Talk begins at 9:00.

Additionally, Taruskin isn't merely a sharp thinker or a fantastic writer. Anyone who reads his work can pick that up. The significance lies, I believe, in that he's a luminary in the field, a person who will be remembered as one of the foremost intellectual critics of modernism through the lens of music. His writing, in fact, keeps intellectual exchange and the music he discusses alive and pretty lively because he can be both so contentious and convincing.

You're right: it's not specific to musicology, but to any subject influenced by the most recent wave of literary criticism. It's customary for the audience to leave shaking their heads and wondering what's the point of it all.

He's great when it comes to music he likes (as most of us would be). He's not at all to be trusted the further one gets away from his comfort zones (as most of us would be). In the Oxford History the WTF moments pile up the closer one gets to the present day where his, ahem, political/social agenda comes to the fore. I laugh every time I read the introduction passage where he says one shouldn't be able to tell the music he likes from the history. Oh right.

Where else but in musicologogy would there be a 10 min introduction? God help us.

It doesn't matter if you agree with Taruskin. He represents performative knowledge in the postmodern sense; thats is, his rhetoric is so strong that even his most fervent antagonists are quickly rendered silent. And that's about as firm as truth claims get these days.

Taruskin never ceases to amaze me with his acumen. What's equally inspiring is that he communicates erudition in such as way that it's extremely "user friendly." Bravo.

@BeauJames59 When will you be published then? You imply that you can possibly have some effect on the institution of academia or its discourse. Let me suppose for the moment that you cannot. This is the point I wish to make, that your rhetoric is not likely to change the minds of the people who constitute Taruskin's discipline. And they are the only people that matter to him, because they are the only ones who he competes with.

@featheon LOL.....my friend, step away from the computer a minute! I love Taruskin, his brain is beautiful. It was a little friendly sarcasm......take care....

Jesus, talk about a cult of personality. There's no doubt that Taruskin's a fantastic writer and a sharp thinker, but the dutiful way some musicologist talk about him is nauseating.

Exactly!

Any good conductor works both sides of the discussion.

@featheon I disagree with Taruskin, and I am not silent.

An eight-minute introduction to a talk exceeding 90 minutes is not inappropriate. It's like saying that you've got a 1-page introduction to a ten-page paper, or approximately 10%. I shudder to think about what reaction an 10% "introduction" would illicit from, say, a sporting event. Admittedly this is a glib comparison, but I fail to see how this kind of treatment is specific to the field of musicology.

I feel like he hits on his staff, and is humorless

Schönberg was the 1st musicologist who was accepted as a composer. The method in itself has to get rid of the person, real science can only come to itself without scientists. Harmony = Nirvana = final peace = death of everything. Infinite freedom means freedom of existance, not freedom for trial and error in the arena of life. Existance = sin brings Crowley to the point. Same with Hegel: logic is sin. Them both Hegel and Crowley, condemn the murderer God who invented mortallity, suffering, sorrow, limitation. Nothing to say, nothing to sing, to reject suicide is to reject dignity.

Best talk I ever heard

wow, i was blown away! great discussion!

Suppose Adams's insipid opera had been called "Symphony in F" and didn't use singers (or actors or staging or props). How much controversy would it have engendered? Then why does Taruskin never complain about the "social responsibility" of the librettist? He drags in Mussorgsky only to discuss his opera and that only in terms of the drama. Bach is discussed only in terms of words he sets. Mozart ditto. I'm reminded of Rolling Stone rock critics who devote themselves almost entirely to reviewing lyrics because they know virtually nothing about music. Can the same lack of aptitude apply to a music professor? Well, maybe this one's just not all that interested in music. (His Bachelor's is in the Russian language rather than any musical subject. Coincidence?)

What about Dimash??????

What he says is all true, but I find that it's a pretty verbose way of saying the truth : that contemporary music is self absorbed, that it forms some sort of a cult, and most importantly that it's way not as good as it SHOULD be. The whole thing is a totally disappointing mess, and all the composers that make hostile and incomprehensible works while hoping to be understood by later generations will be sorely disappointed.

I want to sit at his feet and listen to him talk about all his thoughts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've never found someone else so fascinating!!!!!!!

It's pronounced Tar(uh)skin?! It's of Anglo-Saxon origin?!

Seriously.

I don't think that lack of confidence in one's beliefs promotes critical thought. I'm not sure what exactly he said that made you upset, but I'd say that when it comes to promoting critical thought, he is unparalleled in the field of musicology right now. I understand he pisses some people off with his honesty, and he makes some people uncomfortable by challenging long-accepted myths and exposing well-entrenched fallacies. As to his "arrogance", the charge is predictable and... falls flat.

This is all nonsensical blather. The function of a music historian is to chronicle musical history, to set down what happened. His (homo, not vir) aesthetic, political, sociological, economic, etc. opinions are irrelevant. And he should stop calling himself a "musicologist" just becomes it sounds more important than "music historian": music is not a science. If he wants to indulge his opinions, he can become a music critic--which should not be a university position.

bla blla bla, boring