Conti, Jacopo

Jacopo Conti, musicologue et musicien, est docteur en musicologie et enseigne à l’université de Turin ainsi qu’au Conservatoire de Cuneo, tout en enseignant dans la secondaire è Turin. Ses champs de recherche sont l’analyse musicale, la sémiotique de la musique et les hybridations de la musique savante et de la popular music au XXe siècle (sujet de sa thèse). Il a traduit en italien Everyday Tonality (2009) et Music’s Meanings (2013) de Philip Tagg. Il était membre du bureau international et est du bureau italien de l’IASPM.

Jacopo Conti, musicologist and musician, is adjunct professor of popular music at that same University and popular music history at the Conservatory of Cuneo. He earned his doctoral degree in 2013 with Franco Fabbri at the University of Torino. Main focuses of his research are semiotics of music, music analysis and music history, particularly in the XX Century. He translated into Italian Philip Tagg’s books Everyday Tonality (Il Saggiatore, 2011) and Music’s Meanings (Il Saggiatore, 2019). He has been membership secretary of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music (IASPM) from 2015 to 2019 and is Treasurer of its Italian branch since 2017.

Antonia Soulez
Une écoute « savante » de compositeur pour une écoute « non-savante » de la musique : Steve Reich

Accéder à l’article

Je suis plutôt favorable à l’idée de ne pas  distinguer, dans le cas de Reich, la musique populaire (actuelle) de la savante. D’où « l’écoute savante pas-savante » qui est mon titre. Je précise dans cet article  que j’entends dire « d’une oreille à l’autre », chacune se faisant pour l’autre écoutante écoutée.  J’explique cet aller-venue entre deux oreilles appareillées chez le même écoutant. Certes  il y faut un dispositif technique. Processus composé, la musique, se confond avec ce phénomène perceptif sur lequel Steve Reich demande qu’une écoute seconde se focalise en l’intériorisant. Si Reich rejette  le titre de minimalisme  qu’on lui attribue  parfois pour situer sa « sounding music », ce qu’il traque est bien le détail temporel d’une mesure d’écoute développée dans l’audition  moyennant une écoute appareillée.

Antonia Soulez, « Une écoute ‘savante’ de compositeur pour une écoute ‘non-savante’ de la musique : Steve Reich », Musimédiane, n° 11, 2019 ( – consulté le 13/12/2019).

Franco Fabbri
Music Taxonomies: an Overview

Accéder à l’article

In the past two centuries, mass distribution of music in various forms (printed, recorded, broadcast, digitized) has enhanced the usefulness and scope of music taxonomies: from scores and collections aimed at music practice in the bourgeois parlour, to record labels and shelves in record shops, from format radio to music TV, up to the tagging of music files and recommender systems on the Internet (Giltrow and Stein 2009, Celma 2010), music taxonomies have been a vital tool for the music industry (Negus 1999, Taylor 2014), as well as an indispensable compass for listeners, musicians, and anybody wanting to talk or write about music. The number of acknowledged ‘types of music’ has increased by several orders of magnitude since the late 1990s, when hundreds of thousands and then millions of music files were made available on the Internet.

Early ‘modern’ studies on music genres – as a scholarly effort involving musicology, semiotics, sociology and anthropology – started to be published in the 1980s in the interdisciplinary field of popular music studies, due to the increasing importance of genres in contemporary popular music. At the same time, taxonomies came into the focus of cognitive sciences, where old Aristotelian concepts were challenged in a neo-Kantian perspective (Lakoff 1987, Lakoff and Johnson 2003, Eco 2000), also due to the availability of new technologies (like fMRI, functional magnetic resonance interactive) allowing for the exploration of human brain functions and of the nervous system (Levitin 2006). ‘Prototypes’ and ‘schemas’ became the new buzzwords, and ‘categorizing’ became the most used term to describe conceptualization and taxonomic processes.

As files with audiovisual content started circulating over the Internet, the need arose to attach digital ‘tags’ to them, to indicate their content and make it easier for users to find them. Soon, researchers in computer science started working on algorithms enabling the automatic recognition of musical properties through the scanning of audio data, as one of the most challenging tasks in the Music Information Retrieval (MIR) research field. With the expansion of interactive features in so-called WWW 2.0, the huge success of social media, and the advent of software applications recommending products to consumers on the basis of previous purchases, usages, or website visits, MIR researchers started considering ‘social tagging’, ‘folksonomies’ (Lamere 2008), and other user-generated sources of information as a complement to the analysis of audio content (Sordo, Celma, Blech and Guaus 2008).

The paper will offer an overview on current music taxonomies and underlying theories, focusing on the need to integrate different disciplinary approaches.

Franco Fabbri, « Music Taxonomies: an Overview », Musimédiane, n° 11, 2019 ( – consulté le 13/12/2019).

Fabbri, Franco

Franco Fabbri was amongst the founders of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music, which he chaired for three mandates. He teaches popular music history, analysis and economy at the University of Milan and at the Conservatory of Parma. His main interests are in the fields of genre theories, the impact of media and technology across genres and musical cultures, and the history of popular music. Among his publications: Il suono in cui viviamo (Feltrinelli, 1996, 3rd edition il Saggiatore, 2008), Around the clock. Una breve storia della popular music (Utet 2008), Made in Italy: Studies in Popular Music (co-edited with Goffredo Plastino, Routledge, 2014).