Talk:New musicology

This article and 'musicology'
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)

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

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)

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

Bravo 82.2.134.157
Thanks for many improvements to the article. --Myke Cuthbert 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

POV in Criticisms section
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."

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)

More on criticisms
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)


 * See Criticism. Hyacinth (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Date of publication
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)


 * What book? Hyacinth (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

External links modified (February 2018)
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.

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