Call for Papers
Deadline 15. november 2024
Danish Yearbook of Musicology, volume 45 · 2022–24
Section 2 · Special section: 70th Anniversary of the Danish Musicological Society
(volume 45:2)
Thomas Husted Kirkegaard,
70th Anniversary of the Danish Musicological Society. Introduction, p. 1
In this article I document and analyse the field of popular music research in Denmark as an epistemic culture (Knorr Cetina) from its early stages in the 1970s to the present day. I begin with a discussion of how 1960s’ Danish intellectual culture in some ways paved the way for an academic interest in popular music and point towards the first international research initiatives. Then, I analyse the gradual institutionalisation of the field by focussing on publications, hirings, grants, and local and international relations. Finally, I look at changes in what it meant to know about popular music based on Marxist and, later, semiotic and poststructuralist paradigms that popular music research has drawn upon in its efforts to understand still more complex musical cultures. The narrative is structured in three periods: the 1970s and 1980s, the 1990s and 2000s, and the 2010s to 2024. They correspond roughly to the three paradigms mentioned.
Basically, the Danish developments have been and are part of an international popu-lar music research field dominated by the UK and the US. Locally employed researchers have contributed to international debates, but dealing with music cultures and practices in local and national contexts is mainly what makes Danish research exceptional. Especially since the mid-1990s the Danish field has prospered by receiving grants for networks and research projects, by filling tenured positions, by developing formal and informal, national and international networks, and by promoting PhD students. At the same time, popular music research has become a fully legitimate object of study – to the extent that a majority of musicologists in Denmark work mainly with popular music. Thus, the field has been a success both qualitatively and quantitatively. At the end, I argue that the distinction between musicology and popular music studies no longer seems relevant, and I recommend that we in the future practice music studies.
Within the growing tradition of music therapy research, the field has drawn on research from musicology and transdisciplinary areas. The authors of the article describe the history of the field, starting with the pioneers in the mid-1950s, and explain the background for the development of a research culture in music therapy. Specifically, the international PhD research programme in music therapy at Aalborg University gave the field a solid boost, but the close connection to the clinical reality also paved the way for welcoming, embracing and developing practice-based research. The result of this development is a research culture that in many ways transcends the well-known tension between research in medical and humanistic methodologies and calls for interdisciplinarity. To illustrate this, the article concludes with three examples of music therapy in the fields of psychiatry, dementia, and public health.
The article explores the pivotal role played by Danish musicologist Knud Jeppesen (1892–1974) as editor of the renowned international journal Acta musicologica during the 1930s and 1940s. It emphasizes Jeppesen’s involvement in the 1936 Congress of the Internationale Gesellschaft für Musikwissenschaft in Barcelona, which took place during a period of escalating political tensions in Europe, marked by pronounced hostility between German musicologists aligned with the Nazi regime and their international counterparts. At the congress, a decision was made to transfer the journal’s publisher from the prestigious Leipzig firm Breitkopf & Härtel to the smaller Danish publisher Levin & Munksgaard in Copenhagen – a move that represented a significant victory for those resisting German dominance in musicological circles. Pamela Potter argues that the subsequent German boycott of Acta musicologica posed considerable challenges for the journal, leading her to characterize Jeppesen as the ‘tragic figure’ in this context. Drawing on Jeppesen’s personal correspondence with musicologists from both hostile camps, the article examines the sequence of events and the consequences of the German boycott, concluding that – although the boycott likely influenced submissions – the full extent and duration of its impact remain uncertain. Despite personal difficulties, including strained relationships with Breitkopf & Härtel, Jeppesen’s editorship ensured that the journal not only survived – even amidst the disruptions of World War II – but also continued to serve as an important platform for global musicological research.