 1978 with addl material)
F.W. Galpin: Old English Instruments of Music: their History and Character (London, 1910/R, rev. 4/1965 by T. Dart)
C. Sachs: Real-Lexikon der Musikinstrumente, zugleich ein Polyglossar für das gesamte Instrumentengebiet (Berlin, 1913/R, rev. and enlarged 2/1964)
C. Sachs and E.M. von Hornbostel: ‘Systematik der Musikinstrumente’, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, xlvi (1914), 553–90; Eng. trans. in GSJ, xiv (1961)
F.W. Galpin: A Textbook of European Musical Instruments: their Origin, History and Character (London and New York, 1937/R)
N. Bessaraboff: Ancient European Musical Instruments: an Organological Study in the Leslie Lindsay Mason Collection at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Cambridge, MA, 1941/R)
W. Stauder: Alte Musikinstrumente in ihrer vieltausendjahrigen Entwicklung und Geschichte (Brunswick, 1973)
P. Williams: A New History of the Organ from the Greeks to the Present Day (London and Bloomington, IN, 1980)
J.H. van der Meer: Muskinstrumente: von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Munich, 1983)
Per una carta europa del restauro: conservazione, restauro e riuso degli strumenti musicali antichi: Venice 1985
K. Coates: Geometry, Proportion, and the Art of Lutherie (Oxford, 1985)
H. Heyde: Das Ventilblasinstrument: seine Entwicklung im deutschsprachigen Raum von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Wiesbaden, 1987)
G. O'Brien: Ruckers: a Harpsichord and Virginal Building Tradition (Cambridge, 1990)
J. Koster: Keyboard Musical Instruments in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Boston, 1994)
C. Chiesa and others: Giuseppe Guarneri del Gesù (London, 1998)
MGG2 (‘Musikikonographie’, T. Seebass; ‘Musik und bildende Kunst’, L. Finscher, J. Jewanski and R. Ketteler)
M. Gerbert: De cantu et musica sacra a prima ecclesiae aetate usque ad praesens tempus (St Blasien, 1774/R)
G.A. Villoteau: ‘Dissertation sur les diverses espèces d'instrumens de musique que l'on remarque parmi les sculptures qui décorent les antiques monumens de l'Egypte’, Description de l'Egypte, ed. E.F. Jomard (Paris, 1809–22)
A. Bottée de Toulmon: ‘Dissertation sur les instruments de musique employés au Moyen Age’, Mémoires de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France, xvii (1844), 60–168
C.E.H. de Coussemaker: ‘Essai sur les instruments de musique au Moyen Age’, Annales archéologiques, iii (1845), 78–88, 147–55, 269–82; iv (1846), 25–39, 94–101; vi (1847), 315–23; vii (1847), 92–100, 157–65, 242–50, 326–9; viii (1848), 241–50; ix (1848), 288–97, 329–34
F. Piper: Mythologie und Symbolik der christlichen Kunst (Weimar, 1847–51/R)
F.-J. Fétis: Antoine Stradivari, luthier célèbre (Paris, 1856; Eng. trans., 1864/R)
J. Pougnet: ‘Théorie et symbolisme des tons de la musique grégorienne’, Annales archéologiques, xxvi (1869), 380–81; xxvii (1870), 32–60, 151–75, 287–338
H. Leichtentritt: ‘Was lehren uns die Bildwerke des 14.–17. Jahrhunderts über die Instrumentalmusik ihrer Zeit?’, SIMG, vii (1905–6), 315–64
W.B. Squire: ‘Musical Iconography’, Bulletin de la Société ‘Union musicologique’, ii (1922), 33–6
J. Kunst and R. Goris: Hindoe-Javaansche muziek-instrumenten (Weltevreden, 1927; rev. and enlarged, Eng. trans., 1968)
G. Kinsky, ed.: Geschichte der Musik in Bildern (Leipzig, 1929)
L. Schrade: ‘Die Darstellung der Töne an den Kapitellen der Abteikirche zu Cluni (ein Beitrag zum Symbolismus in mittelalterlicher Kunst)’, DVLG, vii (1929), 229–66
W. Gurlitt: ‘Die Musik in Raffaels Heiliger Caecilia’, JbMP 1938, 84–97
E. Reuter: Les représentations de la musique dans la sculpture romane en France (Paris, 1938)
C. Marcel-Dubois: Les instruments de musique de l'Inde ancienne (Paris, 1941)
O.E. Deutsch: ‘Was heisst und zu welchem Ende studiert man Musikikonographie?’, SMz, c (1960), 230–33
H. Steger: ‘Die Rotte: Studien über ein germanisches Musikinstrument im Mittelalter’, DVLG, xxxv (1961), 96–147
E. Winternitz: ‘The Visual Arts as a Source for the Historian of Music’, IMSCR VIII: New York 1961, i, 109–20
H. Besseler, M. Schneider and W. Bachmann, eds.: Musikgeschichte in Bildern (Leipzig, 1961–89)
R. Hammerstein: Die Musik der Engel (Berne, 1962)
T.H. Greer: Music and its Relation to Futurism, Cubism, Dadaism and Surrealism, 1905–1950 (diss., North Texas State U., 1969)
F. Crane: A Bibliography of the Iconography of Music (Iowa City, IA, 1971)
H.M. Brown and J. Lascelle: Musical Iconography: a Manual for Cataloguing Musical Subjects in Western Art before 1800 (Cambridge, MA, 1972)
E. Lockspeiser: Music and Painting: a Study in Comparative Ideas from Turner to Schoenberg (London and New York, 1973)
T. Seebass: Musikdarstellung und Psalterillustration im früheren Mittelalter (Berne, 1973)
D. Droysen: ‘Über Darstellung und Benennung von Musikinstrumenten in der mittelalterlichen Buchmalerei’, Studia instrumentorum musicae popularis, iv (1976), 51–5
J.W. McKinnon: ‘Iconography’, Musicology in the 1980s: Methods, Goals, Opportunities, ed. D.K. Holoman and C.V. Palisca (New York, 1982), 79–93
R.D. Leppert: ‘Men, Women, and Music at Home: the Influence of Cultural Values on Musical Life in Eighteenth-Century England’, Imago musicae, ii (1985), 51–133
F. Guizzi: ‘Visual Message and Music in Cultures with Oral Tradition’, Imago musicae, vii (1990), 7–23
T. Seebass: ‘Iconography and Dance Research’, YTM, xxiii (1991), 33–51
T. Seebass: ‘Il contributo italiano all'iconografia musicale’, Le immagini della musica: Rome 1994, 13–22
T. Seebass: ‘Une brève histoire de l'iconographie musicale: contribution des chercheurs français’, Musique, Images, Instruments, i (1995), 9–20
E.F. Barassi: ‘Musical Iconography in Italy 1985–1995’, FAM, xliii (1996), 81–92
L. Farrenc: ‘Des signes d'agrément’, Le trésor des pianistes, ed. A. and L. Farrenc, i (Paris, 1861/R)
A. Beyschlag: Die Ornamentik der Musik (Leipzig, 1908/R)
A. Dolmetsch: The Interpretation of the Music of the XVII and XVIII Centuries (London, 1915, rev. 2/1946/R)
F.T. Arnold: The Art of Accompaniment from a Thorough-Bass as Practiced in the XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries (London 1931/R)
R. Haas: Aufführungspraxis der Musik (Potsdam, 1931/R)
A. Schering: Aufführungspraxis alter Musik (Leipzig, 1931/R)
P. Aldrich: Ornamentation in J.S. Bach's Organ Works (New York, 1950/R)
T. Dart: The Interpretation of Music (London, 1954, 4/1967/R)
P. and E. Badura-Skoda: Mozart-Interpretation (Vienna, 1957; Eng. trans., 1962/R as Interpreting Mozart on the Keyboard)
D.J. Grout: ‘On Historical Authenticity in the Performance of Old Music’, Essays on Music in Honor of Archibald Thompson Davison (Cambridge, MA, 1957), 341–7
R. Donington: The Interpretation of Early Music (London, 1963, 4/1989/R)
S. Babitz: ‘Concerning the Length of Time that Every Note must be Held’, MR, xxviii (1967), 21–37
H.M. Brown: Sixteenth-Century Instrumentation: the Music of the Florentine Intermedii (Dallas, 1973)
H.M. Brown: Embellishing Sixteenth-Century Music (London, 1976)
F. Neumann: Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music: with Special Emphasis on J.S. Bach (Princeton, NJ, 1978/R)
W. Crutchfield: ‘Vocal Ornamentation in Verdi: the Phonographic Evidence’, 19CM, vii (1983–4), 3–54
R. Taruskin and others: ‘The Limits of Authenticity: a Discussion’, EMc, xii (1984), 3–26
N. Kenyon, ed.: Authenticity and Early Music: a Symposium (Oxford, 1988)
H.M. Brown and S. Sadie, eds.: Performance Practice (London and New York, 1989–90)
R. Philip: Early Recordings and Musical Style: Changing Tastes in Instrumental Performance, 1900–1950 (Cambridge, 1992)
B. Gilliam, ed.: Music and Performance during the Weimar Republic (Cambridge, 1994)
R. Taruskin: Text and Act: Essays on Music and Performance (New York, 1995)
N. Zaslaw, ed.: Mozart's Piano Concertos: Text, Context, Interpretation (Ann Arbor, 1996)
C. Lawson and R. Stowell: The Historical Performance of Music: an Introduction (Cambridge, 1999)
S.K. Langer: Philosophy in a New Key: a Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite and Art (New York, 1942/R, 3/1957)
T.W. Adorno: Philosophie der neuen Musik (Frankfurt, 1949, enlarged, 2/1958, 3/1966; Eng. trans., 1973)
T.W. Adorno: Einleitung in die Muziksoziologie (Frankfurt, 1962, 2/1968; Eng. trans., 1976)
T.W. Adorno: Quasi una Fantasia (Frankfurt, 1963; Eng. trans., 1992/R)
C. Dahlhaus: Musikästhetik (Cologne, 1967; Eng. trans., 1982)
R. Ingarden: Utwor muzyczny i sprawa jego tozasomosci (Kraków, 1973; Eng. trans., 1986 as The Work of Music and the Problem of its Identity)
C. Dahlhaus: Die Idee der absoluten Musik (Kassel, 1976/R, 2/1987; Eng. trans., 1989)
C. Dahlhaus: Grundlagen der Musikgeschichte (Cologne, 1977; Eng. trans., 1983)
C. Combarieu: La musique, ses lois, son évolution (Paris, 1907/R; Eng. trans., 1910)
C. Lalo: Esquisse d'une esthétique musicale scientifique (Paris, 1908)
M. Weber: Die rationalen und soziologischen Grundlagen der Musik (Munich, 1921/R; Eng. trans., 1946/R)
A.V. Lunacharsky: Vosprosï sotsiologii muzïki (Moscow, 1927)
K. Blaukopf: Musiksoziologie: eine Einführung in die Grundbegriffe mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Soziologie der Tonsysteme (Vienna, 1951, 2/1972)
Z. Lissa: Über das Spezifische der Musik (Berlin, 1957)
W. Wiora: Die vier Weltalter der Musik (Stuttgart, 1961, 2/1988; Eng. trans., 1965)
T.W. Adorno: Einleitung in die Musiksoziologie (Frankfurt, 1962, 2/1968; Eng. trans., 1976)
T. Kneif: Musiksoziologie (Cologne, 1971)
O.E. Laske: ‘Verification and Sociological Interpretation in Musicology’, IRASM, viii (1977), 211–36
K. Blaukopf: Musik im Wandel der Gesellschaft: Grundzüge der Musiksoziologie (Munich, 1982, 2/1996; Eng. trans., 1992)
I. Supičić: Music in Society: a Guide to the Sociology of Music (New York, 1987)
L. Kramer: Music as Cultural Practice, 1800–1900 (Berkeley, 1990)
H. von Helmholtz: Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen als physiologische Grundlage für die Theorie der Musik (Brunswick, 1863, 6/1913/R; Eng. trans., 1875/R as On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music)
L.B. Meyer: Emotion and Meaning in Music (Chicago, 1956/R)
R. Francès: La perception de la musique (Paris, 1958, 2/1972; Eng. trans., 1988)
P. Schaeffer: Traité des objets musicaux (Paris, 1966)
L.B. Meyer: Music, the Arts and Ideas (Chicago, 1967, 2/1994)
L.B. Meyer: Explaining Music (Berkeley, 1973)
E. Terhardt: ‘Pitch, Consonance and Harmony’, JASA, lv (1974), 1061–9
O.E. Laske: ‘On Psychomusicology’, IRASM, vi (1977), 269–81
E. Narmour: Beyond Schenkerism: the Need for Alternatives in Music Analysis (Chicago, 1977)
F. Lerdahl and R. Jackendoff: A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (Cambridge, MA, 1983)
P. Howell, I. Cross and R. West, eds.: Musical Structure and Cognition (London, 1985)
F. Lerdahl: ‘Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems’, Generative Processes in Music, ed. J.A. Sloboda (Oxford, 1988), 231–59
D. Butler: ‘Describing the Perception of Tonality in Music: a Proposal for a Theory of Intervallic Rivalry’, Music Perception, vi (1988–9), 219–41
A. Barker, ed.: Greek Musical Writings, ii: Harmonic and Acoustic Theory (Cambridge, 1989)
E.F. Clarke: ‘Mind the Gap: Formal Structures and Psychological Processes in Music’, CMR, iii (1989), 1–13
F. Lerdahl: ‘Atonal Prolongational Structure’, CMR, iv (1989), 65–88
R. Parncutt: Harmony: a Psychoacoustical Approach (Berlin, 1989)
E. Agmon: ‘Music Theory as Cognitive Science: some Conceptual and Methodological Issues’, Music Perception, vii (1989–90), 285–308
A. Bregman: Auditory Scene Analysis: the Perceptual Organization of Sound (Cambridge, MA, 1990)
N. Cook: Music, Imagination, and Culture (Oxford, 1990)
C.L. Krumhansl: Cognitive Foundations of Musical Pitch (Oxford, 1990)
P. Howell, R. West and I. Cross, eds.: Representing Musical Structure (London, 1991)
E. Narmour: The Analysis and Cognition of Basic Melodic Complexity: the Implication-Realization Model (Chicago, 1992)
D. Smalley: ‘The Listening Imagination: Listening in the Electroacoustic Era’, Companion to Contemporary Musical Thought, ed. J. Paynter and others (London, 1992), 514–54
E. Bigand: ‘Contributions of Music to Research on Human Auditory Cognition’, Thinking in Sound: the Cognitive Psychology of Human Audition, ed. S. McAdams and E. Bigand (Oxford, 1993), 249–98
N. Cook: ‘Perception: a Perspective from Music Theory’, Musical Perceptions, ed. R. Aiello with J.A. Sloboda (Oxford, 1994), 64–95
W.L. Windsor: ‘Using Auditory Information for Events in Electroacoustic Music’, CMR, x (1994), 85–94
GroveW
C. Neuls-Bates, ed.: Women in Music: an Anthology of Source Readings from the Middle Ages to the Present (New York, 1982, 2/1996)
S. Placksin: American Women in Jazz: 1900 to the Present (New York, 1982/R)
P. Brett: Benjamin Britten, Peter Grimes (Cambridge, 1983)
J. Tick: American Women Composers before 1870 (Ann Arbor, 1983/R)
L. Dahl: Stormy Weather: the Music and Lives of a Century of Jazzwomen (New York, 1984/R)
J. Zaimont, ed.: The Musical Woman: an International Perspective (Westport, CT, 1984–)
G. Ecker, ed.: Feminist Aesthetics (London, 1985) [incl. E. Rieger: ‘“Dolce semplice”? On the Changing Role of Women in Music’, 135–49]
J. Bowers and J. Tick, eds.: Women Making Music: the Western Art Tradition, 1150–1950 (Urbana, IL, and London, 1986) [incl. E. Rosand: ‘The Voice of Barbara Strozzi’, 168–90]
J.R. Briscoe, ed.: Historical Anthology of Music by Women (Bloomington, IN, 1987, 2/1991 as sound recording)
E. Koskoff, ed.: Women and Music in Cross-Cultural Perspective (New York, 1987/R) [incl. C. Robertson: ‘Power and Gender in the Musical Experiences of Women’, 225–44]
R. Lamb: Including Women Composers in Music Curricula: Development of Creative Strategies for the General Music Class, Grades 5–8 (diss., Columbia U., 1987)
R. Leppert and S. McClary: Music and Society: the Politics of Composition, Performance, and Reception (Cambridge, 1987) [incl. S. McClary: ‘The Blasphemy of Talking Politics during Bach Year’, 13–63]
C. Clément: Opera, or the Undoing of Women (Minneapolis, 1988)
D.D. Harrison: Black Pearls: Blues Queens of the 1920s (New Brunswick, NJ, 1988)
M. Solomon: ‘Franz Schubert and the Peacocks of Benvenuto Cellini’, 19CM, xii (1988–9), 193–208
L. Austern: ‘“Sing Againe Syren”: the Female Musician and Sexual Enchantment in Elizabethan Life and Literature’, Renaissance Quarterly, xlii (1989), 427–38
R. Leppert: Music and Image: Domesticity, Ideology, and Socio-Cultural Formation in Eighteenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1989)
H. Carby: ‘“It Jus Be's Dat Way Sometime”: the Sexual Politics of Women's Blues’, Unequal Sisters: a Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History, ed. E.C. Dubois and V.L. Ruiz (New York, 1990, 2/1994), 238–49
L. Kramer: Music as Cultural Practice, 1800–1900 (Berkeley, 1990)
C. Abbate: Unsung Voices: Opera and Musical Narrative in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, NJ, 1991)
M. Herndon and S. Ziegler: ‘Women in Music and Music Research’, World of Music, xxxiii (1991) [special issue]
R. Locke: ‘Constructing the Oriental “Other”: Saint-Säens's Samson et Dalila’, COJ, iii (1991), 261–302
S. McClary: Feminine Endings: Music, Gender, and Sexuality (Minneapolis, 1991)
K. Pendle: Women & Music: a History (Bloomington, IN, 1991)
R. Solie: ‘What do Feminists Want? A Reply to Pieter van den Toorn’, JM, ix (1991), 399–410
P. van den Toorn: ‘Politics, Feminism, and Contemporary Music Theory’, JM, ix (1991), 275–99
K. Bergeron and P.V. Bohlman, eds.: Disciplining Music: Musicology and its Canons (Chicago, 1992)
G. Gaar: She's a Rebel: the History of Women in Rock & Roll (Seattle, 1992)
J. Kallberg: ‘The Harmony of the Tea Table: Gender and Ideology in the Piano Nocturne’, Representations, xxxix (1992), 103–33
D. Lewin: ‘Women's Voices and the Fundamental Bass’, JM, x (1992), 464–82
S. McClary: Georges Bizet, Carmen (Cambridge, 1992)
M. Morris: ‘On Gaily Reading Music’, Repercussions, i (1992), 48–64
P. Bohlman: ‘Musicology as a Political Act’, JM, xi (1993), 411–36
M.J. Citron: Gender and the Musical Canon (Cambridge, 1993)
S. Cusick: ‘Gendering Modern Music: Thoughts on the Monteverdi-Artusi Controversy’, JAMS, xlvi (1993), 1–25
W. Koestenbaum: The Queen's Throat: Opera, Homosexuality, and the Mystery of Desire (New York, 1993)
K. Marshall: Rediscovering the Muse: Women's Musical Traditions (Boston, 1993)
F. Maus: ‘Masculine Discourse in Music Theory’, PNM, xxxi/2 (1993), 264–93
R. Solie, ed.: Musicology and Difference: Gender and Sexuality in Music Scholarship (Berkeley, 1993) [incl. S. Cusick: ‘Francesca Caccini's La Liberazione di Ruggerio dall'isola d'Alcina (1625): a Feminist Misreading of Orlando furioso?’; C. Abbate: ‘Opera: or, the Envoicing of Women’, 225–58; M. Morris: ‘Reading as an Opera Queen’, 184–200; E. Wood: ‘Lesbian Fugue: Ethel Smyth's Contrapuntal Arts’, 164–83]
R. Walser: Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music (Hanover, NH, 1993)
P. Brett, G. Thomas and E. Wood, eds.: Queering the Pitch: the New Gay and Lesbian Musicology (New York and London, 1994) [incl. P. Brett: ‘Musicality, Essentialism, and the Closet’, 9–26; S. McClary: ‘Constructions of Subjectivity in Schubert's Music’, 205–33; G. Thomas: ‘Was George Frederic Handel “Gay”? On Closet Questions and Cultural Politics’, 155–203; E. Wood: ‘Sapphonics’, 27–66]
S.C. Cook and J.S. Tsou, eds.: Cecilia Reclaimed: Feminist Perspectives on Gender and Music (Urbana, IL, 1994) [incl. C.P. Smith: ‘“A Distinguishing Virility”: Feminism and Modernism in American Art Music’, 90–106]
L. Dunn and N.A. Jones: Embodied Voices: Representing Female Vocality in Western Culture (Cambridge, 1994)
M.A. Guck: ‘A Woman's (Theoretical) Work’, PNM, xxxii/1 (1994), 28–43
M. Kielian-Gilbert: ‘Of Poetics and Poiesis, Pleasure and Politics: Music Theory and Modes of the Feminine’, PNM, xxxii/1 (1994), 44–67
S. McClary: ‘Paradigm Dissonances: Music Theory, Cultural Studies, Feminist Criticism’, PNM, xxxii/1 (1994), 68–85
T. Rose: Black Noise: Rap Music and Black Cultural Resistance in Contemporary America (Hanover, NH, 1994)
C.E. Blackmer and P.J. Smith, eds.: En Travesti: Women, Gender Subversion, Opera (New York, 1995)
J. Gill: Queer Noises: Male and Female Homosexuality in Twentieth-Century Music (London and Minneapolis, 1995)
L. Gourse: Madame Jazz: Contemporary Women Instrumentalists (Oxford, 1995)
E. Hisama: ‘The Question of Climax in Ruth Crawford's String Quartet, Movement 3’, Concert Music, Rock, and Jazz since 1945, ed. E.W. Marvin and R. Hermann (Rochester, NY, 1995), 285–312
L. Kramer: Classical Music and Postmodern Knowledge (Berkeley, 1995)
S. McClary: ‘Music, the Pythagoreans, and the Body’, Choreographing History, ed. S. Foster (Bloomington, IN, 1995), 82–104
J. Straus: The Music of Ruth Crawford Seeger (Cambridge, 1995)
R. Dellamora and D. Fischlin, eds.: The Work of Opera: Genre, Nationhood, and Sexual Difference (New York, 1997)
L. Green: Music, Gender, Education (Cambridge, 1997)
L. Kramer: After the Lovedeath: Sexual Violence and the Making of Culture (Berkeley, 1997)
J.C. Sugarman: Engendering Song: Singing and Subjectivity at Prespa Albanian Weddings (Chicago, 1997)
J. Bellman, ed.: The Exotic in Western Music (Boston, 1998)
A.F. Block: Amy Beach, Passionate Victorian: the Life and Work of an American Composer, 1867–1944 (Oxford, 1998)
A. Davis: Blues Legacies and Black Feminism: Gertrude “Ma” Rainey, Bessie Smith, and Billie Holiday (New York, 1998)
FasquelleE
A. Pirro: ‘L'enseignement de la musique aux universités françaises’, AcM, ii (1930), 26–32, 45–56
Y. Rokseth: ‘Musical Scholarship in France during the War’, JRBM, i (1946–7), 81–4
S. Clercx-Lejeune: ‘La musicologie en Belgique depuis 1945’, AcM, xxx (1958), 199–214; xxxi (1959), 130–32
F. Lesure: ‘La musicologie française depuis 1945’, AcM, xxx (1958), 3–17
F. Lesure: ‘The Music Department of the Bibliothèque Nationale’, Notes, xxxv (1978–9), 251–68
B. Lortat-Jacob: ‘L'ethnomusicologie en France’, AcM, lxii (1990), 289–301
J. Gribenski and F. Lesure: ‘La recherche musicologique en France depuis 1958’, AcM, lxiii (1991), 211–37
R. Allorto and C. Sartori: ‘La musicologia italiana dal 1945 a oggi’, AcM, xxxi (1959), 9–17
D. Carpitella: ‘Rassegna, bibliografica degli studi di etnomusicologia in Italia dal 1945 a oggi’, AcM, xxxii (1960), 109–13
M. Donà: ‘La musicologia in Italia’, CHM, iv (1966), 94–101
R. Dalmonte: ‘Le discipline musicali nella prospettiva della riforma universitaria’, RIM, xiii (1978), 203–11
M. Baroni and others: ‘Progetto di riassetto degli studi musicologici universitarii’, RIM, xiv (1979), 203–22
P. Petrobelli: ‘Musicologia: ma quale?’, RIM, xiv (1979), 184–7
E. Surian: ‘L'inventariazione del patrimonio bibliografico-musicale italiano’, RIM, xiv (1979), 3–10
L. Camilleri: ‘The Current State of Computer Assisted Research in Musicology in Italy’, AcM, xviii (1986), 356–60
Didattica della storia della musica: Florence 1985, ed. S. Miceli and M. Sperenzi (Florence, 1987) [incl. P. Petrobelli: ‘La musica nelle università’, 109–12; S. Michel: ‘La storia della musica nei conservatori: un'esperienza fra sperimentazione e tradizione’, 151–7]
T.M. Gialdroni, ed.: Società Italiana di Musicologia: le discipline musicologiche e l'università (Rome, 1994)
G. La Face Bianconi: ‘I dottorati di ricerca in discipline musicali’, Il saggiatore musicale, i (1994), 197–207
E.J. Dent: ‘The Scientific Study of Music in England’, AcM, ii (1930), 83–92
A.H. King: ‘Musikwissenschaft in England: Ursprung und Quellen’, Musik der Zeit, no.4 (1953), 57–62
A. Hughes: ‘Ninety Years of English Musicology’, Liber amicorum Charles van den Borren, ed. A.V. Linden (Antwerp, 1964), 93–7
D. Fallows, A. Whittall and J. Blacking: ‘Musicology in Great Britain since 1945’, AcM, li (1980), 38–68
D. Iselin: ‘Die Musikwissenschaft an den schweizerischen Universitäten’, AcM, i (1928–9), 27–32, 39–46
H. Zenck and H. Schultz: ‘Die Musikforschung in Leipzig und ihre Neuorganisierung’, AcM, ii (1930), 56–64
H. Osthoff: ‘Die Anfänge der Musikgeschichtsschreibung in Deutschland’, AcM, v (1933), 97–107
H. Heckmann: ‘Musikwissenschaftliche Unternehmungen in Deutschland seit 1945’, AcM, xxix (1957), 75–94
O. Wessely: ‘Die österreichische Musikforschung nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg’, AcM, xxix (1957), 111–19
H.P. Schanzlin: ‘Musikwissenschaft in der Schweiz (1938–1958)’, AcM, xxx (1958), 214–25
G. Knepler: ‘Reaktionäre Tendenzen in der westdeutschen Musikwissenschaft’, BMw, ii/2 (1960), 3–21
F. Hoerburger and W. Suppan: ‘Die Lage der Volksmusikforschung in den deutschsprachigen Ländern: ein Bericht über die Jahre 1945 bis 1964’, AcM, xxxvii (1965), 1–19
W. Szmolyan: ‘Die Musikwissenschaft an Österreichs Universitäten’, ÖMz, xxi (1966), 551–5
W.F. Kümmel: ‘Die Anfänge der Musikgeschichte an den deutschsprachigen Universitäten’, Mf, xx (1967), 262–80
W.F. Kümmel: Geschichte und Musikgeschichte: die Musik der Neuzeit in Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsauffassung des deutschen Kulturbereichs (Kassel and Marburg, 1967)
F. Blume: ‘Musicology in German Universities’, CMc, no.9 (1969), 52–64
A. Geering: ‘Musikwissenschaft in der Schweiz’, ÖMz, xxiv (1969), 177–9
E. Schenk: ‘Musikwissenschaft an der Universität Wien’, SPFFBU, H4 (1969), 7–16
F. Schneider: ‘Die Musikwissenschaft in der DDR’, BMw, xi (1969), 163–75
H.C. Wolff: ‘Die Geschichte der Musikwissenschaft an den Universitäten Leipzig und Berlin’, SPFFBU, H4 (1969), 17–27
W. Graf: ‘Die vergleichende Musikwissenschaft in Österreich seit 1896’, YIFMC, vi (1974), 15–43
‘Memorandum über die Lage der Musikwissenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, Mf, xxix (1976), 249–56
150 Jahre Musikwissenschaft an der Humboldt-Universität: Berlin 1979 [Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, xxix/1 (1980)]
R. Flotzinger: ‘20 Jahre Musikforschung in Österreich’, AcM, li (1979), 268–78
J. Hepokoski: ‘The Dahlhaus Project and its Extra-Musicological Sources’, 19CM, xiv (1990–91), 221–46
C. Kaden: ‘DDR-Musikwissenschaft nach 40 Jahren: Bilanz eines Hochschullehrers’, BMw, xxxiii (1991), 18–25
E. Klemm: ‘Bilanz und Ausblick’, BMw, xxxiii (1991), 13–17
G. Knepler: ‘Beiträge zur Bilanz’, BMw, xxxiii (1991), 5–12
H. Lenneberg, ed.: ‘Musicology in the Third Reich’, JMR, xi/3 (1991)
H. Myers, ed.: Ethnomusicology: Historical and Regional Studies (New York, 1993) [incl. J. Porter: ‘Europe’, 215–39; A. Schneider: ‘Germany and Austria’, 77–96]
W. Steinbeck, ed.: Gesellschaft für Musikforschung: Einheit und Spaltung der Gesellschaft für Musikforschung: zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte im geteilten Deutschland: eine Dokumentation (Kassel, 1993)
P. Potter: Most German of the Arts: Musicology and Society from the Weimar Republic to the End of Hitler's Reich (New Haven, CT, 1998)
T. Haapanen: ‘Gegenwärtiger Stand der Musikwissenschaft in Finnland seit 1923’, AcM, i (1928–9), 46–8, 53–4
C.-A. Moberg: ‘Musik und Musikwissenschaft an den schwedischen Universitäten’, AcM, i (1928–9), 54–70; ii (1930), 10–26, 34–44
H. Hickmann: ‘Über den Stand der musikwissenschaftlichen Forschung in Ägypten’, IMSCR IV: Basle 1949, 150–54
E. Reeser: ‘Musikwissenschaft in Holland’, AcM, xxxii (1950), 160–74
E. Gerson-Kiwi: ‘Musicology in Israel’, AcM, xxx (1958), 17–26
H. Rosenberg: ‘Musikwissenschaftliche Bestrebungen in Dänemark, Norwegen, und Schweden in den letzten ca. 15 Jahren’, AcM, xxx (1958), 118–37
N.-E. Ringbom: ‘Die Musikforschung in Finnland seit 1940’, AcM, xxxi (1959), 17–24
M.S. Kastner: ‘Veinte años de musicología en Portugal (1940–1960)’, AcM, xxxii (1960), 1–11
D. Harrán: ‘Musical Research in Israel: its History, Resources and Institutions’, CMc, no.7 (1968), 120–27
A. Lönn: ‘Trends and Tendencies in Recent Swedish Musicology’, AcM, xliv (1972), 11–25
D. Schjelderup-Ebbe: ‘Neuere norwegische musikwissenschaftliche Arbeiten’, AcM, xliv (1972), 25–9
T. Schousboe: ‘Dänische musikwissenschaftliche Publikationen seit 1958’, AcM, xliv (1972), 1–11
M. Querol Gavaldá: ‘Die Musikwissenschaft in Spanien’, ÖMz, xxx (1975), 208–15
Yu. Kremlyov: ‘Über einige Fragen der sowjetischen Musikwissenschaft’, MG, ii (1952), 184–6
D. Cvetko: ‘Les formes et les résultats des efforts musicologiques yougoslaves’, AcM, xxxi (1959), 50–62
L.S. Janković: ‘La situation actuelle de l'ethnomusicologie en Yougoslavie’, AcM, xxxii (1960), 77–89
A.N. Sochor: ‘50 Jahre sowjetische Musik im Spiegel der sowjetischrussischen Musikwissenschaft’, BMw, ix (1967), 181–96
B. Jarustovsky: ‘Soviet Musicology’, AcM, xlvi (1974), 50–57
J. Bek, J. Fukač and I. Poledńák: ‘Česka hudební věda 1945–1975’ [Czech musicology 1945–75], HV, xiii (1976), 3–26 [with Ger. summary]
L. Chalupka: ‘Slovenská musikológia v rokoch 1945–1975’, HV, xiii (1976), 99–105
T. Straková: ‘Die tschechische Musikwissenschaft in den Jahren 1945–1975’, AcM, xlix (1977), 103–20
D. Cvetko: ‘Der gegenwärtige Stand der jugoslawischen Musikwissenschaft’, AcM, li (1979), 151–60
G. Haydon: ‘Musicology in the United States: a Survey of Recent Trends’, MTNA: Proceedings, xli (1947), 321–41
M. Bukofzer: The Place of Musicology in American Institutions of Higher Learning (New York, 1957/R)
S. Goldthwaite: ‘The Growth and Influence of Musicology in the United States’, AcM, xxxiii (1961), 72–83
J. Kerman: ‘A Profile for American Musicology’, JAMS, xviii (1965), 61–9
E. Lowinsky: ‘Character and Purposes of American Musicology’, JAMS, xviii (1965), 222–34
M. Griffel: ‘Musicological Method in American Graduate Schools’, CMc, no.6 (1968), 7–50
G.S. McPeek: ‘Musicology in the United States: a Survey of Recent Trends’, Studies in Musicology: Essays in Memory of Glen Haydon, ed. J.W. Pruett (Chapel Hill, NC, 1969), 260–75
W.S. Newman: ‘Musicology in the United States in 1975’, AcM, xlviii (1976), 284–90
C. Dahlhaus: Grundlagen der Musikgeschichte (Cologne, 1977; Eng. trans., 1983)
W.S. Newman: ‘Musicology in the United States in 1976’, AcM, xlix (1977), 269–75
R. Stevenson: ‘American Musical Scholarship: Parker to Thayer’, 19CM, i (1977–8), 190–210
C. Dahlhaus: Die Musik des 19. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden and Laaber, 1980; Eng. trans., 1989)
M. Bent: ‘Res facta and Cantare super librum’, JAMS, xxxvi (1983), 371–91
L. Kramer: Music as Cultural Practice, 1800–1900 (Berkeley, 1990)
J. Hepokoski: ‘The Dahlhaus Project and its Extra-Musicological Sources’, 19CM, xiv (1990–91), 221–46
C. Abbate: Unsung Voices: Opera and Musical Narrative in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, NJ, 1991)
R.R. Subotnik: Developing Variations: Style and Ideology in Western Music (Minneapolis, 1991)
L. Treitler: ‘The Politics of Reception: Tailoring the Present as Fulfilment of a Desired Past’, JRMA, cxvi (1991), 280–98
K. Bergeron and P.V. Bohlman, eds.: Disciplining Music: Musicology and its Canons (Chicago, 1992)
L. Goehr: The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works (Oxford, 1992)
P.F. Berliner: Thinking in Jazz: the Infinite Art of Improvisation (Chicago, 1994)
S. Burnham: Beethoven Hero (Princeton, NJ, 1995)
S.A. Floyd: The Power of Black Music: Interpreting its History from Africa to the United States (Oxford, 1995)
I. Monson: Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation and Interaction (Chicago, 1996)
R. Taruskin: Defining Russia Musically: Historical and Hermeneutical Essays (Princeton, NJ, 1997)
T.D. Taylor: Global Pop: World Music, World Markets (New York, 1997)
G. Tomlinson: Metaphysical Song: an Essay on Opera (Princeton, NJ, 1999)
F.C. Lange: Americanismo musical: la sección de investigaciones musicales: su creación, propósitos y finalidades (Montevideo, 1934)
C. Vega: Panorama de la música popular argentina (Buenos Aires, 1944)
G. Chase: A Guide to Latin American Music (Washington DC, 1945, rev. and enlarged 2/1962/R as A Guide to the Music of Latin America)
F.C. Lange: ‘A manera de prólogo’, Revista de estudios musicales, i/1 (1949–50), 13–36
R. Stevenson: Music in Mexico (New York, 1952/R)
F. Bose: ‘Südamerikanische Musikforschung’, AcM, xxix (1957), 43–5
D. Devoto: ‘Panorama de la musicología latino-americana’, AcM, xxxi (1959), 91–109
R. Stevenson: The Music of Peru: Aboriginal and Viceroyal Epochs (Washington DC, 1960)
S. Claro: ‘Hacia una definición del concepto de musicología: contribución a la musicología hispanoamericana’, RMC, no.101 (1967), 8–25
F.C. Lange: ‘Pesquisas esporádicas de musicologia no Rio de Janeiro’, Revista do Instituto de Estudos Brasileiros, no.4 (1968), 99–142
R. Stevenson: Renaissance and Baroque Musical Sources in the Americas (Washington DC, 1970)
L.H. Corrêa de Azevedo: ‘The Present State and Potential of Music Research in Latin America’, Perspectives in Musicology, ed. B.S. Brook, E.O.D. Downes and S. Van Solkema (New York, 1972), 249–69
R. Stevenson: A Guide to Caribbean Music History (Lima, 1975)
I. Aretz: Síntesis de la etnomúsica en América Latina (Caracas, 1980)
L.F. Ramón y Rivera: Fenomenología de la etnomúsica latinoamericana (Caracas, 1980)
G. Béhague: ‘Ecuadorian, Peruvian, and Brazilian Ethnomusicology: a General View’, LAMR, iii (1982), 17–35
G. Béhague: ‘Folk and Traditional Music of Latin America: General Prospect and Research Problems’, World of Music, xxv/2 (1982), 3–21
R. Smith: ‘Latin American Ethnomusicology: a Discussion of Central America and Northern South America’, LAMR, iii (1982), 1–16
I. Aretz: Historia de la etnomusicología en América Latina (Caracas, 1991)
G. Béhague: ‘Reflections on the Ideological History of Latin American Ethnomusicology’, Comparative Musicology and Anthropology of Music: Essays on the History of Ethnomusicology, ed. B. Nettl and P.V. Bohlman (Chicago, 1991), 56–68
G. Béhague: ‘Latin America’, Ethnomusicology: Historical and Regional Studies, ed. H. Myers (New York, 1993), 472–94
F.Y. Nomura: ‘Musicology in Japan since 1945’, AcM, xxxv (1963), 47–53
R.D. Covell: Australia's Music: Themes of a New Society (Melbourne, 1967)
B. Ebisawa and others: ‘Nihon no ongakugaku no genjō to kadai’ [The present state and problems of musicology in Japan], Ongaku geijutsu, xxviii/10 (1970), 26–51
P.J. Drummond: Australian Directory of Music Research (Sydney, 1978)
A.D. McCredie: Musicological Studies in Australia from the Beginnings to the Present (Sydney, 1979, 2/1983)
M.J. Kartomi: ‘Musicological Research in Australia 1979–84’, AcM, lvi (1984), 109–45
D.R. Harvey: A Bibliography of Writings about New Zealand Music Published to the End of 1983 (Wellington, 1985)
J.C. Kassler: ‘Interpretive Strategies in Australian Musical Scholarship’, Musicology Australia, xi–xii (1988–9), 24–6
J.C. Kassler, ed.: Metaphor: a Musical Dimension (Sydney, 1991)
J.M. Thomson: The Oxford History of New Zealand Music (Oxford, 1991)
G.M. Hair and R.E. Smith, eds.: Songs of the Dove and the Nightingale: Sacred and Secular Music c900–c1600 (Sydney, 1994)
M.J. Kartomi and S. Blum, eds.: Music Cultures in Contact: Convergences and Collisions (Sydney, 1994)
W. Bebbington, ed.: The Oxford Companion to Australian Music (Oxford, 1997)
J.C. Kassler: ‘Musicology and the Problem of Knowledge’, Musicology Australia, xx (1997), 130–35