Talk:New musicology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New musicology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

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

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)[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]

Formatting

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

Bravo 82.2.134.157

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

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^{[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]

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)[reply]

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

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)[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]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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]