Susan Mcclary and the Epistemology of “New” Musicological Narrative, 1983-2007
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Susan McClary and the epistemology of “new” musicological narrative, 1983-2007 by Douglas McCutcheon A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree MMus (Musicology) In the Department of Music at the UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA FACULTY OF HUMANITIES Supervisor: Professor H.H. van der Mescht April 2012 ii Abstract Title Susan McClary and the epistemology of “new” musicological narrative, 1983- 2007 Student Douglas McCutcheon Supervisor Prof. H.H. van der Mescht Degree MMus (Musicology) The aim of this research is to show how the “new” musicology differs from the “old” with regards to the creation of knowledge about music, which I refer to as “musicological epistemology”. If epistemology is described in the contemporary era as “justified, true belief” (Huemer 2002: 435), this dissertation discusses how McClary, acting as a “new” musicologist, has justified her “true beliefs” in order to create postmodern knowledge about music in the contemporary era, and how these “true beliefs” differ from “old”/modernist musicological opinions concerning the meaning of music. In this dissertation I have included short descriptions of how I believe the various categories of “old” musicology functioned epistemologically. In order to demonstrate how musicological epistemology has changed in the contemporary era, I have undertaken an epistemological analysis of four of McClary's core articles/musicological narratives included in Reading Music: Selected Essays (2007). I have chosen one article from each of McClary’s main subjects of discourse from 1983 to 2007, namely “interpretation and polemics”, “gender and sexuality”, “popular music” and “early music”, in order to ascertain the “nature, scope and limits” of the knowledge she creates through the writing of these narratives. I have found that McClary has incorporated a variety of postmodern debates into her musicological writing, which separates her, epistemologically, from the “old” musicology. This “old”/“new” musicological split is particularly established in my epistemological analysis of “The blasphemy of talking politics during Bach Year” (1987) in which McClary vehemently criticizes key aspects of the “old” musicology, as well as enunciates how she believes the iii “new” musicology should function epistemologically. The epistemological analysis of “The cultural work of the madrigal” (2007) shows McClary’s epistemology in its mature form. With regards to McClary’s epistemology, I have discovered that the knowledge she is creating is subject to the reader’s acceptance of the postmodern debates that inform her postmodern intellectual context (relativism, identity and deconstruction for example), which establish the conditions under which her work can be considered as knowledge. I have referred to this type of knowledge as “conditional knowledge”, specifically in the epistemological analysis of “Living to tell: Madonna’s resurrection of the fleshly” (1990). McClary’s knowledge is also subject to the contexts in which she situates these essays (a feminist context, for example), which I have referred to as “context-based knowledge” in my epistemological analysis of “Construction of subjectivity in Schubert’s music” (1994). These forms of knowledge admit a subjective viewpoint and are generally of a socially responsible nature. These elements clearly articulate McClary’s acknowledgement of her postmodern intellectual context with regards to Lyotard’s call for greater toleration and sensitivity in his seminal work La condition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir (1979) (The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge), the essential aspects of which are also discussed in this dissertation. The micronarrative format of her knowledge also relates to Lyotard’s theories, as well as McClary’s open avoidance of grand narratives in her writing. Through my analyses I have affirmed that McClary has produced these postmodern forms of knowledge whilst adhering to the accepted principles of epistemic rigour. Postmodern theory has revealed a relativistic and subjective view of human language and knowledge. McClary, acknowledging this postmodern realization, has taken control of the production of musical meaning and is creating musical knowledge that is meaningful and useful to marginalized groups in the social and musical world. iv Key words Epistemology Susan McClary “Old” musicology “New” musicology Grand narrative Metanarrative Micronarrative Modernism Postmodernism v Who decides what knowledge is, and who knows what needs to be decided? Jean François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition (1984: 9) vi Contents 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Background to the study 1-1 1.2 Theoretical framework 1-6 1.3 Research questions 1-7 1.4 Aims of the study 1-8 1.5 Rationale for the study 1-8 1.6 Methodology 1-10 1.7 Literature review 1-12 1.8 Value of the study 1-15 1.9 Notes to the reader 1-15 2. Epistemology and the creation of musical knowledge 2-1 2.1 What is an epistemology? 2-1 2.2 What is knowledge? 2-3 2.3 What is musical knowledge? 2-5 2.4 What is a musicological epistemology? 2-5 2.5 Summary 2-6 3. The epistemology of the “old” musicology in the context of modernism 3-1 3.1 The intellectual context of modernism and the “modernist identity” 3-1 3.2 The difference between “old” and “new” musicology 3-4 3.3 Epistemological deductions concerning the “old” musicology 3-7 3.3.1 Music analysis 3-8 3.3.2 Historical musicology 3-10 3.3.3 The aesthetics of music 3-12 3.3.4 Ethnomusicology 3-15 3.4 Summary 3-16 4. Postmodernism: narratives, debates and postmodern musicological epistemology 4-1 4.1 The state of critical/“new” musicology in the context of postmodernism 4-1 4.2 The theoretical basis of postmodernism: Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition 4-4 4.3 Postmodern narratives: grand narrative, metanarrative and micronarrative 4-9 4.3.1 Defining narrative 4-9 4.3.2 Grand narratives and metanarratives 4-10 4.3.3 Micronarratives 4-13 4.4 Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity 4-15 4.5 Post-structuralism, “genealogy” and intertextuality 4-17 4.6 Relativism, absurdity and deconstruction 4-19 4.7 Feminism 4-22 4.8 Humanism, posthumanism (the “post-human”) and changing technology 4-24 4.9 Identity, “place” and “landscape” 4-26 4.10 Summary 4-28 vii 5. McClary’s epistemology according to her “Introduction: the life and times of a renegade musicologist”, in Reading Music: Selected Essays (2007) 5-1 6. Interpretation and polemics: an epistemological critique of McClary’s “The blasphemy of talking politics during Bach year” (1987) 6-1 6.1 “Introduction” 6-1 6.2 “The Pythagorean dilemma” 6-6 6.3 “Bach’s music as social discourse” 6-9 6.4 “Examples” 6-10 6.5 “Brandenburg Concerto No. 5, first movement” 6-10 6.5.1 “Tonality” 6-10 6.5.2 “Concerto-grosso procedure” 6-11 6.5.3 “Harpsichord” 6-12 6.5.4 “Discussion” 6-12 6.6 “Wachet auf” 6-13 6.6.1 “National identity” 6-13 6.6.2 “Orthodoxy/ pietism” 6-14 6.6.3 “Gender” 6-15 6.6.4 “Bach reception” 6-16 6.7 “Bach in today’s cultural politics” 6-17 6.8 Summary 6-18 7 Gender and sexuality: an epistemological analysis of McClary’s “Constructions of subjectivity in Schubert’s music” (1994) 7-1 Summary 7-13 8 Epistemological conditions: an epistemological analysis of McClary’s “Living to tell: Madonna’s resurrection of the fleshly” (1990) 8-1 Summary 8-14 9 Early music: an epistemological analysis of McClary’s “The Cultural Work of the Madrigal” (2007) 9-1 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 “How to do things with modes” 9-7 9.3 Summary 9-9 10 Conclusions 10-1 Sources S-1 Video sources S-10 1-1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background to the study The questions that have provoked this enquiry into the foundations of contemporary musicological epistemology are as follows: What is musical knowledge? How is musical knowledge obtained? How do musicologists extract meaning from musical knowledge, what methods do they employ, how do they “operate” (and thereby dissect the experience of music in its many guises)? Epistemology, with regards to music, is not a finite field in the contemporary era. There is no epistemology of “new” musicology that contemporary musicologists follow; they define their methods as they go along. There are methods of extracting musical knowledge that are a result of long musicological tradition, such as the “historical, analytical and theoretical modes of enquiry” (Hooper 1974: 1), all of which have strictly defined epistemologies. But what Hooper described in 1974 (1) as an “increasing number of interpretive or methodological approaches that resist such easy categorization”, may have been prophetic of the unpredictable direction the discipline was taking, due to the influence of certain intellectual currents that will be discussed in later chapters (specifically concerning postmodernism). The question remains, are these indefinable methods of generating knowledge effective? And if so, how do they generate knowledge? Essentially: what is their epistemology? The chief difference between the “old” and contemporary (“new”) musicological epistemology is that, since the generally accepted date of about 1985 (Middleton 2003: 1), the Enlightenment ideals of the “old” musicology, with its inherited positivistic, empiricist, autonomous and objectivist claims, have gradually been shed. This is discussed at length in Chapter 3. What is of primary importance to this dissertation is, as Lochead and Auner state 1-2 in Postmodern Music/Postmodern Thought (2002: 6), that the epistemology of musicology has changed in the contemporary era as “conceptions of perspectival knowledge have called into question the idea of truth and more generally the binary nature of all understanding”. Our definition of knowledge has changed in essential ways, and so has the type of knowledge that we produce as a result. In Chapter 2 I will describe how contemporary scholars view the subject of knowledge, and in Chapter 3 it is my intention to show how this subject has influenced the writing of “old” as well as “new” musicological narratives.