Hither, musicology

Jon Szanto writes:

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.

JR: It is not so simple, alas. First off, there are all different levels of instrumental playing. Also, the majority of musicologists seem to be pianists. This skews thinking when you come from a bassoon head, for example, let alone recorder, composer, etc.

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

JS: 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.

JR: So true, but the Ives story should have the Partch story all beat.

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

JS: 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.

JR: Clark's quote below:

"At least with music instruments many mistakes written about them can
be obvious if you look at the instrument, but you still have to
consult documents putting them, as well as the documents, in context.

Clark
threesixesinarow"

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

JS: 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)

JR: People may have dabbled in youth, who knows. What seems clear is a lawyer-like attitude that wants to remove emotions from the material like with a science.

When I studied Renaissance Theory it was forbidden to actually listen to an 81/64. The professor would only allow that the complexity of the numbers are enough to indicate the dissonance of this interval as compared to a 5/4. Man, people choked when I took out a Korg tuner to play the interval. Somehow there was a perverse joy in running the class without actually listening to the intervals being discussed.

and what a battle to get tuning to be included. musicologists were trying to kick me out of the class for being an ethnomusicologist...what a crock, I wasn't "supposed" to be interested in renaissance music. That's like Europeans thinking I have no business in Bach since I'm an American.

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

JS: I have no idea what that means.

It means that I was a fish out of water. I was the "microtonalist" hearing things ungodly. In every issue I wanted a value for moving music forward, but I was alone in this. From the start I saw little future in musicology as it had been constructed. Of course, academic departments and subdisciplines are continually challenging each other. At Columbia, the "communist" anthropology department were full of negativity for ethnomusicologists.

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

JS: ???

Cheers,
Jon

JR: I'm just (funny errors) saying there are individuals who are not like the others. I love Arthur Mendel, George Buelow, Christoph Wolff, Richard Taruskin, people who have their finger in the musical pulse of history.

Hope this helps further to distinguish thoughts about one discipline by someone in another.

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.

Hi Johnny,

Thanks for attempting to clarify. I confess that in many areas, it
still isn't really clear what discerns you from "musicologists". There
seem to be various levels of musical (performance) involvement, but it
is hard to be sure just where you have your biggest differences. If it
boils down to academicians who never play the music, I suppose that
makes some kind of sense, but surely there are musicologists that *do*
immerse themselves in the music, and therefore berating musicologists
as a group doesn't seem totally appropriate.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
> JR: It is not so simple, alas.

Life rarely is, which is why I'm trying to understand your position.

> First off, there are all different levels of instrumental playing.

Sure. This must imply that you feel superior to 'them'.

> Also, the majority of musicologists seem to be pianists. This skews
thinking when you come from a bassoon head, for example, let alone
recorder, composer, etc.

"Seem to be" is always a tenuous position to put out there, but I
don't know how the percentages go. Then again, Bach wasn't a
bassoonist, etc. You certainly have a different, possibly unique-ish
perspective, but what makes it more valid than another instrumental or
vocal perspective?

> JR: So true, but the Ives story should have the Partch story all beat.

I have no idea what that means..

> JR: People may have dabbled in youth, who knows.

Or they may still be serious performers, who knows?

> What seems clear is a lawyer-like attitude that wants to remove
emotions from the material like with a science.

Possibly, but you aren't going to convince many people of a historical
fact or occurrence based on your emotional reactions to music!

> It means that I was a fish out of water.

I see. From your statement I couldn't tell if the program at Columbia
was a good or bad thing, but it is clear now. Is there any place on
earth you could study that would be in line with your manner of
thinking? Has there been any movement in your direction (I'm assuming
Columbia was many years ago)?

> Hope this helps further to distinguish thoughts about one discipline
by someone in another.

Sure, I have a slightly clearer picture.

Cheers,
Jon

> Jon Szanto writes:
> 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.

Please think of me as one who shared your experiences. However, we
are all supposed to suffer because in the arts and sciences, nothing
ever gets easier in time.

Cris