Musicology. The term “musicology” has been defined in various ways since its entry into scholarly discourse; however, practitioners (through the 1980s) tended either to regard it as the methods of musicologists or to define it in reference to the subject matter that they study. In the former case, one could apply the simple definition “the scholarly study of music,” more precisely articulated by Kerman (1985) as “thinking about, research into, and knowledge of all possible aspects of music.” Specifically, musicological methods have traditionally included historical, palaeographic, and philological approaches, themselves derived from other fields of scholarly inquiry. Defining musicology through subject matter, a committee of the American Musicological Society identified the discipline as “a field of knowledge having as its object the investigation of the art of music as a physical, psychological, aesthetic, and cultural phenomenon.” (JAMS, viii/2, 1955, p.153). While the last category may imply a diversity of constitutive practices, music remains at the heart of the investigation. Since the mid-1980s, a third viewpoint has come to occupy a prominent position within the field—bearing close affinities with ETHNOMUSICOLOGY, it approaches music as a social practice that involves the study of human interaction with music in a plurality of cultural contexts and in diverse musical styles. This perspective on the discipline questions traditional concepts, especially of music as a fixed text, in favor of an anthropological/sociological approach to music and musical practices. As ethnomusicologist Harrison expressed this viewpoint, “it is the function of allmusicology to be in fact ethnomusicology; that is, to take its range of research to include material that is termed ‘sociological’” (Harrison, Hood, and Palisca). 1. Historical background. Musicology as such is a relatively recent phenomenon: its principles of investigation hardly extend back beyond the beginnings of the Enlightenment in the late 17th century. The dissemination of Cartesian thought and rise of empirical methodology established the foundations for the first musicological research, although the academic discipline itself only dates back to the 1880s. Still, the Bach research of J.N. Forkel, the lexicography of F.-J. Fétis, and the Beethoven source studies by G. Nottebohm would have to be considered “musicological” in character and method. Central Europe proved to be fertile ground for this type of research, and thus the commonly accepted reference point for the establishment of the discipline was the publication of the paper “Umfang, Methode und Ziel der Musikwissenschaft” by Viennese scholar Guido Adler (1885). This paper codified the division between the historical and systematic areas of music study and tabulated their substance and method. Adler himself founded the Musikwissenschaftliches Institut at the University of Vienna in 1898, the first such department—its students numbered prominent figures like Anton Webern and Ernst Kurth, and important musicological immigrants to the United States like Paul Pisk and Karl Geiringer. German universities soon joined Vienna, with similar musicological institutes established in Berlin (1904), Leipzig (1908), and Munich (1911), among others, and the Sorbonne created the first French chair for musicology in 1903 (Romain Rolland). By virtue of its methodological clarity, institutional basis, and pool of talent, German/Austrian Musikwissenschaft came to predominate the European scene during the first half of the 20th century, and indeed, musicologists trained at Central European institutes would also play a key role in directing the discipline’s path in the United States from the 1930s onward. 2. The early years of American musicology. In the United States, musicological scholarship began in the later 19th century with distinctive achievements by writers on music who worked outside academe (the first university chair in musicology was not established in America until 1930). To its earliest phase belong such efforts as J.S. Dwight and his Journal of Music (1852–81), which included material on music history—he pursued an editorial policy that regarded cultivated music, especially Beethoven, as serving a moral function for the nation and thus he promoted aesthetic education through music. Other critic-educators such as W.F. Apthorp in Boston and W.S.B. Mathews in Chicago also undertook what might be called “musicological” work in their writings about music. On the more scholarly side, Dwight published many valuable articles by A.W. Thayer (1812–97), the great pioneer of Beethoven biography. Already before the turn of the century survey courses in music history were being offered at American institutions of higher learning, respectively by John Knowles Paine at Harvard University and Edward MacDowell at Columbia University. The first important scholar based in the United States who dealt with American music was OSCAR G.T. SONNECK (1873–1928), born in New Jersey, educated in Germany, and chief of the Music Division of the Library of Congress for 15 years (1902–17). Sonneck was not only instrumental in building the great music collection of the Library of Congress, but also wrote numerous scholarly essays on diverse musical topics and published detailed documentary studies of early American music. He was moreover the founding editor of the Musical Quarterly, which began publication in 1915 and remains a leading vehicle for musicological research. Although the first number of the Musical Quarterly issued a program for musicology in an article by Waldo Selden Pratt entitled “On Behalf of Musicology,” the field did not become a recognized discipline of academic endeavor until the interwar years. A seminal figure in the establishment of musicology in the American university was OTTO KINKELDEY (1878–1966), who was a student of MacDowell at Columbia. Like Sonneck, Kinkeldey received advanced trained in Germany, where he was not only awarded the PhD but was also in 1910 named Royal Prussian Professor of Musicology at the University of Breslau. On returning to the United States in 1914 he was appointed head of the Music Division of the New York Public Library, and in 1930 became the first American professor of musicology, at Cornell University. It is interesting to observe how ethnomusicology in the United States has occupied varying positions in its relationship to historical musicology. At first independently practiced by ethnologists who were attempting to document indigenous musics, American ethnomusicology came to acquire the designation of another field of musicology (systematic or comparative) under Austro-German influence, especially after World War I. This encouraged scholars to cross between disciplines, as reflected by the participation of ethnomusicologist Charles Seeger in the establishment of the AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY (AMS). 3. Learned societies. Kinkeldey was the first president of the AMS, which was founded on 3 June 1934 by a group of nine scholars and teachers meeting in New York. In the 1990s and 2000s, the society, which has issued a Journal regularly since 1950, has maintained a membership of more than 3500 individuals and over 1000 institutional subscribers, making it the largest professional association in the United States devoted to music scholarship. In addition to the annual meeting of the entire society, its 15 constituent regional chapters hold their own regular meetings during the year. The northern chapters extend over national boundaries to include Canadian regions and institutions. In 1961 the society was host to the eighth congress of the International Musicological Society in New York (their first congress outside of Europe), and in 1977, to the 12th congress in Berkeley, California. Although members of the AMS engage in every field of musical study, its activities—as reflected in papers presented at the annual meetings, articles published in the Journal, and publications supported by the society—have been undeniably directed towards the Western historical tradition. In response to this orientation, the SOCIETY FOR ETHNOMUSICOLOGY (SEM) was founded in 1954; the former alliance between historical musicology and ethnomusicology gave way to separate paths. The SEM serves as the primary professional organization in the field of musical ethnography and issues its own journal, Ethnomusicology. Nevertheless, since the paradigmatic shifts of the 1980s and early 1990s, historical musicologists began asking some of the same culture-based questions that have informed the work of ethnomusicologists, so that the distance between the disciplines again lessened at the end of the 20th century. The SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN MUSIC (SAM, formerly the Sonneck Society) likewise emerged from the AMS, in the recognition of the need for scholarship devoted to the music of the United States. Established in 1975 with Irving Lowens as president, the society started meeting annually the following year and established the journal American Music in 1983 (superseded in 2007 by theJournal of the Society for American Music). The musicology promoted by SAM at its meetings and in its journal cuts across disciplines, including historical musicology, popular music studies, and ethnomusicology. Another learned society dedicated to the study of American music is a US branch of an international organization, the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF POPULAR MUSIC US(IASPM-US), founded in 1981 and publisher of the Journal of Popular Music Studies (1988–). In conference papers and journal articles, the association has primarily dedicated itself to popular music after World War II, albeit from a variety of interdisciplinary perspectives. Many other scholarly music societies exist in the United States, dedicated to individual composers, styles and style periods, and fields of research. Some like the COLLEGE MUSIC SOCIETY embrace performance and composition as well as the various musicological disciplines, while others, such as those for composers, primarily include non-academics among their members. 4. Universities. Since the first American PhD in musicology was awarded at Cornell University in 1932, the discipline has spread widely among universities. Music in any form was relatively late in entering American university curricula, but with the establishment of music departments in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the growth of musicology as a serious academic field, it became an essential component for any post-secondary music program. Whether or not taught by a trained specialist with a PhD, musicology figures in the omnipresent undergraduate music history survey course, but also increasingly in such diverse areas as popular musics (including jazz), non-Western musics, and music and media, at undergraduate and graduate levels. (See MUSIC EDUCATION.) The large number of PhDs awarded in musicology in the United States after 1945 reflects the demand created by the continued expansion of music programs throughout the post-secondary system. The pool of applicants for university and college positions remained relatively small into the 1980s, but the proliferation of advanced degree programs in musicology eventually overwhelmed the American job market and—coupled with cuts resulting from economic pressures in the post-secondary sector—ultimately led to a job shortage by the end of the 1980s. In part, the significant role of musicology within academe in the United States is attributable to its substantial number of practitioners, to the location of its research bases in universities, and to a limited extent, to the research support available to American scholars through such private organizations as the American Council of Learned Societies and the federally supported National Endowment for the Humanities. Even more, it is ascribable to the contributions of a score of eminent scholars who, in the generation after Kinkeldey, can be said to have shaped the discipline into its modern forms in the United States, which—prior to the large-scale immigration of central European musicologists during World War II—arguably entailed a certain competitiveness and iconoclasm vis-à-vis European counterparts. Among these seminal teacher-scholars were three of the founding members of the AMS: Gustave Reese at New York University, Oliver Strunk at Princeton University, and Charles Seeger at the New School for Social Research. To their names should be added those of leading figures such as Paul Henry Lang, Glen Haydon, Donald J. Grout, Charles Warren Fox, and Arthur Mendel. The Nazi period in Germany resulted in the large-scale immigration of a number of prominent music scholars—primarily from central Europe—to the United States. They included Willi Apel, Manfred Bukofzer, Hans T. David, Alfred Einstein, Karl Geiringer, Otto Gombosi, Paul Nettl, Edward Lowinsky, Curt Sachs, Leo Schrade, and Emanuel Winternitz. All these men taught at major institutions and played vital roles in the training of younger American scholars, whereby they practiced and taught European—especially Austro-German—musicological methodologies and left a lasting influence upon the discipline as it developed in the United States. With the recovery of Europe after World War II, the increasing internationalization of the discipline was felt in many ways: in the resumption of European travel and research by American musicologists, in their contacts with foreign scholars and scholarly enterprises, and in the presence of other major foreign scholars, including Nino Pirrotta and Alexander Ringer, in American teaching posts. Such teachers as these laid the foundations for the postwar generation of American scholars, among them Margaret Bent, Barry S. Brook, Howard Mayer Brown, James Haar, Daniel Heartz, H. Wiley Hitchcock, Joseph Kerman, Jan LaRue, Lewis Lockwood, Maria Rika Maniates, and Claude V. Palisca. The political turbulence in the United States during the late 1960s and early 70s had little impact upon the discipline of musicology, which by the end of the 1970s had achieved a solid base in post-secondary institutions (positions were still being created at the time and PhD programs were flourishing) and a strong reputation within the world of scholarly research. Looking beyond the disciplinary practices of the AMS, where the focus in historical musicology remained rooted in the Western canon, ethnomusicology maintained its strong presence and other musicological fields were coming into prominence or emerging. Most major institutions employed at least one ethnomusicologist by 1980, with some graduate programs in ethnomusicology (UCLA, Wesleyan, UW Madison, Columbia, and Brown, among others) dating back to the 1950s and 60s. At the same time, the discipline of musicology in its most comprehensive sense was broadening to include new or formerly less emphasized areas of the field, among them speculative and descriptive theory and analysis (the work not only of Milton Babbitt and Allen Forte but also of Jan LaRue, Wallace Berry, and Charles Rosen), contemporary music, popular music, and the music history of the American continent (to which scholars such as Gilbert Chase, Richard Crawford, Charles Hamm, H. Wiley Hitchcock, and Robert Stevenson contributed substantially). Women were more active in American musicology before 1980 than suggested by this listing of Americanists, since scholars like Sarah Fuller, Ellen Rosand, and Jane Stevens were conducting research in Western art music. The representation of minorities within the discipline did not begin to improve until well after 1980, with the groundbreaking activity of African American scholars including Samuel Floyd, Eileen Southern, and Josephine Wright. 5. The 1980s. This expansion of fields of inquiry that would fall under the rubric of “musicology” represented an enrichment, and yet the mainstream of musicological research—as represented by papers at the annual meetings and the contents of JAMS—focused on the Western canon and in particular, “classical” music before 1800. Research methods tended to favor the positivist assessment of musical texts and above all their sources, which helped uncover the genesis and genius of these “masterworks.” Reminiscent of the New Criticism in literary studies, this objectivist historical ideology has remained well established in musicological studies, albeit applied to a broader array of genres and styles (20th-century art music, film music, and even popular music). Meanwhile, the paradigmatic shift that had been transforming the academy since the late 1960s was relatively slow in entering into musicological discourse. Postmodernity and its contestation of the Western canon and of hegemonic knowledge initially had little impact on Americanmusicology. Nevertheless, “extra-disciplinary” influences from Germany did make themselves felt within the discipline before the “postmodern turn,” and from two opposing methodological perspectives. On the one hand, the work of Carl Dahlhaus, with its strong influence from Hans-Georg Gadamer, found currency with a number of musical scholars. Decisive for their musical hermeneutics have been Gadamer’s ideas about understanding the historical object through “effective history”—a mediated relationship between object and historian—about perceiving the artistic experience not only aesthetically but also in its “relationship to history and culture” (Pasler, 2008, p.8). Leading representatives of this musicological perspective have included Leo Treitler and Richard Taruskin. The other stimulus came from the (musical) thought of philosopher and sociologist Theodor Adorno, whose critique of the power structures embedded within the culture industry inspired a more political direction within American musicology. Adorno’s quasi-Marxism added to the attractiveness of his ideologies, which found pioneering support in the writings of Rose Rosengard Subotnik from the late 1970s and 80s. Gary Tomlinson links “Adorno’s hermeneutics of suspicion” with the discipline’s “scrutinizing” of the canon and “emphasizing” of gender-related issues during the early 1990s; however, a more direct challenge to the discipline’s prevailing “objectivist” approach arose within American musicology, which many participants in what was dubbed the “new musicology” have acknowledged as influential. Joseph Kerman’s Contemplating Music: Challenges to Musicology of 1985 was a landmark publication for American musicology—appearing one year after the 50th anniversary of the AMS, it represented for many a needed corrective to the discipline’s direction. In tracing the ideological history of American musicology, Kerman critiqued the roles of positivism and of formal analysis within the discipline, in favor of criticism (getting closer to “the music itself”) and the application of critical theory to the study of music. Kerman may have engaged in an “insufficiently discriminating demonization of ‘positivism’” (Taruskin, 1997), for example, yet his indictments of the status quo in musicology and proposals for re-directing the discipline left a strong impression on a new generation of scholars. Beginning in the 1980s, musicologists in the United States began taking up Kerman’s challenge, producing essay collections and monographs that chipped away at assumptions of and lacunae in ingrained musicological practice, almost always relying upon interdisciplinary perspectives informed by critical theory and post-structuralism/postmodernism. The “new musicology”—the first designation used for these approaches (but generally not by its practitioners)—discovered above all the literary critics associated with the French journal Tel Quel, which included such diverse thinkers as Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Michael Foucault, and Julia Kristeva, each with a distinct theoretical perspective. French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan and Russian literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin also served as important influences upon American musicology of the 1990s. What united these various approaches was their skepticism towards traditional meta-narratives, whether (among others) structuralism/modernism or the omission of gender, race, and sexuality from academic discourse. In American musicology this meant questioning above all the notion of musical autonomy (McClary and Leppert; Kramer, 1992), while considering music from such newly valorized perspectives as gender (McClary, 1991; Solie), sexuality (Brett, Wood, and Thomas), and race (Rose; Floyd). Its interrogation of the canon also opened up previously un(der)represented genres including popular music (Walser; Brackett) and film music (Gorbman; Kalinak; Brown). Moreover, the discipline of musicology itself became a matter for critical scrutiny during the 1990s, whether in anthologies (Bergeron and Bohlman) or individual essays (Bohlman, 2005; Treitler). Coupled with general trends in the humanities, this self-examination led not only to the challenging of traditional assumptions and the opening of new fields in research, but also to the increasingly active involvement of women and minorities within the discipline. The new direction within American musicology was hotly contested during the early 1990s. Susan McClary’s influential book Feminine Endings (1991) attracted substantial controversy just as it inspired subsequent studies of music and gender. Maynard Solomon’s article “Franz Schubert and the Peacocks of Benvenuto Cellini” (1989) helped to set off a heated debate over Schubert’s sexuality. Another noted dispute during this period occurred between Lawrence Kramer and Gary Tomlinson in Current Musicology (1992), regarding orthodoxy in applying critical theory. 6. Since 1990. Over the course of the 1990s and early 2000s, the embattled term “new musicology” acquired various new alternative designations within American musicology, including “critical musicology” and “cultural musicology.” The discipline itself—whatever the paradigm—continued to diversify and proliferate, so that by the end of the 2000s, JAMS was publishing articles on such widely varied topics as gender in musical society, music and politics, and links between science and music. Other leading American musicological journals (The Musical Quarterly, The Journal ofMusicology, 19th Century Music, Journal of the Society for American Music) reflected this trend as well, to varying degrees. American musicological work into the 21st century continued its extension into new areas of inquiry, applying increasingly diverse methodologies to traditional as well as new research fields. Music and politics, as particularly motivated by musicological research into the Third Reich and the Cold War, became one of the key sub-disciplines in the new century, as did music and media in all of its manifestations (film, radio, television, the internet, and video/computer games). In the wake of this expansion, a sub-field emerged that incorporates scientific methodology within musicological inquiry: empirical musicology (Clarke and Cook), which has embraced in particular the field of music cognition, but also considers any other music-related phenomena that are quantifiable and/or observable. The late 2000s also brought growing interest within various musicological associations (AMS, SEM, IASPM) for the sub-discipline of ECOMUSICOLOGY (also known as ecocritical musicology), which explores intersections between music, culture, and nature. At the same time, historical musicology acquired new insights through the incorporation of perspectives from queer, women’s, and gender studies and post-colonial theory, among other interdisciplinary approaches. The late 20th-century disciplinary assessments, theoretical discussions, and methodological disputes about musicology and its lacunae, often presented in monographs and essay collections, gave way in the next decade to studies that returned to primary sources and specific compositions, often informed however by the theoretical and cultural insights opened up during the 1980s and 90s. The methodological debates in musicology necessarily impacted the disciplines of ethnomusicology and popular music studies as well. Indeed, to the extent that it has embraced music not just as a fixed text but as a human activity, ethnomusicology once again served as an important influence upon developments in American musicology—nevertheless, the cultivation of broad cultural theories within the field for a time threatened its foundations in ethnographic work with individual subjects. Within popular music studies, which historically has adopted interdisciplinary approaches, the question of methodology became central as scholars began increasingly addressing elements of the music itself, thus in some ways reversing the trend towards cultural theory in historical musicology. The move in American musicology away from a focus on notated music encouraged the emergence of an appreciation of music in performance, regardless of musicological field or sub-field. Working with musical cultures that do not rely upon notation rendered performance central to the research of ethnomusicology long before its valuation in musicology, which contributed to the rise of academic jazz studies during the 1990s through the work of scholars such as David Ake, Scott DeVeaux, and Ingrid Monson. Moreover, within the realm of historical musicology, it has become difficult to write about piano music of the 19th century, for example, without considering its performance and/or performers (Gooley Hamilton,, while opera studies since the 1980s have stressed singing and staging since the 1980s (Abbate, ; Gossett). Whatever the topic, musicologists have come to consider performance as one of their major criteria for investigation, alongside historical data/context and analysis. This emphasis on music as a human activity has brought musicology and ethnomusicology closer, revealing increasingly common features and goals between the disciplines as cultivated in North America. To the extent that the types of sources for musicological research have expanded beyond notated or written texts, ethnographic approaches have established themselves within the discipline, in particular for the study of popular music. At the same time, ethnomusicologists have taken up the study of printed documents to illuminate, for example, vernacular musical traditions (Bohlman, 2005). Moreover, the mutual application of post-colonial and gender theory (among others) has fashioned methodological connections that bring musical cultures of the past and present closer to each other (Jeffrey). These blurred boundaries may not result in the type of musicological anthropology that Tomlinson has advocated, but they do facilitate his aim “to exploit music in order to describe particular configurations of human culture and ideology” (Grove7). Perhaps the greatest challenge facing American musicology in the second decade of the 21th century remains the same as that articulated by Hitchcock (1985) and Tomlinson (2000): “to make its impact felt outside its own domains.” Despite the rise of research in such accessible and “relevant” topic areas as popular music, music and politics, and film music, the level and nature of academic discourse in these and other musicological fields typically excludes not only the general public, but also often performing musicians and figures in the music industry. The rigorous intellectual requirements for an academic career and a certain historical disdain for popularizing activities have undoubtedly contributed to the gap between scholar and public, which the cultural “turn” in the discipline does not appear to have alleviated. However, the diversification of the discipline into areas like ecocriticism and music and politics have accompanied heightened activism among American musicologists, even as they have taken up blogging as a means to communicate outside the traditional vehicles of academic publication. Increasing numbers of American musicologists have become active as scholar-performers in a variety of genres, also helping to bridge the gap with the public. Other new fields of musicological exploration such as music cognition and sound studies moreover have resulted in a renewed interdisciplinarity, above all with the sciences. And the principle of “intersectionality” has led music researchers to look beyond traditional boundaries, considering identity markers like gender, sexuality, race, class, and disability in their interaction with each other, and not just as individual categories. Taken collectively, all of this musicological work reveals American musicology’s continuing attempt to facilitate understanding of music and musical phenomena for the discipline and—as much as possible—the academic community as a whole, the music industry, performing musicians, and the general public. See also CRITICISM, ETHNOMUSICOLOGY, and THEORY. Bibliography Grove7 (Vincent Duckles/Gary Tomlinson, “Musicology, §III National Traditions”) W.S. Pratt: “The Scientific Study of Music,” Music Teachers National Association: Proceedings (1890), 51–5 W.S. Pratt: “On Behalf of Musicology,” MQ, i (1915), 1–16 O. Strunk: State and Resources of Musicology in the United States (Washington, DC, 1932) O. Kinkeldey: “Changing Relations within the Field of Musicology,” Papers of the American Musicological Society 1936, 42–57 G. Haydon: Introduction to Musicology (New York, 1941/R) C. Seeger: “Music and Musicology in the New World,” Music Teachers National Association: Proceedings, xl(1946), 35–47 C. Seeger: “Systematic Musicology: Viewpoints, Orientations and Methods,” JAMS, ii (1951), 240–48 M. Bukofzer: The Place of Musicology in American Institutions of Higher Learning (New York, 1957) S. Goldthwaite: “The Growth and Influence of Musicology in the United States,” AcM, xxxiii (1961), 72–9 F.L. Harrison, M. Hood, and C.V. Palisca: Musicology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963) J. Kerman: “A Profile for American Musicology,” JAMS, xviii (1965): 61–69 E. Lowinsky: , “Character and Purposes of American Musicology: a Reply to Joseph Kerman,” JAMS, xviii(1965), 222–34 M. Griffel: “Musicological Method in American Graduate Schools,” CMc, v (1967), 5–46; vi (1968), 7–59 G. McPeek: “Musicology in the United States: a Survey of Recent Trends,” Studies in Musicology (Chapel Hill,1969), 260–75 B.S. Brook, E.O.D. Downes. and S. Van Solkema, eds.: Perspectives in Musicology (New York, 1972) R. Crawford: American Studies and American Musicology: a Point of View and a Case in Point, ISAM, iii(Brooklyn, NY, 1975) R. Stevenson: , “American Musical Scholarship: Parker to Thayer,” 19CM, i (1977–8), 191–210 G. Chase: “American Music and American Musicology,” JM, i (1982), 59–62 D.K. Holoman and C.V. Palisca, eds.: Musicology in the 1980s: Methods, Goals, Opportunities (New York,1982) R. Crawford: The American Musicological Society 1934–1984 (Philadelphia, 1984) J. Kerman: Contemplating Music: Challenges to Musicology (Cambridge, MA, 1985) S. McClary and R. Leppert, ed.: Music and Society: the Politics of Composition, Performance and Reception(Cambridge, UK, 1987) C. Gorbman: Unheard Melodies: Narrative Film Music (Bloomington, IN, 1987) M. Solomon: “Franz Schubert and the Peacocks of Benvenuto Cellini,” 19CM, xii (1989), 193–206 L. Kramer: Music as Cultural Practice (Berkeley, CA, 1990) L. Treitler: Music and the Historical Imagination (Cambridge, MA, 1990) C. Abbate: Unsung Voices: Opera and Musical Narrative in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, NJ, 1991) R.R Subotnik: Developing Variations: Style and Ideology in Western Music (Minneapolis, MN, 1991) S. McClary: Feminine Endings: Music, Gender, and Sexuality (Minneapolis, MN, 1991/R) L. Kramer: “The Musicology of the Future,” repercussions, i (1992), 1–18 G. Tomlinson: , “Musical Pasts and Postmodern Musicologies: a Response to Lawrence Kramer,” CMc, liii(1993), 18–24 L. Kramer: , “Music Criticism and the Postmodernist Turn: in Contrary Motion with Gary Tomlinson,” CMc, liii(1993), 25–35 L. Goehr: The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: an Essay in the Philosophy of Music (New York, 1992) P. Jeffery: Re-Envisioning Past Musical Cultures: Ethnomusicology in the Study of Gregorian Chant(Chicago, IL, 1992) K. Kalinak: Settling the Score: Music and the Classical Hollywood Film (Madison, WI, 1992) L. Kramer: Music as Cultural Practice (Berkeley, CA, 1993) R. Walser: Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music (Middltown, CT,1993) R. Solie, ed.: Musicology and Difference: Gender and Sexuality in Music Scholarship (Berkeley, CA, 1993) P. Bohlman: “Musicology as a Political Act,” JM, xi (1993), 411–36 G. Tomlinson: Music in Renaissance Magic: Toward a Historiography of Others (Chicago, IL, 1993) P. Brett, E. Wood, and G. Thomas, eds.: Queering the Pitch: the New Gay and Lesbian Musicology (New York, 1994/R) R.S. Brown: Overtones and Undertones: Reading Film Music (Berkeley, CA, 1994) S. Floyd Jr.: The Power of Black Music: Interpreting its History from Africa to the United States (New York,1995) R. Leppert: The Sight of Sound: Music, Representation, and the History of the Body (Berkeley, CA, 1995) D. Brackett: Interpreting Popular Music (Cambridge, UK, 1995/R) L. Treitler: “Postmodern Signs in Musical Studies,” JM, xiii (1995), 3–17 I. Monson: Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation and Interaction (Chicago, IL, 1997) R. Taruskin: Defining Russia Musically: Historical and Hermeneutical Essays (Princeton, NJ, 1997) K. Korsyn: Decentering Music: a Critique of Contemporary Musical Research (New York, 2003) D. Gooley: The Virtuoso Liszt (Cambridge, UK, 2004) D. Wong: Speak it Louder: Asian Americans Making Music (New York, 2004) E. Clarke and N. Cook, eds.: Empirical Musicology: Aims, Methods, Prospects (New York, 2004) P. Bohlman: Jüdische Volksmusik: Eine mitteleuropäische Geistesgeschichte (Vienna, 2005) R. Taruskin: The Oxford History of Western Music (New York, 2005) D. Huron: Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation (Cambridge, MA, 2006) K. Hamilton: After the Golden Age: Romantic Pianism and Modern Performance (New York, 2007) P. Gossett: Divas and Scholars: Performing Italian Opera (Chicago, IL, 2008) J. Pasler: Writing through Music: Essays on Music, Culture, and Politics (New York, 2008) J. Pieslak: Sound Targets: American Soldiers and Music in the Iraq War (Bloomington, IN, 2009) J.R. Currie: “Music After All,” JAMS, lxii (2009), 145–203 R. Rodman: Tuning In: American Narrative Television Music (New York, 2010) H. Wiley Hitchcock/James Deaville