American Musicological Society

[Letter from Joseph Kerman]

Author(s): Joseph Kerman
Source: Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Autumn, 1965), pp. 426
-427
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/830716
Accessed: 11/06/2010 06:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and American Musicological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Musicological Society.

http://www.jstor.org

COMM UNICA TIONS

Joseph Kerman, University of Cali-

fornia at Berkeley, sends the following communication:

IN SECTIONI of his shrill Reply' to my

article "A Profile for American Musicology," Edward Lowinsky objects to

my speaking of criticism as the highest
step of a ladder to which the other
musicological disciplines should lead. His
animus is very strange, for he proclaims
as his own credo "The beginning and the
end of musicological studies lie in sympathetic and critical examination and
evaluation of the individual work of
art." I could quibble with his language
too--where does the middle of musicological studies lie?--but I should much
rather hug him to my breast as an ally.
He would appear to grant primacy in
musicological studies to criticism, as I
do. His metaphor is temporal. Mine is
spacial.
In section II he cites strong statements
of mine to the effect that criticism is
neglected on the American musicacademic scene, and says they are "so
vastly exaggerated that they hardly deserve serious consideration."This I vastly
contest; Professor Lowinsky seems to me
utterly out of touch with reality here, as
elsewhere in his article. The reader can
test the matter by scanning any representative list of this Society's leaders-for instance, turn back to the title-page
and look at our Editorial Board-and
estimating what fraction of the work of
these scholars begins and ends in "sympathetic and critical examination and
evaluation of the individual work of art."
You might also ask one of your graduate
students what fraction of his or her of1 "Character and Purposes of American
Musicology: A Reply to Joseph Kerman,"

this JOURNAL XVIII

No. 2, pp. 222-34.

ficial time is channeled to sympathy and

evaluation.
Next Lowinsky really grants my point
about the lack of music criticism, by
comparison with other humanistic fields,
but brings up the standard argument
about "the enormous work that needs
to be done before fruitful and responsible criticism can be practiced in all areas
of music history." It is for this reason
that I am committed to an alliance between criticism and musicology. But
there are also areas in which plenty of
work has been done already; and in no
area is there any call for waiting. As
Lowinsky reminds me, in another place,
criticism has been a going thing since the
time of Aristotle. Would he have told
Aristotle to hold up work on the Poetics
until the advent of responsiblenineteenthcentury German classical scholarship?
In section III Professor Lowinsky
maintains, if I understand him rightly,
that (i) there is no such thing as "national style" in scholarship-to say so is
"astonishing," (2) I claim criticism as
something "particularlyAmerican," very
ridiculously indeed, (3) my suggestion
that America should grow away from
German scholarship recalls Nazi and
Soviet intellectual purges, and (4) American musicology is notably cosmopolitan,
practical, objective, etc. (i) and (4) are
mutually contradictory, (3) hysterical,
and (2) false. What I said was that a
critical orientation would "follow a
template familiar to the humanistic disciplines in this country, and would I believe match our temperament as well as
smoothing the accommodation which
must come to theory and analysis.I even
believe that such a profile would bring
musicologists closer to the celebrated
'composers'spoint of view,' and help fill
the even more celebrated gap between

COMMUNICATIONS

the scholarand the generalpublic....

It would neitherreplacenor slight our
traditionalscholarlypursuits,but would
on the contrarydependupon them and
thereby strengthen their rationale."I
hold to this.
But for anothermistakenimpressionI
may be partly responsible.I did not
mean to imply that the main line of
Americanart-music-Ives,the generation
of Sessionsand Copland,and beyond-does not deservethe attentionof critics.
On the contrary,I believeit does. As a
matter of fact, I have written several
criticalarticlesaboutit myself.
To my contention "until American
musicology catches something of the
resonanceof the Americanpersonality,
it will remain an echo of the great
Germantradition,"ProfessorLowinsky

427

counters with a picture of our discipline

that is generous to the point of positivethink. I cannot share it. To put my view
without "urbanity and elegant prose":
the state of American musicology seems
to me not very good, and I think that
more of a critical orientation would help
it. As for criticism, which is in even
worse shape, I do not believe and never
said that it is an "exclusive"thing, "separate" from musicology. ("Professor Kerman's passion for criticism is admirable;
I share it"-so why the Panzer attack?"But I do not share his exclusive claims
for it. What we need is not subordination, but coordination; not separation,
but integration.") It has always been my
belief that musicology and criticism
work best in alliance. That is why I
read my talk to this particular Society.