[Smt-talk] Degree terminology (was Re: Princeton and Theory)

[Nicolas Meeùs]

Dear Ildar,

You are right and the case of Hugo Riemann is indeed extremely 
important. I do not have his Grundriss at hand just now, but I suppose 
that his 4th division reads "Die musikalische Fachlehre (Musiktheorie)" 
(instead of Sachlehere).

This raise a question that should receive more consideration in this 
discussion. "Fachlehre" is the "craft of the discipline", the techniques 
that practicing musicians put to use in their activity. In a way, it 
does not belong to a "science of music" in the sense that we give today 
to the word "science". And this certainly has been one of the reasons 
why academic musicologists resisted against the introduction of music 
theory in the academic realm: it must have appeared as an intrusion of 
practical knowledges and techniques within the domain of abstract 
speculation. Our conception of "science" still owes much to the 
18th-century Enlightenment and to its idea that true knowledge should be 
gratuitous, free from any consideration of personal benefit, i.e. also 
distinct from the professional craft itself. The separate institutions 
of Conservatoire and University in continental Europe is very much based 
on this distinction between a craft and a speculative thinking.

It seems to me that what is understood as "music theory" in the US 
shares from both aspects. When Stephen Jablonsky recently wrote that in 
his opinion theory should include " (1) rudiments and labeling, (2) 
analysis of complete pieces, and (3) composition", he very much mixes 
the two aspects. I don't mean that this is mistaken, I only thing that 
it is something we should further consider. Such theories as Riemann's 
theory of functions, or Schenker's theory of the Ursatz, are speculative 
theories which you may rightly want to compare with philosophical 
systems. As theories, they are incredibly remote from the craft of 
harmony, of part-writing, etc., as taught to practicing musicians. 
Composition, similarly, belongs to the craft of music, certainly not (or 
not immediately) to its speculative, philosophical aspect. I mentioned 
before that Schenker's Harmony had been translated 25 years before Free 
Composition: this is precisely because Harmony was considered to concern 
the craft, while Free Composition could pass for a speculative approach.

Now it seems to me that music theoricians, especially in the States, 
often sit between to chairs in this respect. Some are craftsmen, some 
are "philosophers", some are the two at the same time. But when we, 
especially when you, dear American friends, speak of "music theory", we 
may not really know what we are speaking of...

Don't misunderstand me: I do not want to criticize anyone, I merely mean 
that this duality craft/speculation deserves consideration.

Yours,

Nicolas

Nicolas Meeùs
Université Paris-Sorbonne
nicolas.meeus at paris-sorbonne.fr


Le 24/11/2010 06:17, Ildar Khannanov a écrit :
> Dear Nicolas,
> we should not forget Hugo Riemann's book Grundriss der 
> Musikwissenschaft, in which he suggests a very elaborate and precise 
> division of disciplines: Akustik, Tonpsychologie,  Musikaesthetik, Die 
> musikalische Sachlehre (Musiktheorie), Musikgeschichte.
> Apparently, in his system, music theory and music history are strictly 
> and clearly separated.
> In early 1860s, at the St. Petersburg and at the Moscow Conservatory, 
> the Departments of History and Theory of Music funcitoned as a 
> combination of two disciplines. However, the two were separated 
> and taught by different professors. In 1932, a Specialized Theory 
> Department had been created by Victor Zukkerman and Leo Mazel at the 
> Moscow Conservatory. Its function was to develop music theory as a 
> discipline and to teach undergraduate theory majors (!), together with 
> the aspirants (graduate students). So, Kerman did not introduce this 
> division; he was not hte first.
> Best,
> Ildar Khannanov
> Peabody Conservatory
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20101125/57be2a03/attachment-0003.htm>