Prof. Helga de la Motte-Haber

The second SysMus interview was conducted with Prof. Helga de la Motte-Haber in January 2011. Prof. de la Motte-Haber is a German systematic musicologist and music psychologist. She holds degrees in psychology and musicology and worked as a professor of systematic musicology for nearly 30 years at the Technical University in Berlin until her retirement in 2005. She is a co-founder of the German Society for Music Psychology, has contributed with more than 200 publications to the reformation of systematic musicology from the 1970s onwards, and is the main editor of the comprehensive Handbook of Systematic Musicology (Laaber-Verlag).

MM (Manuela Marin): It is my great pleasure to welcome one of the most important representatives of the German systematic musicology community. Many participants of our SysMus conferences come from countries in which systematic musicology is not an established research field. Attempts to define the concept of "systematic musicology" have often led to lively discussions. The term “systematic musicology” is defined in various ways by German-speaking musicologists. For example, last year I noticed that some researchers do not consider music theory and music sociology to be part of systematic musicology. How would you define systematic musicology?

HdlM (Helga de la Motte-Haber): The Handbuch der Systematischen Musikwissenschaft (Handbook of Systematic Musicology) in six volumes comprises a volume on music aesthetics, music theory, music psychology and one on music sociology. The overlapping contents become apparent in the fifth volume, a lexicon. A volume on acoustics will appear soon. The handbook follows Guido Adler’s definition of systematic musicology, but it does not place emphasis on specific sub-disciplines anymore. Regarding music theory and music aesthetics, there is a tendency to consider these fields as a "history of music theory" or as a "history of music aesthetics" in Germany. By doing this, certain research institutions are completely excluded. For example, American music theory is largely orientated towards research on music perception and cognition, which is not the case in Germany. A history of music aesthetics usually excludes results of modern empirical aesthetics. The question whether it makes sense to exclude music sociology from the context of socio-psychological reflections remains to be seen. The fact that the majority of music-sociological publications is of a socio-psychological nature is worthy of consideration. In general, one needs to keep in mind that today sharp boundaries between disciplines do not make allowance for the fact that the classification of research and science is better modeled by a network and not by strict categorizations which pigeonhole different disciplines.

MM: In other words, you consider systematic musicology as a system of connected sub-disciplines. Defin itions of scientific disciplines are normally changing in the course of time.In the 20th century, this mainly happens through technological progress, for example, the emergence of neuroscience and computer science in the 20th century.

HdlM: No question that the technological progress plays a large role. The computer is a

useful tool for all types of methodological operations, but also to develop models which need to be tested in a subsequent step. The neurosciences provide us with materialistic equivalents of psychological states, but they are not explaining them. Neuroscientific measurements do not tell us much without considering feelings, perceptions, actions etc. in the interpretation of results. How and why both are connected with each other, we still do not know. Ernst Mach dealt already with the basic difference and scarce comparability between "qualia" and "quantities" in relation to Stumpf’s theory of consonance. Recently this has also been discussed within psychology and even within music psychology. Even though one can never replace one discipline by another discipline, all acquired knowledge will be useful for the further gain of knowledge.

MM: On the issue of further gain of knowledge, in what direction will German systematic musicology develop in the next decades? What role will the humanities play within systematic musicology in these future developments?

HdlM: For systematic musicology, it would be beneficial for music theory and the not so new modern music to deal with perception research. For the socio-scientific sub-disciplines, it would be sensible to keep on doing applied research (performance, health, pedagogy, etc.).

MM: Through your contributions as a music researcher, you have helped to keep the German tradition of systematic musicology and music psychology alive and largely influenced these research fields in the 20th century. What expectations do you have for German-speaking music psychology in general and for the German society of music psychology in particular for the next two decades?

HdlM: Simply the hope for positive responses to my ideas.

MM: What do you think has prevented the concept of systematic musicology from gaining acceptance outside the German-speaking world? As far as I know, there are only two university departments/labs which use the term "systematic musicology" in their names in northern America. At these institutions, (David Huron, Ohio State University and Roger Kendall/Robert Savage, University of California, Los Angeles) one can study systematic musicology.

HdlM: The research structure in the US is very different from the one in Europe. Music psychology is often positioned within psychology (also in England), which is not always an advantage because in-depth musical knowledge is sometimes missing. Music theory tries to stand on its own feet. I still think that one discipline, namely musicology, in which different research strands have room and are united, is the best option to make progress in the field. I also consider the strict separation of historical and systematic musicology as disadvantageous. Nowadays it is important to have an interdisciplinary orientation.

MM: An interdisciplinary orientation is indeed very important and actually inherent to systematic musicology. For young people the prospects of getting a job or entering an international research career often determine their choice of studies. There is an increasing number of German-speaking music psychologists who present their research at international conferences (e.g., at the International Conference of Music Perception and Cognition, ICMPC), and many of them did not study psychology but musicology. But for young systematic musicologists it is often difficult to get a tenure-track position outside the German-speaking world. For example, one cannot easily receive a job at a psychology department because one has not studied psychology. The same holds true for a music department because its researchers usually focus on music history, music theory or ethnomusicology. Finding a job does not only depend on the research you did in the past but also whether a department can effectively use your teaching competences. What do you think can the older generation of musicologists do (i.e., the current professors) to make it easier for systematic musicology students to pursue an international career?

HdlM: In Germany, things were easier when we had the old master curriculum because one could major in two subjects. Regarding the combination musicology and social sciences one needed to enable a master degree because the social sciences usually had a diploma degree. In general, one can state that the institutional conditions need to be available, which has been complicated due to the reform of the degree programs. In addition, one needs to encourage students to present themselves at international conferences (e.g., provide financial support). The chances of young German colleagues are grounded in the fact that they outclass Anglo-Saxon researchers in terms of musical-musicological competences, which may make them more attractive (Nota bene, about the English-speaking literature on music psychology one can say that all that glitters is not gold.)

MM: Well, as scientists we can assume that the quality of all music research currently produced around the world probably follows a Gaussian distribution and that only a small percentage of the research output will be valid in 100 years and later. But let’s talk about your recent article "Musikpsychologie: An Autobiographical Historical Perspective" (see Psychomusicology: Music, Mind & Brain, 20(1+2)), in which you describe some of your experiences as a young woman in a world of mostly male (historical) musicologists and psychologists in the 1950s and 1960s. It seems to me that among systematic musicologists the number of female professors is very low compared to the one of male professors although there are more female students than male students. If you think of your very successful career, what suggestions would you give to young motivated female researchers, who are aiming at receiving a full professorship?

HdlM: The situation has dramatically changed. When I was young, musicology was dominated by men, which is not the case nowadays. Therefore, one should only consistently cut one’s own path. I have had many successful female students and some of them work as professors.

MM: In the above-mentioned article you also write about your time as a student. Systematic musicology is also characterized by a multidisciplinary education. On the one hand, study programs in systematic musicology are diversified. On the other hand, many systematic musicologists, including you, have finished more than one degree, which requires lots of time and energy. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this multidisciplinarity with respect to international careers, which are characterized by the pressure to publish early (in English journals) and by overspecialization. The interest in music psychology has been growing in the last few years and the competition for jobs as well.

HdlM: Does one have to follow common habits? Interdisciplinary thinking can also be gained with doing only one degree. On the other hand, the new curricula in Germany, which I do not support (!), also introduce many obstacles. It is important that students do not specialize in a topic too early and then find only place in a small research community. This prevents original thinking.

MM: Music plays a big role in most people’s lives. In times of financial problems universitiesare often forced to cut their expenses. What can we do as a scientific community to ensure progress in research in systematic musicology?

HdlM: This question I cannot answer because I did everything I could to prevent the closing of the department of musicology at the Technical University of Berlin. Without success. But it is erroneous to think that the university gained money by doing this.

MM: I am sorry to hear that. Perhaps music researchers have to seek more the contact to the public and let people know about what they do. One could get the media involved in research, and do more online experiments. For example, researchers at Goldsmiths, University of London, are currently collaborating with the BBC and they together developed an online test called "How musical are you?". They are expecting more than 100000 participants. One could do similar things in the German-speaking world. Even though there are disadvantages associated with online research, one sends a signal of life to the world. In Austria, this is not really the case. How is the situation in Germany?

HdlM: Yes, there is online research in Germany, but it depends on the research field. But outside the internet, media is longing for sensation mongering which is not the case with the BBC.

MM: What’s your opinion on our student conference series SysMus? What can we do in order to make SysMus attractive for an international audience in the future?

HdlM: I would suggest critically examining the mainstream flows of neuroscience and computer science. Some engagement with philosophy would also be good, especially with the matter-mind problem (and also the views of Hermann von Helmholtz, G.Th. Fechner, Ernst Mach, Carl Stumpf and phenomenology). Of course, behind this matter-mind problem the body-mind problem is hidden. But it could be that this idea goes beyond musicological interests.

MM: Many thanks for your time and the informative interview! All the best for your future projects.