Jacob Arthur

Theory 721

Review of Kofi Agawu’s “Does Music Theory Need Musicology” (1993)

Princeton music theorist Kofi Agawu is perhaps best known for his work in semiotics as

well as African rhythm. However, in his 1993 Current Musicology article, “Does Music Theory

Need Musicology,” he takes on a much broader topic as he explores the divide between the

disciplines, counters against what he views to be the common criticisms against music theory,

and levels criticisms of his own against musicology. He ultimately concludes that “the most

influential historical work [has] always needed theory, whereas the best theoretical work rarely

depended on the insights of conventional theory,” thus answering the question he posed in the

articles title with an emphatic “no.”1

Agawu begins the article by defining the two fields under scrutiny, describing the

primary concern of theorists as “the search for music’s organizing principles.”2 He writes that

musicologists, on the other hand, “have had more trouble isolating a collective purpose.”3 While

Agawu may be right when he points out that musicology is a more fragmented field, he does

himself a disservice in his failure to articulate what musicology is. Indeed, even today the article

“What is Musicology” on the AMS website stresses the plurality of the field. However, it still

includes a statement at the outset that musicology is the study of music “encompassing all

aspects of music in all cultures and all historical periods.”4 In his avoidance of providing any sort

of definition, Agawu skews his argument and perhaps shows that he is not interested in providing

a fair analysis of the field.

1
Agawu, p. 98
2
P. 89
3
P. 90
4
AMS, “What is Musicology?”
 This avoidance of definition aside, Agawu is correct when he states that perhaps the

primary criticism levelled against theorists by musicologists is that music theory does not

provide any context (historical, social, cultural etc.) to the work which, “undermines the

theoretical project right from the start.”5 Agawu counters this criticism by noting that “context is

simply more text and…one has to draw the line somewhere.”6 He goes on further to state that it

is more important to demonstrate how various events determine the musical nature of a work

than it is to note historical and cultural events that were happening at the same time as the

creation of a work. Agawu describes this issue of context as a matter of creating a syntax of

networks and concludes that there is a possibility that “as theorists move beyond structuralism,

they and not the historians will take on the challenge of theorizing context more explicitly.” 7 In

other words, Agawu defines context in such a way that conforms to what he views as important

in music scholarship (i.e. “the search for music’s organizing principles”). The issue of context

may very well mean something different to a musicologist who is seeking to research “aspects of

music in all cultures and all historical periods.” The issue here seems to be one of priority and, to

Agawu, this definition that is not in line with his own is inherently misguided.

To illustrate his points, Agawu cites three instances in recent research where he feels that

musicology falls short or adds little to a discussion. First, Agawu diminishes the supplemental

work that Richard Taruskin provides to Peter van den Toorn’s extensive research of Stravinski’s

octatonic vocabulary. Agawu points out that, even if Taruskin had not found any historical basis

for Stravinksy’s octatonic vocabulary, van den Toorn’s analysis would be no less valid, raising

the question of why theory should need some sort of historical confirmation. While Agawu is

5
P. 90
6
Ibid.
7
P. 91
correct in his assertion that theory does not need confirmation, he misses the point in that

Taruskin’s work along with van den Toorn’s provides us with a fuller understanding of both

Stravinsky and the use of octatonic collections at large.

Agawu’s second critique is that a particular 1973 article on Mozart was frequently

overlooked during 1991 celebrations marking the bicentury of Mozart’s death. Agawu may be

right in pointing out that this article could have been avoided by musicology because of its

“hard” analytical rigor, the fact remains that Agawu is primarily disappointed that a singular

article was not cited twenty years after it’s publication. To me, this is Agawu’s weakest example

of musicology not engaging with theory. Agawu’s third critique takes on Carolyn Abbate’s

reading of Mahler’s Second Symphony and Susan McClary’s reading of the middle movement of

Mozart’s K. 453. In both cases, Agawu correctly points out that more musical context and

analysis would allow both authors to refine their observations and even make their arguments

more convincing. Here, I think that Agawu makes strong observations. It ultimately points

towards ways in which musicology and theory can work in concert, making the point that music

theory may not need musicology but musicology needs theory.

All together, Agawu’s criticism of musicology is not completely unfounded as his first

and final examples illustrate how music theory can stand on its own without historical context

and how musicology may need to engage with theory more to strengthen its arguments. He

smartly reframes the issue of context in music theory by asking where the contextual lines should

be drawn and points out that theory does not necessarily need historical context to back up its

claims. In this way, he is correct in asking whether music theory needs musicology. However, he

perhaps speaks too broadly when he uses three seemingly arbitrarily picked examples to

illustrate his point. Furthermore, the answer to the question posed by the article’s title likely
could have been made without devoting so much of his time to disparaging the field of

musicology. Scattered throughout the article is the occasional disclaimer that there are scholars

in the field that he feels successful bridge the gap between musicology and music theory.

However, he never mentions any specific scholars or articles, creating a palpable omission. This

leads me to question what the goals of the article are. If Agawu feels that musicology needs to

improve the way it does research, why not cite examples (which he supposedly has) of what he

considers to be quality musicological research that could serve as models for other scholars? By

only criticizing the field of musicology, Agawu appears to be more interested in stirring the pot

than in offering up solutions.

Works Cited

Agawu, K. (1993). “Does music theory need musicology?” Current Musicology, 53, 89.

Retrieved from http://proxy.lib.umich.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1297346864?accountid=14667

“What Is Musicology?” AMS—What Is Musicology?, www.ams-net.org/what-is-

musicology.php. Accessed January 11, 2018.