The third SysMus Interview was conducted with Prof. Clemens Wöllner in December 2012. He studied systematic musicology at the Hanover Academy of Music and Drama (Germany) and at the Humboldt University in Berlin (Germany). Having completed a Master's degree in music psychology at the University of Sheffield (UK), he undertook his PhD studies in systematic musicology on the perception of expressiveness in conducting, supervised by Prof. Wolfgang Auhagen. From 2008-2010, he worked at the Royal Northern College of Music in Manchester (UK) as research fellow. From 2010-2012, Clemens Wöllner was an interim professor in systematic musicology at the University of Bremen (Germany). Since 2013 he has been a professor in systematic musicology at the University of Hamburg. His research mostly focuses on topics related to music performance and has been widely published in international peer-reviewed journals.
MM (Manuela Marin): What motivated you to study systematic musicology and why did you become amusic researcher?
CW (Clemens Wöllner): This is probably a question of both chances and choices. To answer the second aspect first: I have always been fascinated by the power of music and the strong impact it can have on people’s lives. From a relatively young age onwards I’ve made music and sometimes witnessed outstanding conductors, orchestra performers and soloists. A number of questions came to my mind such as “What’s the difference in the interpretation between solo violinist A and B? Why does this performer play the same piece beautifully one day and less so the other? What captures the audience’ attention most?” and so on. My interest in performance research was certainly stirred in that time during early adolescence. I then decided that I would like to get deeper into these topics and search for some answers. When I had to choose between a more historical or systematic focus of study, I got the impression that the methods and aims of Systematic Musicology correspond more with my own questions. However, I always felt that knowledge in both disciplines is necessary.
MM: As a student and research fellow you spent several years in the UK. Why did you decide to move to the UK and what do you think is special about the UK education system?
CW: Yes, that’s right, I did my Master’s at Sheffield with Eric Clarke and other great music researchers there. The study experience was characterised by a high degree of support and openness in thought. A good feature, for instance, were frequent personal tutorials with the professor as part of the programme. I believe you can learn a lot in small groups or in one-to-one situations, dealing directly with your questions and academic needs. On the other hand, the system seemed a bit stricter, for example there were tighter deadlines than in Germany. I remember that we already had to submit a short essay within a week after the start of the term there. I found this quite challenging at first, but it helps you enormously to adhere to deadlines. A year later I did a research internship at the Royal College of Music, London, with Aaron Williamon. This internship offered a highly valuable insight into a leading UK conservatoire and in research processes. We conducted a study on imagery and mental practice of pianists. In 2008, I became a Research Fellow at the Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning at the Royal Northern College in Manchester. This was a great opportunity to be in close touch with musicians again and to start new projects, also in collaboration with the two Manchester universities.
MM: Although systematic musicology has a long tradition in Germany and Austria, this branch of musicology is hardly known outside the German-speaking world. Why do you think is this the case and how can we change this as a research community?
CW: There are different research traditions, not everyone seems to have known or followed Guido Adler as he envisaged the branches of musicology in 1885. However, it is still interesting that in some US universities such as UCLA (Roger Kendall) or Ohio State University (David Huron) this term is used for study programmes. Perhaps someone could find out whether there was a connection to Adler or his pupils when these programmes were established. A number of new terms such as empirical musicology or cognitive musicology have been proposed. Yet I’m not sure whether the debate about terms is always so fruitful or necessary, especially if they function as disciplinary boundaries. We should rather talk about research aims and topics, theories and methods. Then it doesn’t matter whether someone has studied and carries out research in music education, musicology, psychology or any other field. From a view of university politics, on the other hand, these definitions seem important in order to ensure the diversity of research and the future existence of small fields.
MM: How do you understand and teach the concept of systematic musicology?
CW: To study musical engagement: Finding out more about all aspects in relation to music making and music listening as a fundamental human activity that exists in all cultures. So, for me, the focus is on processes rather than on musical works. Some core disciplines such as psychology and sociology of music, musical aesthetics and acoustics contribute to answering questions along these lines. When I start new introductory courses in Systematic Musicology, I often ask students about potential research questions they have, what they want to find out. Quite frequently their ideas could be answered with psychological approaches; and also for me the central field is Music Psychology.
MM: You recently co-organized the annual meeting of the German Society for Music Psychology in Bremen. Can you briefly report on it?
CW: The general theme was Music Psychology and Music Education, so many researchers working on the boundaries of these disciplines were attracted by the call for papers. There were 18 talks and more than 30 poster presentations on topics such diverse as the psychology of instrumental practice and performance or music in the school curriculum. Two keynotes by Susan Hallam and Rainer Dollase inspired many discussions. I believe one major aim of Music Psychology has always been to question as well as to further develop teaching and training concepts. For this endeavour, likewise, feedback of teachers at all levels is crucial.
MM: In your opinion, in what ways will systematic musicology contribute to the field of music research in the future? In other words, how do you envision the future of systematic musicology in the 21th century?
CW: This is a really big question! The strong point of – and at the same time the challenge for Systematic Musicology is the need for interdisciplinary approaches. Everybody calls for it, yet we have a long tradition of including the methods of other disciplines. It seems that many key questions – for instance with regard to the rapidly shifting behaviour of music consumers and its impact on the creation and performance of music – can better be tackled with methods widely used in our field. At the same time, over the past twenty or so years, you can see an increasing interest in music across various other disciplines like medicine. Quite often these researchers don’t have a specific music background, yet carry out research with musical stimuli for instance; and in some of these studies, the validity of the stimuli can be questioned. So it will become important to define the competencies of Systematic Musicologists, what they have to offer in interdisciplinary teams. And that is a lot, I’m sure! It is also necessary that we still talk about music, what kind of music, who’s music. This is why even small disciplines are necessary in academia and the research shouldn’t be completely “overtaken” or carried out only by the bigger and perhaps more established disciplines. Defining the strengths of a field, of course, also implies to question its general purpose for society from time to time, such as John Sloboda and others did for Music Psychology. Answers to this question will be diverse – perhaps another strong point of the field.
MM: What do you think about our international students’ conference series SysMus? Do you have any suggestions for our future work?
CW: I find this really impressive, particularly how you established an international network with conferences taking place in different countries. Such an exchange of ideas is vital and I’m sure that all taking part can benefit highly. The very fact that the conferences take place in various institutions opens the view for different concepts and new developments. This is much better then only following one academic teacher or keeping stuck in certain schools of thought, which may be helpful for the beginning of careers but not for scientific thinking. So all I wish for this series is that you keep curious, and seek the contact with various neighbouring fields. And of course, that there are always active students to continue the work.
MM: SysMus13 will be held in Genoa, Italy. We hope that this will help make the concept of systematic musicology better known outside German-speaking countries in Europe. In your opinion, why should Italian students don’t miss this event?
CW: I remember the ICMPC 2006 in Bologna, a great event. I could imagine that SysMus13 offers the opportunity for sharing research interests, various forms of support and perhaps beginning new friendships. So, Italian students and students from other countries shouldn’t miss it. Gook luck!
MM: Clemens, many thanks for having taken time to answer these questions! All the best for your future research.