Skip to main content


The approach to non-Western traditions is kind of awkward when approached in the same context that we approach the issues of western cultures. As we were discussing with some guys, for the same reason that we cannot analyze all genres of music with schenkerian analysis, for the same reason (in my opinion) there is no need to put all traditions into a narrative, verbal, explanatory framework. It may sound cliché, but I think that experiencing and feeling something practically can bring us consciously or unconsciously into an "unlearning" process (as some presenters have mentioned), rather than a sophisticated theoretical review, trying to formalistically define i.e. "what is music?". In these review processes and in attempts to question the role of hegemonic cultures, the framework of approach must be differentiated and not uniform for all music, because this extreme liberalism, in my opinion, slides into generalities and aphorisms and ends up perpetuating the formulas of a "prestigious" western university, which is still defining roles and aspects. In my opinion, the presentation that was completely out of this context (which I describe that could be avoided), I think it was by Horacio Curti, who introduced us very convincingly to the theoretical background of Japanese music, along with acoustic examples. Thanks to all for this inspiring week!

For me as a scientist it has been really astonishing to see how many different approaches and various theories have been presented during the Lab in Vienna. They were so heterogenous that even some contradictions between them came on the surface. I am convinced that dealing with these contradictions is absolutely necessary to find an own research-attitude. For participants who have been at the beginning of their research this might have been challenging but the discussion which took place in the mid of the week during the conference has been helpful to verbalize these contradictions and to reinforce students to find their own way as researchers.