The Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology A Progress Report Richard Parncutt Tallinn, 14 August 2007

The Problem: Fragmentation systematic ethnological historical

Narrow definition of “musicology” music history of Western cultural elites sources: historical documents associated methods and techniques tradition since 19th Century

Methods and epistemologies “Musicology”Ethnomusicology “music”scorepart of culture readership“musicologists”interdisciplinary repertorylostdisappearing focuscomposer, scoreperformance conceptsindividual, idiosyncratic, history, development, musical autonomy, formal unity culture, typical, tradition, change, social function, cultural uniqueness authorityscholarinformants Source: Jonathan Stock, Current Musicology, 1998.

Institutionalisation of subdisciplines Usually within “musicology”: music theory/analysis music history ethnomusicology Often elsewhere: music acoustics music psychology music physiology music computing  Musicology under one roof?

Power structures in musicology Visible and invisible –definition of “musicology” in Grove, MGG etc. –use of “musicology” in conferences journals, societies Humanities in 21st-Century academe –generally: too little power (culture is important!) –in musicology: too much power (sciences and practice are important!)

The solution: Integration Unity in diversity through interdisciplinary collaboration expertise and quality control teamwork and collegiality balance of power

Integration at CIM Promote minority disciplines –generally: humanities –in musicology: sciences, musical practice minority researchers –women –non-Westerners Aims productivity: quality and quantity relevance

Definitions “Conference” “Discipline” “Interdisciplinarity” “Musicology” “Musicologist”

“Conference” interest, relevance diversity, novelty quality, criticism enthusiasm, motivation

“Discipline” Category boundaries fuzzy, fluid top-down, bottom-up Interrelationships hierarchies networks Size expertise takes 10 years or hours (Ericsson) Criteria unified theme methods qualifications experts conferences, societies, journals quality

“Interdisciplinarity” continuous parameter matter of expert opinion distance ~ difficulty –epistemology –methodology quality?  collaborate!

“Musicology” all music all relevant disciplines –humanities, (natural) sciences, practice unity in diversity quality  efficiency social relevance

“Musicologist” specialisation in one subdiscipline acquaintance with all subdisciplines interdisciplinary collaboration An ethnomusicologist is both ethnologist and musicologist A music acoustician is both musicologist and acoustician

Aims of CIM Promote musicology unity in diversity quality and relevance Promote music and culture general values emotion and rationality interculturality: peace & productivity quality of life

Methods of CIM Content background aims synergy implications Peer review expert interdisciplinary objective anonymous constructive transparent

CIMs WhenWhatWhereWho 04-Graz Richard Parncutt 05timbreMontreal Caroline Traube 07singingTallinn Jaan Ross 08structureThessaloniki Emilios Cambouropoulos 09texture?France Michèle Castellengo 10culture?Sheffield Nicola Dibben Themes  bottom-up unification of musicology Next abstract deadline: 30 November 2007

Problems of CIM definition and use of „musicology“ acceptance by different disciplines relationship aims ↔ procedures balance humanities, sciences, practice

Collegiality in interdisciplinary research teams –common goals research question excellence –democracy equal value and rights of team members mutual respect –transparency clear statement of aims openness to evaluation –quality control evaluation within disciplines realistic appraisal of individual strengths, weaknesses mutual constructive criticism

Promotion of collegiality Examples and guidelines –not regulations Research –concepts of collegiality in different subdisciplines –strategies to overcome differences

Acknowledgments In Tallinn: Jaan Ross Kaire Maimets-Volt Tarmo Pajusaar In Graz: Manuela Marin Christian Tschinkel