1.Just some thoughts (mostly expansions) on Alex's responses to the Kerman article.

2. I agree with the problem Alex has with Kerman's making distinctions between criticism, musicology, and music theory. It is hight time that these fields should be used to aid each other. It seems as though new musicology has all the answers - the 'truth' - Wow, and they call themselves postmodern without using the pluralistic approaches that could be offered by music theory and criticism

3. Further to Kerman's comments of musicology and full historical context. (as mentioned by Alex in paragraph 2) I think it is ridiculous to assume that only musicology sees things in a 'full historical context'. Is Kerman denying that the very applications of analysis grow out of a historical context? As well, music within its historical context determines and regulates the type of analysis a piece of music requires (Simon that one is ready for you to respond to .... )

4 Again, I have to agree with Alex when he criticizes Kerman for having the one answer. In the age of postmodernism how can Kerman claim to have the one answer? This is not in the spirit of postmodernism.

5.Time and time again new musicologists criticize theorists for not looking at the 'expressive' in music as if this is the only direction to aligning new musicology and music theory. Well ... I think there are other possibilities.

Back to mus701 hompage