Theoretical Conceptions in Musicology as a Potential Obstacle to Musical Comprehension

L. Hakobian
{"title":"Theoretical Conceptions in Musicology as a Potential Obstacle to Musical Comprehension","authors":"L. Hakobian","doi":"10.6092/issn.2039-9715/5869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The core of the history of musical thought consists of large-scale doctrines striving to explain the multitude of observed phenomena in terms of immutable categories and universals. All such doctrines are based on the belief of their authors that all the complex and differentiated phenomena have their origins in simple principles. Accordingly, any music that cannot be convincingly reduced to these principles is either ignored or declared ‘abnormal’. Any doctrine inevitably stops before what in music is not quite ‘system-defined’. Though doctrines may point to ‘irregularities’, they can hardly justify them aesthetically. The by-effect of their influence is the growth of prejudices around anything that is new and unusual. A huge array of musicological literature, developing the methodological principles of ‘big’ classical conceptions or propounding new conceptions that also claim to be scientific and universal, can hardly help the reader to clarify his perception of the unfamiliar or to discover new meanings in what is well known (the present paper illustrates this using several examples from different brands of musicology, both Russian and non-Russian). This arguably means that the ‘scientistic’ (reductionist) paradigm in musicology has been exhausted and the new, deeper knowledge of music has to be acquired through alternative, not strictly scientific – perhaps rather literary, openly subjective, authority-free – ways.","PeriodicalId":30273,"journal":{"name":"Musica Docta","volume":"5 1","pages":"19-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musica Docta","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2039-9715/5869","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The core of the history of musical thought consists of large-scale doctrines striving to explain the multitude of observed phenomena in terms of immutable categories and universals. All such doctrines are based on the belief of their authors that all the complex and differentiated phenomena have their origins in simple principles. Accordingly, any music that cannot be convincingly reduced to these principles is either ignored or declared ‘abnormal’. Any doctrine inevitably stops before what in music is not quite ‘system-defined’. Though doctrines may point to ‘irregularities’, they can hardly justify them aesthetically. The by-effect of their influence is the growth of prejudices around anything that is new and unusual. A huge array of musicological literature, developing the methodological principles of ‘big’ classical conceptions or propounding new conceptions that also claim to be scientific and universal, can hardly help the reader to clarify his perception of the unfamiliar or to discover new meanings in what is well known (the present paper illustrates this using several examples from different brands of musicology, both Russian and non-Russian). This arguably means that the ‘scientistic’ (reductionist) paradigm in musicology has been exhausted and the new, deeper knowledge of music has to be acquired through alternative, not strictly scientific – perhaps rather literary, openly subjective, authority-free – ways.
音乐学中的理论概念是音乐理解的潜在障碍
音乐思想史的核心是由大规模的学说组成的,这些学说力求用不变的范畴和普遍性来解释观察到的众多现象。所有这些学说都是基于其作者的信念,即所有复杂和分化的现象都源于简单的原则。因此,任何不能令人信服地归结为这些原则的音乐要么被忽略,要么被宣布为“不正常”。任何学说都不可避免地在音乐中没有完全“系统定义”的东西之前停止。虽然教条可能指向“不规则”,但它们很难在美学上证明它们是正确的。他们影响的副产品是对任何新鲜和不寻常的事物产生偏见。大量的音乐学文献,发展了“大”古典概念的方法论原则,或者提出了同样声称是科学和普遍的新概念,几乎不能帮助读者澄清他对不熟悉的事物的看法,或者在已知的事物中发现新的意义(本文使用来自不同品牌的音乐学的几个例子来说明这一点,包括俄罗斯和非俄罗斯)。可以说,这意味着音乐学中的“科学主义”(还原论)范式已经耗尽,新的、更深层次的音乐知识必须通过另一种方式获得,而不是严格的科学——也许更像是文学的、公开主观的、没有权威的——方式。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
50 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