Post-factual music historiography: Legends of art-religion

IF 0.2 0 MUSIC
H. Loos
{"title":"Post-factual music historiography: Legends of art-religion","authors":"H. Loos","doi":"10.2298/MUZ1926091L","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In many of its areas, the writing of music history in Germany is characterised by the Romantic music outlook and its ?Two-World-Model?: the real world is seen as opposing the ideal world of music as a higher existence of ideas and ideals. Art music in the emphatic sense, commonly designated as serious music, pretends to represent that ideal world and makes claims to truthfulness. The science of music actually believes it is able to prove the universality of these claims. A large part of musicological publications are characterised by this assumption. However, a public discussion among musicologists as to whether such writings should belong to the field of theology rather than to historico-critical historiography (as a science in the strict sense) is non-existent. As a result, our field has not only disappeared from a public sphere that wishes to leave those claims to small elitist circles, but has also encountered a growing lack of understanding among other disciplines, even to the point of mockery. It would suffice here to refer to the lawyer Bernhard Weck, who wrote with regard to Beethoven?s Opus 112: ?Only musicology could prove that ?political ideas of freedom can be expressed through gestures of sound.??","PeriodicalId":30174,"journal":{"name":"Muzikologija-Musicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Muzikologija-Musicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/MUZ1926091L","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MUSIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In many of its areas, the writing of music history in Germany is characterised by the Romantic music outlook and its ?Two-World-Model?: the real world is seen as opposing the ideal world of music as a higher existence of ideas and ideals. Art music in the emphatic sense, commonly designated as serious music, pretends to represent that ideal world and makes claims to truthfulness. The science of music actually believes it is able to prove the universality of these claims. A large part of musicological publications are characterised by this assumption. However, a public discussion among musicologists as to whether such writings should belong to the field of theology rather than to historico-critical historiography (as a science in the strict sense) is non-existent. As a result, our field has not only disappeared from a public sphere that wishes to leave those claims to small elitist circles, but has also encountered a growing lack of understanding among other disciplines, even to the point of mockery. It would suffice here to refer to the lawyer Bernhard Weck, who wrote with regard to Beethoven?s Opus 112: ?Only musicology could prove that ?political ideas of freedom can be expressed through gestures of sound.??
后事实音乐史学:艺术-宗教的传说
在它的许多领域,德国音乐史的写作以浪漫主义音乐观和它的“两个世界模式”为特征。现实世界被视为音乐的理想世界的对立面,音乐是思想和理想的更高存在。强调意义上的艺术音乐,通常被认为是严肃的音乐,假装表现理想的世界,并声称是真实的。音乐科学实际上相信它能够证明这些说法的普遍性。大部分音乐学出版物都以这种假设为特征。然而,音乐学家之间关于这些作品是否应该属于神学领域而不是历史批判史学(作为严格意义上的科学)的公开讨论是不存在的。结果,我们的领域不仅从希望把这些主张留给小精英圈子的公共领域中消失了,而且在其他学科中也越来越缺乏理解,甚至到了嘲笑的地步。这里只要提到律师Bernhard Weck就足够了,他写过关于贝多芬的文章。只有音乐学可以证明自由的政治观念可以通过声音的姿态来表达。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信