Hither, musicology (was Bach's Tuning)

Good question, Jon. Most of what I could bring out about musicologists would be annecdotal. You may have thought previously about this question, of a chasm in understanding.

Guess the big difference is that I get "intelligence" from the music, which is alluded to by Clark. Yes, the instruments themselves tell a story, which is largely out of the experience of the musicologists.

Then there seems to be an extraordinary value placed on making it a science, but "they" get different signals, and have different priorities. Sorry to say it, but a lot of the melee is about power. Whenever there is no money involved, Academics dig in to protect their power. It seems I have little investment to hold on to in respect to any particular power (since there really is none).

Luck of the draw, I guess. Since I studied musicology at Columbia University, it seems a clear cut difference in approach. Alas, it cannot bridge from the composer to the modern listener without the musician component. And all to often then opt to leave the musician out.

And of course there are musicians and musicains, and musicologists and musiclogists, always exceptions

best, Johnny
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

Johnny,

It seems the crux of the issue is whether or not one performs music in
addition to researching and writing about it, or at least that is what
I am getting from your explanation.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
> You may have thought previously about this question, of a chasm in
understanding.

Certainly. For me, of course, it has to do with Partch, and having
experienced it first hand. Like it or not, I've gotten used to the
fact that for many people this means nothing.

> Guess the big difference is that I get "intelligence" from the
music, which is alluded to by Clark.

I have no idea who Clark is, but the quotes are unintentionally
telling: the knowledge you gain from performing is very hard to
quantify and document, unlike research into past writings, etc. Makes
it very difficult to put a lot of weight into your side of any argument.

> Then there seems to be an extraordinary value placed on making it a
science, but "they" get different signals, and have different priorities.

But surely there are people in musicology who are also performers of
the music? Maybe it is semantic: when _you_ say musicologists, you
mean those who only write on music, but don't practice it.
(Paralleling G. B. Shaw's great definition)

> Since I studied musicology at Columbia University, it seems a clear
cut difference in approach.

I have no idea what that means.

> And of course there are musicians and musicains, and musicologists
and musiclogists, always exceptions

???

Cheers,
Jon