Talk:New musicology

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Aesthetics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Aesthetics Classical music Opera This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

I've tried to make the main points,..,.,.,.,.,.,,, of this article in the section on New musicology in the article musicology. Please feel free to update that section as well. --Myke Cuthbert 21:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything about this article is bad. Should it just be eliminated? Gingermint (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to make some updates on this section citing Grove Music Online and David Beard and Kenneth Gloag's book Musicology; the Key Concepts. I've made updates to the introduction abstract, Definitions and History, Fields of Work, Criticisms, and References. 10:19, 4 October, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hluviano (talk • contribs) 14:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

somebody has wrecked the formatting of this article --Hjijch 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest addition to further reading makes me realize we need full citations on these books and a justification for why someone should read them in order to learn more about New musicology (I don't think any recent book which merely uses tools of the New Musicology should be listed). I will try to add some justification for the books I know about. If the editor who added the most recent one could add that, that'd be great. --Myke Cuthbert 23:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for many improvements to the article. --Myke Cuthbert 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to present the criticisms of New Musicology in an objective manner. However, the author of that sections obviously has an axe to grind. And it's horribly sloppy and full of uncited materials. I axed the following sentence, as it is both biased and unsubstantiated:

New Musicologists frequently take a diametrically opposed view: implacably hostile and dismissive of most modernist music (as for example in McClary 1989), though rarely engaging with actual works in any detail, they look very favourably upon popular music and often argue that it would be better to teach the latter than the former in institutions of higher education^{[citation needed]}.

You can find plenty of New Musicology that does look at "detail," although one of the points is to get away from the hegemony of the ideology of formalist music-theoretical models of analysis. I've also encountered New Musicology that is critical of popular music and the social, political, and economic structures it exists in.

Lastly, refering to all New Musicology as "they" is terribly reductive. And it isn't backed up with a citation.

More should be done to clean up this section. It certainly is legitimate to include it, but let's do it the wiki-way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.30.11 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations of those New Musicological articles that supposedly do engage with modernist works in detail would be equally welcome. Citations are supposedly required for certain negative claims, concerning the lack of impact of New Musicology outside of the English-speaking world (how does one cite to prove a lack? Does anyone have counter-examples in terms of publications) and not dealing with Adorno on gender, ethnicity and sexuality. How could either of these be shown by citation? The impact or otherwise of New Musicology on the wider musical world should also be considered by someone. The criticisms section may have an axe to grind, but that is equally true of the more 'pro' sections, for example when citing McClary's 'fastidiously declares issues of musical signification off-limits to those engaged in legitimate scholarship' without comment or critique.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.9.111 (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

See Wikipedia:Criticism. Hyacinth (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question? wasn't Taruskin's book published in 2004 not 2005? (coincidentally the same year as Cooks, Cambridge Guide to 20th Century music) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleatoricallysimple (talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What book? Hyacinth (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Oxford history of western music mentioned in the paragraph 'Changes in traditional musicology in response to the New Musicology' though amazon says 2005, it actually came out 2004 see: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Music/MusicHistoryWestern/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE2OTc5OQ==

I'm new to wiki editing, but that whole paragraph is a bit of an assertion, I think. do I raise the issue in a new headline as being new I don't want to just go ahead and change things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleatoricallysimple (talk • contribs) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New musicology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927122439/http://www.rem.ufpr.br/REMv7/Brett_Wood/Brett_and_Wood.html to http://www.rem.ufpr.br/REMv7/Brett_Wood/Brett_and_Wood.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]