Crisis of Musicology and Dragutin Gostuški

This paper explores the contemporary crisis in musicology through the lens of the ideas and critical positions of Dragutin Gostuški, a prominent figure in the development of music theory in Yugoslavia. It examines how “new musicology,” which has integrated social and cultural aspects into the study of music, has led to the tabooization of value judgments in assessing musical works. The paper argues that while “new musicology” was groundbreaking in its inclusion of broader socio-cultural contexts, it has also contributed to a stagnation in theoretical development. Key questions related to authorship, meaning, and value have been sidelined, and the discipline has been increasingly relying on interdisciplinary borrowing, which weakens its methodological foundation. Gostuški, who was critical of the overuse of semiotic methods in music analysis, offers a unique perspective on the limitations of applying linguistic models to music. He argued that music, unlike language, cannot be fully neutral towards musicology and that semiotic methods often overlook the artistic and creative essence of music. The paper also critiques the contemporary tendency in musicology to distance itself from evaluative judgments, which has resulted in a growing divide between musicology and music criticism. Historically, musicologists often played a dual role, engaging both in academic analysis and in aesthetic critique. However, in “new musicology,” the role of a music critic has been relegated to a secondary, almost purely analytical position, where aesthetic judgment is often neglected. This shift not only narrows the scope of musicology but also distances the discipline from the practice of performance, where aesthetic and evaluative considerations are paramount. Furthermore, the interdisciplinary nature of “new musicology,” while beneficial in broadening the scope of analysis, has led to a situation in which musicology increasingly borrows methods from other disciplines, such as sociology, psychology, and anthropology, without developing its own unique analytical tools. As a result, musicology has become a “weaker partner” in interdisciplinary research, relying on external methods to study its primary object – music – without contributing its own methodological advancements. The paper concludes that the solution to the current crisis in musicology lies in reintroducing mechanisms of evaluation into the field. While recognizing the importance of socio-cultural analysis, the paper argues that aesthetic value should not be discarded. Musicology must reclaim its role in making critical aesthetic judgments, engaging not only with the cultural and social contexts of music but also with the intrinsic qualities of musical works. By doing so, the discipline can regain its methodological and theoretical strength, fostering a more balanced and comprehensive approach to the study of music. In this sense, Dragutin Gostuški’s approach, particularly his critique of semiotics and his emphasis on the materiality of music, offers a potential framework for navigating out of the current crisis. By returning to close reading – and listening – as the foundation for understanding music, musicology can bridge the gap between theoretical analysis and the artistic value of music, ensuring that both aspects are considered in the study of this complex art form.