97135030

Undertake a brief comparison of the articles by Higgins and Wilson, focusing upon
similarities in methodology/approach. To what extent and in what ways does each article
demonstrate a debt to New Musicology?

These two articles both portray the effects of New Musicology through the use of a

more critical and analytical methodology. Both Higgins and Wilson attempt to challenge the

status quo of their particularly subject area – both of which are surprisingly related given

the time difference. For Higgins, it is the assumption that Josquin des Prez fulfils the

romantic genius archetype without question and for Wilson it is revealing the lack of

autonomy demonstrated in the rhetoric of post-war composers than was previously

thought. Both rely heavily on a more refined, critical and open approach lauded by the new

musicology movement.

As mentioned, the methodological approach of both articles is similar with broadly

comparable intentions. Wilson, for example, argues 1 his point through the extended use of a

case study on Gyorgy Ligeti. He avoids the obvious pitfall of having a too narrow field of

evidence also referring to the rhetoric of other post-war composers, such Part and Reich 2

but the focus on one composer allows Wilson to critique in depth the problems presented

by composers’ rhetoric. He argues 3 that these statements are performative and are an

attempt by the composer to break free categorisation and match the autonomous, romantic

view of genius. Wilson uses this as a platform to criticise what he sees as the larger problem

of composers identifying themselves as autonomous in a pluralist (or postmodern) society.

This overarching point shows the influence of new musicology on Wilson’s article, it brings

to light the unhelpful nature of persisting with and adhering to this model in a completely
1
Wilson, Charles, Gyorgy Ligeti and the Rhetoric of Autonomy, Twentieth Century Music, 1 (2004), 5-28, here,
6
2
Ibid, 9
3
Ibid, 13
97135030

different context to that which it was first perceived. This challenging of assumption is key

to the idea of new musicology. Wilson goes even further, writing 4 that composers

(specifically Ligeti) rhetoric of autonomy actually shows how they are reliant on the

concepts they are trying to emancipate themselves from. The influence goes further in that

Wilson challenges the scholarly analysis of these post war composers’ rhetoric. He argues 5

that these statements are performative rather than constative and should be looked at

more critically-especially in the case of words or phrases created by the composer (he cites

Ligeti’s “Micropolyphony”6 as a good example). These words cannot have any meaning or

value other than a performative one as they are simply creations of the composer. Using

them, as Wilson argues7 many scholars do, as an aid to the analysis of the composer’s works

is futile-you end up just going round in circles. This critical analysis is a hallmark of a new

musicological approach.

Similarly, Higgins’ methodological approach uses the misconceptions of an “old”

musicological approach to Josquin as genius to launch into a critical deconstruction of many

academic approaches to the study of Josquin 8. However the two articles differ slightly in the

focus of their criticism. Higgins’ argument is aimed at a series of scholars (most notably

Edward Lowinksy9) who, she argues, are trying to fit Josquin into a model of genius unfit for

a composer of the early 16 th Century. This is a somewhat more personal discussion than

Wilsons, who deals with more general concepts. Higgins’ article also shows a debt to new

musicology, primarily through the potential problems she highlights with Josquin being a

4
Ibid, 6-7
5
Ibid, 17
6
Ibid, 23
7
Ibid, 24-25
8
Higgins, Paula, Apotheosis of Josquin des Prez and other mythologies of musical genius, Journal of the
American musicological society, 57 (2004), 448
9
Ibid, 452-453
97135030

19th century model of a genius. A key example of this comes under the issue of authenticity.

Higgins argues that scholar’s dogmatic insistence that Josquin meets all the predicates of

their model of genius creates problems with authenticating any works that might be my

Josquin10. Their image of Josquin is such that he is raised to the status of being “absolved of

from the sin of technical error” 11, this creates issues by completely ruling out the possibility

of a flawed Josquin work which in turn means that objective historical authentication is

losing out to a flawed, subjective ideology. The new musicological influence can be seen in

how Higgins argues these academics deal with these flawed works. One of the primary

intentions of new musicology is the rejection of cannon and the consideration of all

composers of any given period. Higgins argues that many of the lesser known composers of

the late 15th/early 16th century were forced into the authorship of many of these flawed

Josquin works.12 This not only do a great disservice to these composers as it means they will

be viewed as less technically proficient simply to uphold the image of Josquin but also will

simply produce inaccurate history.

In conclusion, both Higgin’s and Wilson’s articles manage to portray very similar

messages, using similar methodologies, despite their material being chronologically

polarised. Their debt to new musicology is also equally as apparent albeit in slightly different

ways, both exploiting different aspects of the movement. However both are comparable

and commendable in their critical analysis of assumption which really defines what we mean

by new musicology.

10
Higgins, Apotheosis of Josquin des Prez and other mythologies of musical genius, 467-468
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid, 470-71
97135030

Bibliography

 Wilson, Charles, Gyorgy Ligeti and the Rhetoric of Autonomy, Twentieth Century

Music, 1 (2004), 5-28

 Higgins, Paula, Apotheosis of Josquin des Prez and other mythologies of musical

genius, Journal of the American musicological society, 57 (2004), 443-510