THREE is the number, the question.
question number three: what does positivist musicology mean to me, and how would i like to change it?
well, before i begin, i thought i had another experience to share but i cannot recall it anymore. i'm sure i will remember it later on, when i do, i'll post it. i wonder who reads this. does anyone? i think the only person who does is my boyfriend, which is fine by me. he's been quite supportive of my writing. his support gives me strength to believe that what i am saying is not entirely without ground. anyhow, back the question of the post.
i think i mostly answered the first part when i answered the first question. i didn't have a good definition for positivist musicology because i had never seen one before. in a way, i took the term and made it my own. but on a different level, what it means to me is that musicology had lots of problems. the approach, its basis, it is wrong. i hear some people say that musicologists just do not seem to be able to analyse music properly. i do not know whether or not musicologists should be analysers of music. i mean, what a musicologist does is look at music and look for traits that fit its time period. i do know that some focus too much on the pettier details like, "ah yes, here is a napolean augmented sixth chord." which, is fine. but is it worth mentioning? i suppose, i know where that person is coming from. seeing as we have been taught by the same professor. i do not know that i would be any better than the next person at analysing music. i can say that i have recieved A's in all of my courses when analysis counts. but what does that mean, really? i don't know. i guess it depends on what you think is important in an analysis of a piece of music.
as i said, there are great problems in the field of musicology. it makes me angry to know that we are taught to be so prejudice. What would I do to change it? I guess what I am doing right now. Writing about it. Expressing my qualms on the topic. Most importantly, I think, is that I am trying to sort it all out. Make sense of the problems. All I can do is prove to everyone that what I believe is correct. I suppose, there are detailed things that I would change. I mean, broadly, I suppose I would make music history relate music to it's environment. sometimes i feel like when musicians sit in a history of music course, they are only there so that they can be familar with all the titles and important works of some important composer that the music society considers important. they aren't in that course to really understand the music, or the composer. just to remember his name and his most important works. it is almost like a sense of prestige, or status. knowing that you know all the works that other composers refer to in conversation. something like, "ha, yes of course i know that. yes, i'm just a good as you. oh? what? you don't know that famous Bach work? well you are truly an idiot, aren't you? get out of my face you scum." It's like prized possessions. How many famous composers can you keep in your head? that isn't history, though, now is it?
i cannot expect that everyone will agree with me. i cannot expect that they will change. at least at my current university, i do not see how anyone would agree with me. but i do not think i am alone. someone told me that he taught that perhaps there was a change occuring. that it was the older ones that still cling to the old ideas. well, maybe. i don't know. it hasn't trickled down to me yet, here at the unversity as an undergraduate student. you might ask, "well then, how come you are talking about what you are talking about? obviously you got it somewhere!" well, i did. but it wasn't from a musicologist. and it wasn't from a young person. perhaps my opinions will change when i go off to graduate school. not my opinions in regards to the problems with musicology, but my my pessimistic opinions in regards to making a difference and changing musicology for, what i believe is, the better.
well that about sums it up for me on that topic. it may be a while before i think of something else to talk about.
well, before i begin, i thought i had another experience to share but i cannot recall it anymore. i'm sure i will remember it later on, when i do, i'll post it. i wonder who reads this. does anyone? i think the only person who does is my boyfriend, which is fine by me. he's been quite supportive of my writing. his support gives me strength to believe that what i am saying is not entirely without ground. anyhow, back the question of the post.
i think i mostly answered the first part when i answered the first question. i didn't have a good definition for positivist musicology because i had never seen one before. in a way, i took the term and made it my own. but on a different level, what it means to me is that musicology had lots of problems. the approach, its basis, it is wrong. i hear some people say that musicologists just do not seem to be able to analyse music properly. i do not know whether or not musicologists should be analysers of music. i mean, what a musicologist does is look at music and look for traits that fit its time period. i do know that some focus too much on the pettier details like, "ah yes, here is a napolean augmented sixth chord." which, is fine. but is it worth mentioning? i suppose, i know where that person is coming from. seeing as we have been taught by the same professor. i do not know that i would be any better than the next person at analysing music. i can say that i have recieved A's in all of my courses when analysis counts. but what does that mean, really? i don't know. i guess it depends on what you think is important in an analysis of a piece of music.
as i said, there are great problems in the field of musicology. it makes me angry to know that we are taught to be so prejudice. What would I do to change it? I guess what I am doing right now. Writing about it. Expressing my qualms on the topic. Most importantly, I think, is that I am trying to sort it all out. Make sense of the problems. All I can do is prove to everyone that what I believe is correct. I suppose, there are detailed things that I would change. I mean, broadly, I suppose I would make music history relate music to it's environment. sometimes i feel like when musicians sit in a history of music course, they are only there so that they can be familar with all the titles and important works of some important composer that the music society considers important. they aren't in that course to really understand the music, or the composer. just to remember his name and his most important works. it is almost like a sense of prestige, or status. knowing that you know all the works that other composers refer to in conversation. something like, "ha, yes of course i know that. yes, i'm just a good as you. oh? what? you don't know that famous Bach work? well you are truly an idiot, aren't you? get out of my face you scum." It's like prized possessions. How many famous composers can you keep in your head? that isn't history, though, now is it?
i cannot expect that everyone will agree with me. i cannot expect that they will change. at least at my current university, i do not see how anyone would agree with me. but i do not think i am alone. someone told me that he taught that perhaps there was a change occuring. that it was the older ones that still cling to the old ideas. well, maybe. i don't know. it hasn't trickled down to me yet, here at the unversity as an undergraduate student. you might ask, "well then, how come you are talking about what you are talking about? obviously you got it somewhere!" well, i did. but it wasn't from a musicologist. and it wasn't from a young person. perhaps my opinions will change when i go off to graduate school. not my opinions in regards to the problems with musicology, but my my pessimistic opinions in regards to making a difference and changing musicology for, what i believe is, the better.
well that about sums it up for me on that topic. it may be a while before i think of something else to talk about.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home