Until quite recently, students who did not know the German language were limited in their study of musicology. This demonstrates that, in its origins, this discipline was profoundly Eurocentric. "La musicologie étudie les formes, les fonctions, les signifiés des phénomènes musicaux dans le cadre des différentes cultures – qu’elles soient, temporellement ou géographiquement, proches ou éloignées des nôtres. Son principal domaine de recherche est la musique européenne du Moyen Âge à nos jours." (UNI-FRIBOURG). However, if we consider the semantics of the word and the universalization of the discipline since its inception, nothing indicates that knowledge of the German language is a fundamental requirement for its study, nor that its primary focus should be specifically "la musique européenne du Moyen Âge à nos jours".
Furthermore, there is a contradiction in the definition of what musicology should be. While it attempts to encompass all extra-European segments "temporellement ou géographiquement," it simultaneously delineates its field of study as "musique européenne du Moyen Âge à nos jours." Such a statement is as absurd as saying that mathematics would study only "la mathématique européenne du Moyen Âge à nos jours." This dogmatic and deterministic perspective reflects a Eurocentric pretension.
Regarding the French-speaking community, musicology was officially established as a university discipline only in 1951, in Paris. From its inception, it tended to intertwine with elements of other sciences to structure its own methodology, particularly history and philology, as it became a science only when it formulated hypotheses through these underlying disciplines.
Apart from methodology, there were no systems that provided a solid theoretical foundation, since the history of music, on which it depended, was based on fragments of music from antiquity, biographies of renowned composers, and well-documented musical movements. In essence, it is the fragments of old texts, treatises, and biographies that form the foundation of musicology. A good example is Charles Burney and his "Musical Journey through the European Enlightenment." Although criticized in his time by English academics as a vulgarization (Burney failed to obtain academic approval for its publication), this work became, by the end of the 20th century, a valuable source for understanding pre-classical music in the European courts of the 18th century.
After this first phase of musicology, specializations emerged, such as studies on unknown composers (especially from the Baroque period), musical currents, Eastern European schools and their composers (such as Jan Dismas Zelenka), as well as patrons, schools, and musical phenomena such as the Florentine Camerata of Giovanni Bardi.
New research practices are questioning the basic structure of this relatively recent discipline, which must adopt new methodologies to continue existing, much like linguistics did with semiology. Musicology is, therefore, in a phase of transformation.
What factors have driven these changes?
- American translations of European treatises provided access to the historical works of Germanic and other theorists. Thus, knowledge of the German language ceased to be an essential requirement not only for North Americans but also for all countries proficient in English.
- The demand for advanced theoretical studies in major music schools began requiring not only knowledge of the evolution of musical forms but also a scientific methodology, thereby aligning musicology studies with university-level research.
- The emergence of ethnomusicology integrated new methodologies, particularly for studying musical systems that differed from European standards, necessitating adaptations in studies using new symbols, nomenclatures, and systems of thought.
- The postulate of ethnomethodology challenged the universality of traditional theories, giving rise to a new philosophy on how musicology should be framed and, if necessary, what designation should be attributed to it. Europeans, in a derogatory manner, began distinguishing between musicology and "musicography" and "musicographers," considering the latter an imposture in contrast to European university standards.
- The rise of interdisciplinary studies broke away from the necessity of encompassing broad knowledge from other sciences to construct theories concerning musicology. The so-called "mammoth discipline," which once included philosophy, history, sociology, and philology, began to face methodological conflicts with these fields, revealing its difficulty in sustaining itself as an independent science. Other new disciplines within the humanities encountered similar challenges.
For these reasons, the study of musicology is currently based on less restrictive premises, adhering only to academic research standards concerning structure, the formulation of statements, and scholarly writing.
With the intellectual emergence of new peoples and their socio-cultural histories, interests have shifted beyond European historical music. Just as anthropology has diversified into various specializations—such as religious anthropology, physical anthropology, medical anthropology, post-culturalist anthropology, sports anthropology, etc.—musicology finds itself at a crossroads between ethnomusicology, sociology of music, and advanced music theory. Persisting in the traditional path seems obsolete and is justified only by the political positions held by university professors.
If this academic structure is an intrinsic reality of university bureaucracies, it should at least not be a dogma, nor an absolute criterion for intellectual validation within academic and professional settings.