Music theory in/as musicology in Norway: Historical reflections

Abstract

This article presents historical reflections on relations between music theory and musicology in Norway. More specifically, it asks two questions: What roles has music theory played in musicology in Norway (i.e., as part of musicology education and research)? To what extent has music theory been considered as musicology in Norway (i.e., existing as a distinct subdiscipline of research)? Taking these questions as its point of departure, the article presents the first discussion of the broad intertwining of the histories of music theory and musicology in Norway. It argues that there long has been a shared (regulative) music theory discourse between conservatory education and university musicology education. The picture is more complex regarding music theory in/as musicology research. Music theory in Norway has existed uneasily between being an established practical-pedagogical field (in both conservatory and university contexts) and having a somewhat unclear position within musicology research. There are, however, recent tendencies that indicate a stronger focus on music theory research in Norway, including closer contact with the established international (primarily Anglo-American) field of academic music theory.

Full text

Svensk tidskrift för musikforskning / Swedish Journal of Music Research (STM–SJM)
, volume 106.
ISSN: 2002-021X. DOI: 10.58698/stm-sjm.v106.17563 © 2024 Bjørnar Utne-Reitan. Licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
1
Music theory in/as musicology
in Norway
Historical reflections
Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
Introduction
The interest in Scandinavian histories of music theory has grown in recent years.
1
The
literature on music theory in Scandinavia as a whole, along with that on music theory in
Norway in particular, has generally focused on the field of tonal harmony, the central
discipline of music-theoretical pedagogy. This article aims to broaden the scope of the
existing research by discussing relations between this more specialised field of music
theory and the broader academic field of musicology in Norway, an academic field
which in Norway gradually emerged during the first half of the twentieth century and was
properly institutionalised at the middle of said century. This is a complex subject matter.
The distinctions between what is regarded as ‘music theory’ and what is regarded as
‘musicology’ are not obvious, and prevalent conceptions of where to draw the borderline
have varied, both between historical and national contexts and within them.
Nonetheless, I will in the following attempt to map the roles music theory has played
in/as Norwegian musicology by discussing the following two (overlapping) questions:
- What roles has music theory played
in
musicology in Norway (i.e. as part of
musicology education and research)?
- To what extent has music theory been considered
as
musicology in Norway (i.e.
existing as a distinct subdiscipline of research)?
This discussion takes investigations of relevant literature published in Norway –
musicology journals, musicological monographs (books and doctoral theses) and theory
This article is an edited version of my trial lecture for the PhD degree, given 22 November 2022 at the
Norwegian Academy of Music. The topic (‘Music theory in/as musicology in Norway: beyond the
musica practica
of the conservatory?’) was provided by the assessment committee (Thomas Christensen,
Thomas Husted Kirkegaard and Live Weider Ellefsen). The edited version also incorporates sections
from a paper presented at the conference
Music and the University
, 7–9 July 2022, in London. I am
grateful to Asbjørn Ø. Eriksen, Thomas Husted Kirkegaard and the two anonymous reviewers for
comments on the manuscript.
1
See, in particular, Hvidtfelt Nielsen, 2019, 2022, 2024; Kirkegaard, 2022, 2024; Kirkegaard-Larsen,
2018, 2019, 2020; Lundberg, 2019; Utne-Reitan, 2022a, 2022c, 2023.

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
2
textbooks – as its point of departure.
2
This approach has certain limitations. For
example, this material does not reveal (at least not directly) what takes place within
musicology classrooms and lecture halls, including the use of foreign-language and
unpublished texts, nor does it include Norwegian musicologists’ publications outside
Norway. Regardless, this approach was chosen in order to limit the material to a
manageable amount while maintaining breadth and diversity. Although such an
approach cannot give the complete picture, it is probable that what has been published
in Norway reflects the most central topics for this national context, thus providing a good
foundation for the discussion of the above-presented questions. As a way of glimpsing
beyond the country’s borders, I have also searched through major international music
theory journals for contributions from scholars affiliated with Norwegian institutions.
These have given me an indication of the extent to which musicologists in Norway have
chosen to take part in international music theory research.
My aim is to reflect on the major themes in the intertwined histories of music theory
and musicology in Norway. Although my reflections will be relevant at the national level,
the situation in Oslo will be the fulcrum of my discussion. This focus is warranted by the
fact that the oldest and largest Norwegian institutions, both within the conservatoire and
the musicology contexts, are located in Oslo. It is beyond the scope of the present article
to provide comprehensive histories of music theory and musicology in Norway; this is a
task for future research, with the history of musicology in Norway having received
particularly little attention from scholars. The present more general investigation is
important both as a contribution to further research into the histories of music theory
and musicology in Norway and for enabling future comparative studies of the histories
of the discipline(s) in different parts of the world. Before moving on, I will provide
provisional definitions of the key terms of this article: ‘music theory’ and ‘musicology’.
Music theory
is a term that means and has meant different things in different
contexts. It has long been common to distinguish between ‘speculative’ and ‘regulative’
(also called ‘practical’) music theory. Speculative music theory focuses on understanding
the ontologies of tone systems, while regulative theory is concerned with the mastery of
the compositional principles of specific musical styles. Carl Dahlhaus introduced a third
category (or ‘paradigm’), that of ‘analytic theory’, which aims at uncovering the specific
features of individual works of art (Dahlhaus, 1984; cf. Christensen, 2002). It is
debatable whether the latter should include actual work analyses or only theory
developed with analysis as its primary aim, given that it is common to distinguish
between theory and analysis (however much they often imply each other).
3
In the
2
To search for and in relevant material, I used the National Library of Norway’s digital collection
(
Nettbiblioteket
), the joint digital catalogue for Norwegian academic libraries (
Oria
), the physical
collection of the Norwegian Academy of Music’s library and the survey of Norwegian theory textbooks
in Appendix A of Utne-Reitan, 2022a. The searches were conducted in November 2022.
3
In Julian Horton’s words, analysis can ‘be understood as a musicological praxis, which enables
discourse about technical autonomy and its sociopolitical import. Discourse about its abstract properties
is the domain of theory; discourse about its manifestation in pieces of music is the domain of analysis;

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
3
present article, I retain the distinction between music theory and actual analyses. My
focus is on the former – specifically, it is on discussions and developments of different
types of theory – while the latter (i.e. the use of different theories in analyses) is only of
secondary interest here. Music theorising may take many forms, focusing on different
musical parameters and using different methods and tools. Traditionally, music theory
(be it speculative, regulative, analytic or a mixture) has focused on pitch structure in
notated music. Indeed, the term ‘music theory’ is still often understood in this rather
narrow sense. The position of such traditional Western (classical) music theory will be at
the centre of the historical reflections presented in this article. I will, however, also
comment on the presence of other types of music theory in this history.
Musicology,
too, means different things in different contexts. In Norwegian, the field
is called
musikkvitenskap
(cf.
Musikwissenschaft
in German), a term which usually
refers to the academic study of music broadly conceived. It is traditionally situated
within university musicology departments as part of the wider field of the humanities.
One could argue that this has changed since the late 1990s, as primarily vocational
educational institutions – such as conservatoires and teacher training colleges – have
become more academicised and research-oriented in conjunction with the Bologna
process.
4
The definitions of what does or does not count as ‘musicology’ are blurry. For
instance, not all Norwegian researchers in music education or music therapy would
identify themselves as ‘musicologists’. In this article, I will focus on research and
education explicitly framed as ‘musicology’.
In my dissertation, which generally focuses on music theory’s role in conservatoire
education, I claim that the music theory discourse in Norway has historically been
predominantly focused on regulative theory, and that ‘music theory has primarily been a
pedagogical field in Norway’ (Utne-Reitan, 2022a, p. 3). I will use this article to nuance
the picture by considering historical relations between music theory and musicology in
Norway. Before discussing the two above-presented questions, and as a background for
discussing them, I will give brief introductions to the fields of (conservatoire) music
theory and (university) musicology in Norway. Since, to my knowledge, there exists no
comprehensive account of the history of musicology in Norway,
5
the latter introduction
will be more detailed than the former.
and both are examples of communicative rationality, which seek intersubjective consensus about
technical autonomy’s critical meaning’ (Horton, 2020, p. 82).
4
For instance, the Norwegian Academy of Music received the right to award PhD degrees in 1998, but
within music education, music therapy and performance practice (as opposed to the degrees in
‘musicology’ awarded at some universities). In 2018, an additional PhD programme was established at
the Academy, this time in artistic research. For a historical overview, see Christensen, Jørgensen and
Varkøy, 2023.
5
In the current Norwegian textbook introduction to the field of musicology (Ruud, 2016), there is no
survey of the field’s history in Norway, only a general survey of the field’s international history (from
Guido Adler to the present). Rather surprisingly, key early Norwegian musicologists – such as Ole Mørk
Sandvik and Olav Gurvin – are not mentioned at all in the book. The same is the case in an earlier and
shorter introduction to the field (Klempe, 1991).

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
4
Music theory in Norway
Music theory, as a pedagogical discipline, was properly institutionalised in Norway in the
late nineteenth century. Several Norwegian textbooks in elementary music theory
(
musikklære
) were published around 1880 (Kobberstad, 1879, 1881; Winter-Hjelm,
1888), and the country’s oldest conservatoire, the Oslo Conservatoire (
Musik-
Konservatoriet i Oslo
), opened in 1883.
6
Moreover, the first Norwegian harmony
textbook was published in 1897 (Lange, 1897). In this brief introduction, I shall focus
on this early history and the institutionalisation of the field.
Music theory was, of course, practised and taught earlier in the nineteenth century,
but it had not yet been institutionalised. For instance, early in the nineteenth century,
Ole Andreas Lindeman, the father and grandfather of the two founders of the above-
mentioned Oslo Conservatoire, copied and translated a number of important theory
treatises for use in private teaching (Karevold, 1996). There had also been several earlier
attempts at establishing a conservatoire in Norway. In the 1860s, for example, Edvard
Grieg co-founded a music academy in Oslo (then named Christiania) together with Otto
Winter-Hjelm, but activity at the institution only lasted for a couple of years. When
founding their academy, the two composers underlined the importance of studying
harmony in addition to a main instrument (Winter-Hjelm and Grieg, 1957, p. 226).
In 1883, Ludvig Mathias Lindeman and Peter Lindeman opened an organist school
that soon would expand to become the Oslo Conservatoire. In the very first
advertisement for the school, harmony was presented as one of two ‘teaching subjects’
(
undervisningsfag
) – the other being organ performance – while other subjects (piano
performance and elementary singing) were classed as ‘voluntary subjects’ (
frivillige fag
)
(Lindeman and Solbu, 1976, p. 8). Throughout the first half of the twentieth century,
harmony (and occasionally also counterpoint), together with instrumental lessons, were
normally considered ‘main subjects’ (
hovedfag
), while other music-theoretical
disciplines were ‘secondary subjects’ (
bifag
). This distinction was also held at
conservatoires established in other Norwegian cities in the early twentieth century, for
instance in Stavanger (Utne-Reitan, 2022a, p. 138). Harmony was thus at the heart of the
education provided.
The dominant style of music theory education in Norway from the late nineteenth
century until the middle of the twentieth was heavily inspired by the Leipzig
Conservatoire. As Yvonne Wasserloos has demonstrated, the ‘Leipzig model’ spread
widely in the second half of the nineteenth century (Wasserloos, 2004). In the case of
music theory pedagogy, this development was especially tied to the influence of Ernst
Friedrich Richter’s 1853 harmony textbook (Richter, 1853). Among other things,
Richter’s hugely influential work popularised the use of Weberian Roman numerals in
conservatoire harmony teaching and propagated a very practical pedagogy (see Utne-
Reitan, 2022b). As Richter states in his preface: ‘Here the question to be asked is not
Why?
The inquiry of immediate application is
How?
’ (Richter, 1867, p. vi). The first
6
In 1973, the private Oslo Conservatoire became the public Norwegian Academy of Music. The
institution remains the largest provider of higher music education in the country.

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
5
Norwegian harmony textbook, authored by Gustav Lange and published in 1897,
explicitly cites Richter as its main source (Lange, 1897). Lange’s book remained the only
Norwegian harmony textbook available until the middle of the twentieth century.
As I argue in my dissertation (Utne-Reitan, 2022a), the music theory discourse in the
Norwegian conservatoire context changed in several respects in the period of ca. 1945–
1975: Gradually, post-Riemannian function symbols replaced the time-worn Roman
numerals in the harmony textbooks (which I will return to below), a new name for music
theory training was introduced (
satslære
) and the curricula started emphasising that the
aim of the theory training was ‘understanding music’. Despite these discursive changes,
theory training’s ‘regulative’ focus on teaching compositional craft remained very strong.
In other words, conservatoire music theory in Norway has focused on regulative theory,
with less attention paid to analytic theory and (especially) speculative theory.
Musicology in Norway
Norwegian musicology was properly institutionalised in 1958, when the first musicology
department in the country was founded at the University of Oslo. Hence, musicology is
a rather young discipline in Norway, having come into play much later than the
(pedagogical) field of music theory. The field of musicology did not, however, appear
out of nowhere. Rather, it was a result of a gradual process spanning decades. As
Thomas Holme has shown, Norwegian music scholars contributed to a broader process
of musicological institutionalisation in the Nordic region during the first half of the
twentieth century (Holme, 2019). That said, Holme’s portrayal also indicates that
Norway ‘lagged behind’ Denmark, Sweden and Finland in several respects, such as
participation at international musicological conferences and – most importantly – in
instituting a university professorship. The following chronological overview first focuses
on the gradual institutionalisation of the discipline, leading up to the first musicology
departments being established in 1958 (Oslo) and 1962 (Trondheim), before turning to
some broad lines in musicological research from the 1960s until today.
In 1913, the first doctoral degree (
dr.philos.
) in musicology was awarded at the
University of Oslo, which was then called the Royal Frederick University (
Det Kongelige
Frederiks Universitet
), Norway’s only university at the time. The degree, awarded to
Georg Reiss, was based on a study of medieval music in the Nordic region. Then, in
1922 and 1925, the University awarded doctoral degrees to Ole Mørk Sandvik and Erik
Eggen based on their respective studies of Norwegian folk music (see Benestad, 1968).
Sandvik’s work was particularly important in laying the foundation for musicology as
a university discipline in Norway. In 1911, he received a scholarship from the University
to collect Norwegian folk music (Klungsøyr, 2021). Together with Gerhard Schjelderup,
he edited the first history of Norwegian music, published in two volumes in 1921
(Sandvik and Schjelderup, 1921). In 1927, he founded the National Music Collection
(
Norsk musikksamling
), which was housed at the University Library (Gaukstad, 1976, p.
8).
7
In 1926–1927 and 1937–1940, Sandvik gave lectures at the University on the topics
7
The first manager of the collection was the Norwegian composer Fartein Valen (Gurvin, 1962, p. 78).

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
6
of Norwegian church music; Gregorian chant; Norwegian, Danish, Swedish and Irish
folk music; relations between medieval church music and Norwegian folk music; and
the reading of old musical notation (Amundsen, 1961, p. 375). Sandvik also founded
the yearbook
Norsk musikkgranskning
[Norwegian musical research] in 1937, which
became the primary arena for musicological publications in Norway for more than thirty
years.
8
The yearbook published both research articles and longer works (often published
versions of theses). Sandvik remained the yearbook’s editor-in-chief until it was
discontinued in 1972. Internationally, Sandvik served on the editorial boards of the
Bulletin de la Société ‘Union musicologique’
1921–1925 and
Acta Musicologica
1931–
1945 (Holme, 2019, p. 58).
While Sandvik was the main facilitator of the establishment of musicology as a
university discipline in Norway, Olav Gurvin was the one to realise it. Gurvin was
awarded the first
magister
degree (
mag.art.
) in musicology from the University in 1928
for a thesis on Norwegian programme music. His degree also included studies in the
history of music theory as a supporting subject (Benestad, 1968, p. 27). Ten years later,
in 1938, Gurvin became the fourth recipient of a doctoral degree in musicology from
the University. The year before, composer Geirr Tveitt had attempted to gain a doctoral
degree based on a piece of (ideologically highly problematic) speculative music theory,
but it was never accepted (see Utne-Reitan, 2022c).
Gurvin wrote his doctoral thesis on the transition from tonality to atonality (Gurvin,
1938) and started giving lectures at the University in 1937.
9
In 1947, he was given a full
position as reader (
dosent
) and started preparing a musicology programme.
10
The
following year, he hosted the first Nordic Musicological Conference (see Holme, 2019),
and in 1951 he established the Norwegian Folk Music Institute (
Norsk Folkemusikk-
institutt
, then not directly affiliated with the University). Gurvin was especially interested
in traditional music and collected a substantial number of traditional instruments from
different parts of the world for use in his teaching at the University (see Kjeldsberg,
2023). A decade after obtaining the position as reader, he became Norway’s first
professor of music.
11
In 1958, the Department of Musicology was opened at the
University of Oslo, with Gurvin as the first department head. He also founded the
journal
Studia Musicologica Norvegica
[Norwegian journal of musicology] and edited its
first volume, which was published in 1968.
12
The journal is published by the Norwegian
Musicological Society (
Norsk musikkforskerlag
, established 1964), in cooperation with
Scandinavian University Press (
Universitetsforlaget
), and remains the primary platform
8
Due to economic difficulties and lack of content, the ‘yearbook’ was not published every year
(Gaukstad, 1976, p. 9).
9
In the period 1937–1940, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) funded a temporary
university position in musicology which was shared between Sandvik and Gurvin.
10
The University created the position 1 June 1946, and Gurvin – the only applicant – was appointed
1 April 1947 (Amundsen, 1961, p. 375).
11
The University created the professorship 1 July 1956, and Gurvin was appointed 1 July 1957
(Amundsen, 1961, pp. 375–376).
12
Eight years would pass, however, before the second volume of the journal appeared.

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
7
for musicological research published in Norway to this day. Additionally, Gurvin was
central in the establishment of a musicology department at the Norwegian College of
Teaching (
Norges lærerhøgskole
) in Trondheim in 1962 (Grinde, 2022).
13
Finn Benestad – who had been awarded the University of Oslo’s fifth doctoral degree
in musicology in 1961 – became the first professor at the new department in Trond-
heim, and thus Norway’s second professor of music. In 1964, he was appointed
Gurvin’s successor in Oslo.
14
Benestad remained a towering figure in Norwegian
musicology for the remainder of the century. Other central musicologists of the same
generation include Nils Grinde and Dag Schjelderup-Ebbe. In 1968, Benestad stressed
that the exploration of Norwegian music history was the main task at hand for
musicology in Norway (Benestad, 1968, p. 22). Indeed, Norwegian musicologists had
focused on this from the beginning. Until the 1960s, all Norwegian musicological theses
– except Gurvin’s doctoral thesis
15
– treated Norwegian music history, Norwegian
composers, Norwegian works of music or Norwegian folk music (Paulsen, 1987, p. 79).
Musicology in Norway was for a long time a nation-building project focusing on
Norwegian music history, both classical and folk music. Many musicological mono-
graphs – often theses published as books – were of the ‘life-and-works’ genre, treating
Norwegian composers’ biographies and analysing their works; early examples include
Liv Greni’s work on Rikard Nordraak (Greni, 1942), Finn Benestad’s on Johannes
Haarklou (Benestad, 1961a) and Waldemar Thrane (Benestad, 1961b), Olav Gurvin’s
on Fartein Valen (Gurvin, 1962) and Gunnar Rugstad’s on Christian Sinding (Rugstad,
1979).
16
The standard textbook on Norwegian music history, authored by Nils Grinde,
was published in 1971 (Grinde, 1971). It remained the main reference work on the
subject for the remainder of the century; a fourth edition appeared in 1993 (Grinde,
1993). Meanwhile, Benestad and Schjelderup-Ebbe co-authored the standard
biographies of Edvard Grieg and Johan Svendsen, which were published in 1980 and
1990, respectively (Benestad and Schjelderup-Ebbe, 1980, 1990). These remain
standard biographies to this day. Indeed, for a long time, Grieg research was a key
theme of musicological research in Norway, and a large number of musicologists in the
country were involved in creating the critical edition of Edvard Grieg’s complete works
(the
Grieg Gesamtausgabe
) published by Peters Verlag in 20 volumes from 1977 to
1995. The extensive work on Norwegian music history by numerous musicologists in
Norway during the second half of the twentieth century culminated in the five-volume
Norges musikkhistorie
[Norwegian history of music] published from 1999 to 2001. This
13
The college got university status in 1968, as part of the new University of Trondheim. It has since
1996 been part of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).
14
Hampus Huldt-Nystrøm became a professor in Trondheim in 1966. This department would
strengthen ethnomusicology in Norway, particularly under Ola Kai Ledang’s leadership in the 1970s (cf.
Benestad, 1987, p. 16; Paulsen, 1987, pp. 80–81).
15
In this thesis, on the transition from tonality to atonality in Western music, he nonetheless dedicates a
whole chapter to Fartein Valen’s music (Gurvin, 1938, pp. 61–83).
16
Of these, Greni’s was a
mag.art.
thesis and Benestad’s (on Haarklou) and Rugstad’s were
dr.philos.
theses.

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
8
reference work on Norwegian music history was edited by Arvid O. Vollsnes, with
contributions from many musicologists of different generations and affiliated with
different institutions (Vollsnes, 1999–2001).
Although Western classical music history in general, and Norway’s part in this history
in particular, arguably was Norwegian musicology’s ‘core’ throughout the twentieth
century, the field gradually expanded from the middle of the 1970s. In 1974, the first
master’s thesis on jazz music was accepted at the musicology department in Oslo and
the range of genres within both jazz and popular music included in the University’s
research has since been steadily increasing (see Dyndahl et al., 2017). That the field was
expanding, not only in terms of the music studied but also in terms of the understanding
of what musicological research could be, is reflected in the doctoral theses accepted at
the University of Oslo (Paus, 2013). In 1980, Jon-Roar Bjørkvold was, for example,
awarded a doctoral degree based on a study of kindergarten children’s singing, and in
1987, Even Ruud became the first doctoral candidate to defend a thesis with a music
therapy orientation. More generally, there was a gradual turn towards what in the US
was dubbed ‘new musicology’, where traditional positivistic source studies were down-
played in favour of more critical perspectives and music understood as a broader
cultural phenomenon inseparable from cultural and ideological contexts.
While Western classical music history has remained part of the musicological field, it
is safe to say that it has lost its central position.
17
The field of musicology is now more
decentred. Popular music and culture – with leading scholars such as Stan Hawkins and
Anne Danielsen, among others – is an example of a sub-field that has grown particularly
strong in Norway over the last couple of decades. The same goes for music cognition –
particularly music and movement, but also other aspects of how humans perceive and
experience music – which has been explored by figures such as Rolf Inge Godøy and
Alexander Refsum Jensenius. The success of these fields is reflected in the fact that the
musicology department at the University of Oslo currently houses a ‘Centre of
Excellence’ funded by the Research Council of Norway. At this research centre –
RITMO Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Rhythm, Time and Motion –
researchers from musicology, informatics and psychology work together to, as it says on
their homepage, ‘expand our understanding of rhythm as a fundamental property of
human life’ (RITMO, n.d.).
In short, musicology in Norway has become more and more diverse since the 1970s.
Today, musicology education is offered at the universities of Oslo, Trondheim and
Bergen.
18
17
In December 2023, the diminished focus on Western classical music at the Department of
Musicology, University of Oslo, was the subject of a heated debate in the online magazine
Scenekunst
(Edwards and Nielsen, 2023; Guldbrandsen, 2023a, 2023b; Halvorsrød, 2023; Özgen, 2023).
18
The latest addition – at the Grieg Academy, University of Bergen – was first established in the late
1990s and initially had a strong focus on ethnomusicology (Holter, 2005). Additionally, in 2011, the
Centre for Grieg Research was opened in Bergen.

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
9
Music theory in musicology
Music theory has been important in musicology: both as a practical training part of
musicology education and as a provider of tools and concepts for musicological research
of different kinds. In the currently most widely used Norwegian encyclopaedia, the brief
entry on
musikkteori
defines the term as follows:
Music theory, a general term for musical teaching disciplines such as elementary music
theory, harmony, counterpoint, form, instrumentation and so on. In addition to this
typical pedagogical and craft-oriented use of the term, which, moreover, is well
established, music theory is also used in a more distinct ‘theory’ sense, more similar to
literary theory, art theory and the like.
19
(Ledang, 2021)
This reflects the widespread notion that the term
musikkteori
is first and foremost
associated with practical-pedagogical disciplines and that
musikkteori
thus largely
overlaps with
satslære
.
20
Music theory as a pedagogical field – with disciplines such as
harmony, counterpoint and form at its core – has been central to the Norwegian
musicology context ever since music courses began to be provided at Norwegian
universities. It was, and still is, customary that music theory training forming part of
musicological education is conducted by active music practitioners, primarily composers
and/or organists. When Gurvin started the first courses in musicology as a secondary
subject (
bifag
) at the University of Oslo in 1949, organist Arild Sandvold was appointed
teacher in harmony and counterpoint. Organist Anfinn Øien, who had previously taught
at the Oslo Conservatoire, taught at the University from 1966 to 1969 before returning
to the Conservatoire to become its new principal. Composer Sigvald Tveit was
particularly influential as head of theory training at the musicology department in Oslo,
where he worked from 1972 to 2010. Notably, in newspaper interviews, he was careful
to present himself as a craftsperson (see Engebråten, 1983; Hammersmark, 1998;
Igland, 1984). Moreover, in a 1987 essay, Bjørn Alterhaug – affiliated with the
musicology department in Trondheim – argued strongly in favour of a theory training
focused on craft and creativity (Alterhaug, 1987).
19
‘Musikkteori, sammenfattende betegnelse på musikalske undervisningsdisipliner som allmenn
musikklære, harmonilære, kontrapunkt, formlære, instrumentasjonslære og så videre. I tillegg til denne
pedagogisk og håndverksmessig pregede bruk av termen, som for øvrig er vel innarbeidet, anvendes
musikkteori også i mer utpreget “teori”-betydning, på linje med litteraturteori, kunstteori og lignende’.
All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated.
20
While the encyclopaedia definition highlights that music theory was primarily considered a
pedagogical field, it also states that the term is sometimes used more broadly. Concrete examples of
such use are found in the institutional documents of the Norwegian Academy of Music, particularly
from the 1980s, where
musikkteori
is broadly defined as any discipline working with music in a
theoretical sense of any kind, including – in addition to the traditional music-theoretical disciplines –
music history, sociology, physiology, communication studies and psychology (Norges musikkhøgskole,
1982). This very broad understanding of music theory has, however, had limited influence; all the
mentioned examples are usually regarded as something different from music theory. Still, this definition
highlights that the limits of the term are blurry.

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
10
I will argue that there is a shared (regulative) music theory discourse between
conservatoires and university musicology departments, at least concerning
undergraduate theory training. Indeed, several of the theory textbooks have been
influential (just as some of their authors have worked) across such institutional
boundaries. Examples of such boundary-crossing works include the harmony textbooks
by Anfinn Øien and Sigvald Tveit (Tveit, 1984; Øien, 1971, 1975) as well as the
counterpoint textbooks by Nils Grinde, Ludvig Nielsen and Per Hjort Albertsen
(Albertsen, 1990; Grinde, 1989, 1990; Grinde and Nielsen, 1966). An example of a
theory textbook explicitly intended for use across institutional domains is Finn
Benestad’s 1963
Musikklære
[Elementary music theory] (Benestad, 1963). Since its
publication, Benestad’s book has served as the standard work on elementary music
theory in Norway and is still used both at and in preparation for conservatoires,
universities and teacher-training colleges. Its fourth edition appeared in 2009 (Benestad,
2009). To further investigate this shared regulative theory discourse, I will consider the
case of function theory in Norway.
The introduction of post-Riemannian function symbols to harmonic analysis is a
significant historical development in Norwegian music theory, both in musicology and
conservatoire education. Function analysis had first been introduced in German music
theory in the late nineteenth century by Hugo Riemann (Riemann, 1893). It would,
however, undergo a long process of transfer and transformation – including an earlier
reception in Sweden and (particularly) Denmark – before it was gradually introduced in
Norway from around 1950 and finally replaced the older Roman numerals as the
dominant system in the 1970s (see Utne-Reitan, 2022a, 2023). Various developments in
musicology contributed to this transition. First, it is important to note that function
theory was known in Norway before 1950, though its influence was very limited. In a
1949 music encyclopaedia which Olav Gurvin co-edited with Øivind Anker, function
theory is described as ‘very complicated, which makes its practical use somewhat
difficult’ (Gurvin and Anker, 1949, s.v. ‘Funksjonsteorien’).
21
It comes as no surprise,
therefore, that in 1953, Gurvin chose to translate Paul Hindemith’s concise 1943
textbook in traditional harmony – which uses figured bass and Roman numerals – for
use in the university’s harmony training. In the translator’s preface, he mentions that
function symbols have grown in popularity in Germany, Sweden and Denmark but
claims that good teachers can make students aware of functional relationships without
using function symbols (Gurvin in Hindemith, 1953, p. vi). Not until 1975, with Anfinn
Øien, did Norway get a full-fledged harmony textbook using function symbols (Øien,
1975). That said, a draft of the book had circulated for several years prior to publication,
much of it having been written while Øien was teaching theory at the University of
Oslo’s musicology department in the late 1960s (Øien, 1971).
If we consider the history of harmonic analysis in Norwegian musicology research, it
becomes clear that function theory was gaining ground in this domain as early as the
1950s. From the middle of the decade, the use of post-Riemannian function symbols
21
‘meget komplisert, noe som gjør dens praktiske anvendelse litt vanskelig’.

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
11
gradually became more common. This is, for example, reflected in several theses
published in
Norsk musikkgranskning
(cf. Benestad, 1959; Grinde, 1961; Huldt-
Nystrøm, 1959; Rugstad, 1959). Function theory had also been presented in a music
history textbook published in 1950, which was authored by Jon Medbøe, a music history
teacher at the Oslo Conservatoire (Medbøe, 1950).
22
These early instances of function
analysis in Norway employ what Thomas Husted Kirkegaard has called ‘key-relational’
function theory, using the
parallel
relation (called the ‘relative relation’ in English) to
label secondary chords (Kirkegaard, 2024; Kirkegaard-Larsen, 2018, 2020). The type of
function theory that would soon become dominant in Norway, primarily due to the
influence of Anfinn Øien (building on the Danish work of Povl Hamburger), would
replace the
parallel
relation for designating secondary chords with the mediant relation,
in what Kirkegaard calls ‘interval-relational’ function theory.
By contrast, Schjelderup-Ebbe’s ground-breaking studies of Grieg’s harmonic style
use Roman numerals; his master’s thesis was published in 1953 – both as a book and as
an appendix to
Norsk musikkgranskning
– and his doctoral thesis in 1964 (Schjelderup-
Ebbe, 1953a, 1953b, 1964). Schjelderup-Ebbe conducted some of his studies in the US
and published them in English, so his use of Roman numerals is not surprising. His
works are among the most detailed analytical studies of harmony in the history of
Norwegian musicology.
Function theory would become the most dominant system in Western classical
music-theoretical discourse in Norway from the 1970s onwards, but here too the
regulative focus prevailed. The interval-relational function theory preferred by
Norwegian theory teachers strips away as much speculative Riemannian theory as
possible, becoming much closer to the primarily descriptive Roman numeral system.
23
Nowhere is this demonstrated more extremely than in the work of Sigvald Tveit, who
attempted to make function symbols analogous to Roman numerals (Tveit, 1984, 1996).
His 1984 harmony textbook, which appeared in a revised edition in 2008, remains
widely used. Tveit, as mentioned, worked within a university musicology department. In
short, the regulative focus of Norwegian harmony pedagogy has been shared across the
institutional boundaries of conservatoire and musicology education.
One need only flick through the indices of the 48 volumes (as of November 2022) of
Studia Musicologica Norvegica
, the premier Norwegian musicology journal since 1968,
24
to affirm that music history has traditionally held a strong position in Norwegian
musicology. As mentioned, analyses of works have been an important part of this
project. Thus, different forms of music theory have clearly been important providers of
frameworks and concepts for music-analytical research – at least implicitly. But to what
22
Medbøe also draws on other strands of Germanophone music theory, particularly Ernst Kurth’s and
Rudolf von Tobel’s conceptions of musical form. However, his book is in many respects an exception in
Norwegian conservatoire theory discourse and had restricted influence (Utne-Reitan, 2022a, p. 88).
23
I will not go into the technical details here, as this is well covered in the existing research literature on
post-Riemannian function theories in Scandinavia (see Hvidtfelt Nielsen, 2019, 2024; Kirkegaard, 2024;
Kirkegaard-Larsen, 2018, 2020; Utne-Reitan 2022a, 2023).
24
No volumes were published in the period 1969–1975.

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
12
extent has research on theory as such (i.e. discussions and development of theory) been
a part of musicological research in Norway?
Assessing this question is a difficult task, as it will necessarily rely on a definition of
what one regards to be music theory and what one regards to be something else
(aesthetics, philosophy, technology, psychology, cognition, etc.). The borders between
the fields are blurry in many cases, and research is often interdisciplinary, making
categorisation difficult. I went through the issues of
Studia
multiple times, looking
specifically for articles primarily framed as discussions and/or development of music
theory as such. I did not count biographical or work-analytical articles using a certain
theory, of which there were many but often lacking any critical-theoretical discussion. I
underline that I have not performed comprehensive systematic analyses, only a basic
review of the journal’s contents specifically aimed at shedding light on the amount and
types of music theory research previously conducted. A broader quantitative and
qualitative study of Norwegian musicology publications would be an interesting task for
future research and could uncover many more details about the discipline’s history.
Among the 398 total articles published (not counting editorials, book reviews,
bibliographies, etc.), I identified 18 specifically and primarily addressing theory (see
Table 1).
25
They are distributed over the entire period – the first two published in 1968
and the latest in 2018 – and treat very different theory topics (theory education,
phenomenological approaches, musical humour, etc.) related to different types of music
(folk music, contemporary classical music, popular music, etc.). The articles do not
indicate any unified ‘tradition’ of theory research in Norway – rather the opposite – but
show that discussions of music theory have never been completely neglected. However,
several of the articles are negatively framed, arguing for the need to go beyond music
theory (at least as it has traditionally been conceived) in this or that direction.
Table 1
. Chronological overview of music theory articles in
Studia Musicologica Norvegica
(as
of November 2022). See the reference list for full citations.
Author
Year
Article title
Kåre Kolberg
1968
New terms in the theory of music
Kjell Skyllstad
1968
Theories of musical form as taught at the Leipzig Conserva-
tory, in relation to the musical training of Edvard Grieg
Jacqueline Pattison
Ekgren
1981
The Norwegian ‘nystev’ and the ‘thump-theory’: three
methods of nystev classification
Lasse Thoresen
1981
En fenomenologisk tilnærmelse til musikkteorien [A
phenomenological approach to music theory]
Ståle Wikshåland
1983
Musikkvitenskap i krise? [Musicology in crisis?]
Rolf Inge Godøy
1984
‘Tonalitet’ og ‘intensjonalitet’ i Pierre Schaeffers musikkteori
[Tonality and intentionality in the music theory of Pierre
Schaeffer]
Ståle Kleiberg
1985
Impresjonismens formtenkning – et forsøk på en tolkning
[Impressionist ideas of form – an attempt at an
interpretation]
25
Additionally, the corpus revealed an early interest in methods for performing music analysis with
computers (see Lande, 1978; Sørensen, 1978).

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
13
Nikolai Birger Paulsen
1990
Skalaer og intervaller i samiske joiker [Scales and intervals
in Sámi joiks]
Rolf Inge Godøy
1991
‘Hors-temps’: tid og objekter i Iannis Xenakis’ musikkteori
[‘Hors-temps’: time and objects in the music theory of Iannis
Xenakis]
Sigvald Tveit
1994
Funksjonsharmoniske trekk i det 20. århundrets musikk
[Function-harmonical features in twentieth-century music]
Asbjørn Ø. Eriksen
1995
Humor i instrumentalmusikk – et forsøk på systematisering
[Humour in instrumental music – an attempt at a
systematisation]
Sigvald Tveit
1996
Den tradisjonelle funksjonsteoriens tilsløring av
harmonilæras simplisitet: om grunnutdanninga i satslære
[The traditional function theory’s disguise of the simplicity of
harmony: on the fundamental training in music theory]
Sigvald Tveit
2000
Mellom tonalitet og atonalitet: begrepet ‘klangomgivelse’
(harmonic environment) hos den amerikanske komponisten
David Angel [Between tonality and atonality: the American
composer David Angel’s concept of ‘harmonic environment’]
Stan Hawkins
2001
Joy in repetition! Structures, idiolects, and concepts of
repetition in club music
Tellef Kvifte
2004
Description of grooves and syntax/process dialectics
Håvard Enge
2008
Systemet og musikken: om den analytiske resepsjonen av
1950-tallets nye verktyper [The system and the music: on
the analytical reception of the new work types of the 1950s]
Thomas Solomon
2012
Theory and method in popular music analysis: text and
meaning
Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
2018
Edvard Griegs øvelser i harmonilære og kontrapunkt
[Edvard Grieg’s exercises in harmony and counterpoint]
Ståle Wikshåland’s 1983 article is a telling example of attitudes towards music theory in
Norwegian musicology.
26
Wikshåland criticises the lack of discussion of the theories
used in traditional work analyses, particularly their limits, claiming their hegemony to be
part of the Kuhnian ‘normal science’ of musicology (Wikshåland, 1983). The notion
that structure-oriented analyses of scores alone were insufficient for doing musicological
research and needed to be complemented by, or discarded in favour of, other
approaches, would become widespread. Moreover, the growing scepticism towards
traditional work analysis was further intensified by the international turn towards ‘new
musicology’.
The overall picture presented above indicates that there has been a shared regulative
theory discourse across conservatoire and university contexts. Even though it has been
present in some form or another, research in, and development of, music theory seems
to have had an uneasy position within musicology in Norway. I will in the following
further investigate to what extent music theory has been considered a distinct
subdiscipline of musicology research.
26
The article is the first part of a two-part essay. The first part discusses theoretical problems, while the
second (published in the following issue) treats the breakthrough of modernism as a case study.

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
14
Music theory as musicology?
Musicology has long been considered an umbrella for many different approaches to the
academic study of music. As demonstrated, music theory has been – and still is – a key
part of musicology education and has laid the foundation for music-analytical research,
but to what extent has it been considered a subdiscipline of its own?
Based on the existing publications in Norwegian musicology, one can question
whether music theory has managed to become a distinct subdiscipline of musicology
rather than just a pedagogical field providing the necessary foundation for certain kinds
of musicological research. It is safe to say that publications in Norwegian musicology up
until the 1980s were primarily focused on Norwegian music history and that music-
analytical inquiries were an important part of this overarching music-historical project.
Indeed, traditional work analysis was a key element of the investigations into Norwegian
music history that formed the core of Norwegian musicology throughout the twentieth
century.
27
One of the founders of Norwegian musicology, Olav Gurvin, would have claimed
that music theory
is
musicology. In the previously mentioned 1949 music encyclopaedia
that he co-edited with Øivind Anker, musicology is defined as a field that primarily
investigates the music itself in its stylistic-formal development and comprises the main
subdisciplines of music history, music theory and comparative music research (Gurvin
and Anker, 1949, s.v. ‘Musikkvitenskap’). Following the mention of music theory, the
terms rhythm, melody, harmony, agogics and form are listed in parentheses. When
Gurvin, eight years later, held his inaugural lecture as professor of musicology at the
University of Oslo, he reiterated this conception of what musicology is. As he claimed
was most common in other Scandinavian universities, education in musicology should
‘place the main emphasis on a thorough theoretical education in the music-theoretical
subjects, in the history of style and finally, as far as possible, provide an introduction to
and practice in doing music research’ (Gurvin, 1959).
28
He presented musicology as a
science striving for objectivity, discarding hermeneutic readings of instrumental music in
favour of more positivistic structuralist readings, clearly preferring a Hanslickian view
27
Training in analysis has also been an important part of musicology education from the start, either in
separate analysis courses or as part of music history courses. It has also been common to present
analyses of works in musicological master’s and doctoral theses. In a 1975 compendium used to teach
analysis at the University of Oslo, Øivind Eckhoff champions an approach to analysis that is primarily
auditive and based on the listener’s experience; neither the word ‘theory’ (
teori
) nor any of its derivatives
are used in the compendium, only ‘analysis technique’ (
analyseteknikk
) (Eckhoff, 1975). While analysis
was considered important, (meta)theoretical discussion seems not to have enjoyed a similar position. In
a later text used at the same institution, Rolf Inge Godøy presents a systematic approach to
instrumentation analysis which is also auditively founded but much more explicitly theoretically
grounded (Godøy, 1993). I thank Asbjørn Ø. Eriksen for bringing these unpublished manuscripts to my
attention.
28
‘Hovudvekta skal liggja på ei grundig teoretisk utdanning i dei musikk-teoretiske faga, i stilhistorie og
til slutt så langt råd er innføring og praktisering av musikkgranskning’. The lecture was given 2 October
1957 and published in 1959.

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
15
according to which musical content could not be anything other than musical in nature.
When, in the lecture’s conclusion, Gurvin describes the tasks at hand for Norwegian
musicology, it becomes clear that investigating and elevating Norwegian music history
were at their core. Among other things, he mentions that great composers such as Johan
Svendsen and Christian Sinding still lacked proper biographies and that Grieg was still
considered no more than a salon composer in many countries. Nonetheless, we can say
that in Gurvin’s early conception of musicology in Norway, music theory was considered
as musicology.
To understand the predominant conception of music theory at this time, we can turn
to the 1949 encyclopaedia, in which music theory is defined as ‘an umbrella for the
various branches of knowledge that treat the technical structure of music: elementary
music theory, harmony, counterpoint, composition, form, instrumentation, etc.’ (Gurvin
and Anker, 1949, s.v. ‘Musikkteori’).
29
This definition is rather open, but it still indicates
how the term mainly referred to the practical-pedagogical disciplines. As mentioned,
Gurvin also chose Hindemith’s purely practical textbook for the University’s harmony
training, a book ‘with emphasis on exercises and a minimum of rules’ as stated in its
subtitle (Hindemith, 1953). It was nonetheless his ambition that theory should be a
central part of musicology. This ambition is reflected in his work, such as his doctoral
thesis on atonality from 1938 and a couple of later articles published in
Norsk
musikkgranskning
(Gurvin, 1938, 1941, 1956). The early studies of Norwegian folk
music which appeared in the 1920s, including the theses of Sandvik and Eggen and the
work of composer Eivind Groven (Eggen, 1923; Groven, 1927; Sandvik, 1921), are also
clearly music-theoretical (and speculative) in their explorations of folk tune scales (see
Dalaker, 2011, pp. 59–72). The question is if Gurvin’s ambition, primarily reflected in
publications from the field’s nascent stage, was realised when the field came of age. As
noted above, for the most part, the publications in
Studia Musicologica Norvegica
do
not indicate this.
In 2016, Even Ruud published the first Norwegian textbook presenting the field of
musicology in its full breadth – or so the book’s blurb claims (Ruud, 2016). In the
opening of the book, he defines musicology in the following way:
Musicology can simply be defined as ‘the scientific study of music’. Music research
involves the systematic study of scores, manuscripts, recordings or instruments. Equally
important for musicology today are studies of musical experiences, performance, use and
consumption, production and dissemination of music.
30
(Ruud, 2016, p. 15)
29
‘et sammenfattende navn for de forskjellige kunnskapsgrener som har å gjøre med musikkens tekniske
oppbydding: (almen, elementær) musikklære, harmonilære, kontrapunkt, komposisjonslære, formlære,
instrumentasjon osv.’
30
‘Musikkvitenskap kan enkelt betegnes som “den vitenskapelige utforskningen av musikk”.
Musikkforskning handler om systematiske undersøkelser av partiturer, manuskripter, innspillinger eller
instrumenter. Like viktig for musikkvitenskapen i dag er studier av musikkopplevelser, framføring, bruk
og forbruk, produksjon og formidling av musikk.’

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
16
The significant development of the field since Gurvin’s time is evident. After an
introductory chapter, the book presents the many subdisciplines which, according to
Ruud, make up the field of musicology:
- music psychology
- music therapy
- music anthropology
- music sociology
- music aesthetics and philosophy
- music history and historiography
- music analysis
- music education
It is notable that music theory is not listed as a distinct subdiscipline in this very broad
outline of the field.
31
The closest one is ‘music analysis’, raising the question of why this
subdiscipline was not simply termed ‘music analysis and theory’, like ‘music history and
historiography’. While I would not wish to read too much into Ruud’s choice of chapter
headings, they do reflect the somewhat uneasy position of music theory within the field
of musicology in Norway. The term ‘music theory’ (
musikkteori
) pops up in several
chapters of the book – not only in the chapter on music analysis (here conceptualised
broadly, beyond structuralist studies of scores) – and not always in positive terms. For
instance, in the chapter on music aesthetics and philosophy, Ruud endorses the need for
‘a broad interdisciplinary foundation’ of musicology research, which will ‘shatter the
traditionally music theory–centred and positivist description of music’ (Ruud, 2016, p.
202).
32
In the concluding chapter, Ruud asks the question, ‘Why study musicology?’ and
provides an answer based on five competencies borrowed from the Danish literature
scholar Johan Fjord Jensen: historical competence, communicative competence, creative
competence, critical competence and the ‘fifth’ competence. Music theory (here under
the term
satslære
) is only mentioned as part of the creative competence, together with
music performance, instrumentation, arranging and composition (Ruud, 2016, p. 315).
It is thus confined to regulative theory. Although the creative competence is indeed an
important one, one could certainly argue that music theory should also be a crucial part
of developing the communicative competence (by providing concepts for discussing
music). It could also – depending on how the theory is taught – be part of developing
the critical competence, i.e. becoming aware of how music-theoretical concepts shape
31
It should be mentioned that not all music researchers in Norway endorse Ruud’s very broad
understanding of what counts as ‘musicology’. For example, the fields of music therapy and music
education are often viewed as research fields of their own – with learned societies and specialised
publications – and not necessarily as subdisciplines of musicology. The categorisation is debatable, but it
does represent the conception of the field as presented by an influential Norwegian music researcher
during the last half century, and the book is today used to teach future Norwegian musicologists what
musicology is.
32
‘Det synes nødvendig for musikkvitenskapen å finne en bred tverrfaglig forankring, ikke minst med
tanke på å sprenge den tradisjonelt musikkteoretisk sentrerte og positivistiske beskrivelsen av musikk’.

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
17
the way we understand how music ‘works’. This is not mentioned by Ruud. I read this
lacuna as an indication of music theory having played a secondary (and primarily
regulative) role in the field of musicology in Norway.
While music analysis has long been a central musicological subdiscipline, this is not
much reflected in the Norwegian pedagogical literature. Despite the many work analyses
present in Norwegian musicology research – and analysis training being part of
musicology education – there existed no Norwegian textbook specifically dedicated to
this topic until 2011.
33
That year, two Norwegian textbooks dedicated to music analysis
were published. Petter Stigar’s
Musikalsk analyse: en innføring
[Musical analysis: an
introduction], among other things, invokes Schenkerian notions by focusing on voice-
leading reductions in addition to presenting more traditional segmentation analysis
(Stigar, 2011). Stigar had previously drawn on Schenkerian practice – generally rather
foreign to the context of Norwegian music theory (see Kirkegaard, 2022) – in his
harmony and aural skills textbooks (Stigar, 2004, 2007). Meanwhile, Per Dahl’s
textbook,
Verkanalysen som fortolkningsarena
[The analysis of musical works as arena
for interpretation], attempts to construct an analytical framework that includes the
perspectives of the listener and the performer (Dahl, 2011). Additionally, Lasse
Thoresen has, over several decades, together with colleagues at the composition
department at the Norwegian Academy of Music (particularly Olav Anton
Thommessen), developed a method of auditive analysis: ‘Aural Sonology’.
34
These are
some recent examples of theory development with clear speculative and analytical foci
developed in Norway.
The interest in music theory as a field of academic research in the form it has had in,
for example, the US has been limited in Norway – at least until recently. With all rules
there are exceptions; here, I will mention Hroar Klempe’s 1999 introduction to Anglo-
American ‘generative’ music theories (Schenker, Lerdahl and Jackendoff, Forte) and
Berit Kvinge Tjøme’s 1995 doctoral thesis – partly written under Allen Forte’s
supervision – which analyses Fartein Valen’s music using pitch-class set theory (Klempe,
1999; Tjøme, 2002).
35
Probably more representative of the attitude towards this field in
Norway, however, is Rolf Inge Godøy’s 1993 doctoral thesis, which heavily criticises
contemporary Anglo-American music theory for its excessive focus on (pitch) structures
in notated music, noting how typical analytical reductions result in what he calls
‘spatiotemporal collapse’ and miss out on essential musical features (Godøy, 1997).
36
33
Earlier textbooks (e.g. in harmony and form) did cover different aspects of analysis, but the 2011
books were the first dedicated to teaching different forms of analysis specifically. Prior to this, one would
use unpublished compendia and foreign-language textbooks.
34
This method, drawing upon phenomenology and semiotics, was only recently comprehensively
outlined in a monograph (Thoresen, 2015).
35
Tjøme’s thesis of 1995 was published in 2002.
36
Godøy’s thesis of 1993 was published in 1997.

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
18
Godøy argues instead for a phenomenological turn, where so-called ‘musical objects’ –
as we
perceive
them – become the primary research object.
37
Godøy frames his work as a form of cognitive music theory – emphasising
phenomenological approaches – and has, among other things, developed his work to
include aspects of physical movement, gesture and embodiment (UiO, 2022). This has
had considerable influence in Norwegian musicology, including on the work of
RITMO. The problem of categorisation again arises: Much of this research has been
conducted and published within other musicological subdisciplines, such as music
psychology and cognition, even though it is also clearly music-theoretical and includes
speculative components in its attempt to redefine musical ontology. Hallgjerd Aksnes’
work on musical meaning – which incorporates the use of cognitive metaphor theory
into music analysis – is another example of interdisciplinary music theory research
(Aksnes, 2002). There has thus indeed (increasingly) been conducted research in music
theory in Norway during the last three decades.
38
Much of it is, however, somewhat
distanced from what is traditionally implied by the term ‘music theory’ and primarily
situated within other musicological subdisciplines.
A look through the major international journals in the field strengthens the
impression that interest in Anglo-American academic music theory in Norway has been
limited. Indeed, in issues from before 2016, I found no contributions from authors
affiliated with Norwegian institutions in what is generally considered the ‘flagship music
theory journals’ (cf. Duinker and Gauvin, 2017):
Journal of Music Theory
(1957–),
Music Theory Spectrum
(1979–),
Music Analysis
(1982–) and
Music Theory Online
(1993–).
39
The reasons for this are certainly manifold, but one of them is probably the
limited interest in Schenkerian theory in Scandinavia, especially in Norway. However,
from 2016 onwards, one finds contributions from scholars affiliated with Norwegian
institutions in
all
of the mentioned major theory journals (see Table 2). The
contributions are varied, both with regard to genre (from Norwegian folk music and
Western classical music to EDM) and approach (e.g. history of music theory, empirical
studies and even Schenkerian analysis). Many of the articles are from researchers
affiliated with RITMO and present research on different aspects of rhythm, time and
37
Although it developed in quite a different direction, the phenomenological roots of this project
(particularly Pierre Schaeffer’s theoretical work) recall the mentioned Aural Sonology Project conducted
within the composition department at the Norwegian Academy of Music (Thoresen, 1981, 2015).
38
Several Norwegian work-analytic studies of the recent decades also include discussions of the music-
theoretical approaches used, for example of musical semiology in Stigar, 2002, of structure, plot, and
intertextuality in Eriksen, 2008, and of Sonata Theory in Utne-Reitan, 2020.
39
In the 1990s, Arvid O. Vollsnes served as ‘consulting editor’ and ‘
MTO
Correspondent’ for
Music
Theory Online
. The journal also published a report on a 1997 theory seminar held in Oslo. Discussing
one of the seminar papers, the Swedish correspondent claims that ‘the Scandinavian definition of
analysis’ (as compared to the Anglo-American one) is characterised by attempts to ‘reconstruct the
compositional process: to label the rows and to gain a closer understanding of the artistic considerations.
There are no analytical attempts to structure the work using pitch-class set techniques or trans-
formational networks’ (Broman, 1998, § 17). This underlines the regulative focus, also in analytic
contexts.

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
19
motion. The growth of active engagement with Anglo-American academic music theory
is probably (at least partly) due to the gradual broadening of this music theory research
field in terms of its theoretical and analytical perspectives, interdisciplinary approaches
and the types of music studied.
40
Table 2.
Chronological overview of articles by authors affiliated with Norwegian institutions in
flagship music theory journals (as of November 2022). See the reference list for full citations.
Author(s)
Year
Journal
Article title
Peter Edwards
2016
MusA
Resisting closure: the passacaglia finale from
György Ligeti’s Le Grand Macabre
Tami Gadir
2018
MTO
Understanding agency from the decks to the dance
floor
Rolf Inge Godøy
2018
MTO
Motor constraints shaping musical experience
Ragnhild Brøvig-
Hanssen et al.
2020
MTO
Dynamic range processing and its influence on
perceived timing in electronic dance music
Mari Romarheim
Haugen
2021
JMT
Investigating music-dance relationships: a case
study of Norwegian telespringar
Ram Reuven
2021
Spectrum
Undersurface sequences
Bjørnar Utne-
Reitan
2021
MusA
Schematic deformation: systematic linearity in
Grieg’s ‘Takk’ and other lyric pieces
Ragnhild Brøvig-
Hanssen et al.
2022
Spectrum
A grid in flux: sound and timing in electronic dance
music
Bjørnar Utne-
Reitan
2022
JMT
Music theory pedagogy in the nineteenth century:
comparing traditions of three European
conservatories
Concluding remarks
It seems that musicology education in Norway, at least at the undergraduate level, has
only to a limited extent gone beyond the regulative theory typical of conservatoire theory
education. It has primarily been practical – as reflected in the textbooks – and in many
cases taught by music practitioners, particularly organists and composers. There is and
has been a shared music theory discourse between the university and conservatoire
contexts, oriented towards regulative theory, which I would argue has been the dominant
discourse in Norwegian music theory, defining and limiting what is usually meant by the
term.
The situation becomes more complex when considering the role of music theory
in/as musicological research. Work analysis has indeed historically been an important
part of this research. Discussions of the theories used and original theory development
have been rarer, however. Examples related to ‘traditional’ theory focusing on Western
(classical) tonal music are surprisingly few given the strong position this music has had in
40
For recent discussions of the broadening of this field, see Duinker and Gauvin, 2017; VanHandel,
2023. Although there is no doubt that Anglo-American music theory has increased its thematic scope,
there are still important ongoing debates on diversity and inclusion in the field, which gained renewed
relevance in the wake of Ewell, 2020. For a recent contribution, see Lett, 2023, and its responses in the
colloquy section of
Music Theory Spectrum,
45 (1).

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
20
Norwegian musicology historically. There has been done more in other areas, such as
folk music and – more recently – popular music, particularly with regard to aspects of
rhythm. It seems that theories of harmony and tonality to a great extent have been
relegated to the pedagogical domain and have seldom been critically discussed and
developed in the musicological research field. The status of music theory in Norwegian
musicology thus differs for different kinds of music theory.
Music theory has not been an autonomous field of research in Norway. It has existed
as a separate
pedagogical
field and – to varying extents – been part of the broader
category of musicological research. It is important to note, however, that this is also the
norm in Europe, where the term ‘musicology’ often refers to music research in general.
Nonetheless, music theory has a clearer and stronger position as a musicological
subdiscipline elsewhere in Europe than in Norway. Many European countries and
regions have separate societies and journals for theory and analysis. The
European
Network for Theory & Analysis of Music
lists 14 member societies, representing
German-speaking countries, the UK, Russia, France, Belgium, Dutch-speaking
countries, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Catalonia, Croatia, Poland, Serbia and Bulgaria,
respectively (EuroT&AM, n.d.). There exists no such society in the Nordic countries as
of yet. While, for instance, Norwegian music educationalists and therapists have their
own specialised regional learned societies, academic journals and PhD programmes,
music theorists have no comparable academic infrastructure, existing uneasily between
being an established practical-pedagogical field and having an unclear position within
musicological research.
With the above historical reflections, I have attempted to consider exceptions to my
claim that ‘music theory has primarily been a pedagogical field in Norway’ (Utne-Reitan,
2022a, p. 3) and thereby nuance this picture considerably. Music theory, at least in the
way the term is traditionally understood, has indeed
primarily
been a pedagogical field
in Norway and has not been institutionalised as a separate discipline of research.
However, the above reflections have shown that music theory research (broadly
conceived) has never been totally neglected and that music-theoretical research of
different kinds has increasingly been conducted in Norwegian musicology, including
recent engagement with the Anglo-American academic music theory field. This, I
believe, bodes well for the future.
References
Aksnes, Hallgjerd, 2002.
Perspectives of musical meaning: a study based on selected works by
Geirr Tveitt.
Dr. art. thesis. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Albertsen, Per Hjort, 1990.
Tostemmig kontrapunkt etter Bachs invensjoner
[Two-part
counterpoint in the style of Bach’s inventions]. Trondheim: Tapir.
Alterhaug, Bjørn, 1987. Håndverk og estetisk dimensjon: improvisasjoner over et satslæretema
[Craftsmanship and aesthetic dimension: improvisations on a music theory theme]. In: Ola
Kai Ledang, ed.
Musikklidenskapelig: tretten essay: Musikkvitenskapelig institutt 1962–87
.
Oslo: Solum, pp. 17–23.

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
21
Amundsen, Leiv, 1961. Det historisk-filosofiske fakultet: lærere og forskning [Faculty of History
and Philosophy: teachers and research]. In:
Universitetet i Oslo: 1911–1961,
vol. 1. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, pp. 251–474.
Benestad, Finn, 1959. Johan Svendsens violinkonsert [Johan Svendsen’s Violin Concerto]. In:
O. M. Sandvik, ed.
Norsk musikkgranskning: årbok 1956–1958
. Oslo: Tanum, pp. 209–
265.
Benestad, Finn, 1961a.
Johannes Haarklou: mannen og verket
[Johannes Haarklou: the man
and the work]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Benestad, Finn, 1961b.
Waldemar Thrane: en pionér i norsk musikkliv
[Waldemar Thrane: a
pioneer in Norwegian musical life]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Benestad, Finn, 1963.
Musikklære: en grunnbok for undervisningen i musikk ved
konservatorium, høgskole, lærerskole og universitet
[Elementary music theory: a textbook
for music education at conservatoires, university colleges, teacher-training colleges and
universities]. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Benestad, Finn, 1968. Institutt for musikkvitenskap, Universitetet i Oslo: en oversikt
[Department of Musicology, University of Oslo: an overview]. In: Finn Benestad and Philip
Krømer, eds.
Festskrift til Olav Gurvin
. Drammen: Lyche, pp. 13–31.
Benestad, Finn, 1987. Helt fra begynnelsen av…. In: Ola Kai Ledang, ed.
Musikklidenskapelig:
tretten essay: Musikkvitenskapelig institutt 1962–87
. Oslo: Solum, pp. 11–16.
Benestad, Finn, 2009.
Musikklære: en grunnbok
[Elementary music theory: a textbook]. 4th
ed. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Benestad, Finn, and Schjelderup-Ebbe, Dag, 1980.
Edvard Grieg: mennesket og kunstneren
[Edvard Grieg: the man and the artist]. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Benestad, Finn, and Schjelderup-Ebbe, Dag, 1990.
Johan Svendsen: mennesket og kunstneren
[Johan Svendsen: the man and the artist]. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Broman, Per F., 1998. Report from the ‘Skagerack Network’ Analysis Workshop at Lyseby
Conference Center in Oslo, Norway, 20–23 November 1997.
Music Theory Online,
4 (1).
https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.98.4.1/mto.98.4.1.broman.html
Brøvig-Hanssen, Ragnhild; Sandvik, Bjørnar E.; and Aareskjold-Drecker, Jon Marius, 2020.
Dynamic range processing and its influence on perceived timing in electronic dance music.
Music Theory Online,
26 (2). https://doi.org/10.30535/mto.26.2.3
Brøvig-Hanssen, Ragnhild; Sandvik, Bjørnar; Aareskjold-Drecker, Jon Marius; and Danielsen,
Anne, 2022. A grid in flux: sound and timing in electronic dance music.
Music Theory
Spectrum,
44 (1), pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/mts/mtab013
Christensen, Solveig; Jørgensen, Harald; and Varkøy, Øivind, 2023. Etablering og utvikling av
forskerutdanning ved Norges musikkhøgskole [Establishing and developing researcher
education at the Norwegian Academy of Music]. In: Øivind Varkøy, Ellen M. Stabell and
Bjørnar Utne-Reitan, eds.
Høyere musikkutdanning: historiske perspektiver
. Oslo:
Cappelen Damm Akademisk, pp. 269–299. https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.199.ch12
Christensen, Thomas, 2002. Introduction. In: Thomas Christensen, ed.
The Cambridge history
of Western music theory
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–23.
Dahl, Per, 2011.
Verkanalysen som fortolkningsarena
. Oslo: Unipub.
Dahlhaus, Carl, 1984.
Die Musiktheorie im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert: erster Teil: Grundzüge
einer Systematik
[Music theory in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: first part: main

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
22
features of a system]. Geschichte der Musiktheorie, vol. 10. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Dalaker, Ingrid Loe, 2011.
Nostalgi eller nyskaping? Nasjonale spor i norsk musikk: Brustad,
Egge og Groven
[Nostalgia or innovation? National strains in Norwegian music: Brustad,
Egge and Groven]. Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag.
Duinker, Ben, and Gauvin, Hubert Léveillé, 2017. Changing content in flagship music theory
journals, 1979–2014.
Music Theory Online,
23 (4). https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.17.23.4/
mto.17.23.4.duinker.html
Dyndahl, Petter; Karlsen, Sidsel; Nielsen, Siw Graabræk; and Skårberg, Odd, 2017. The
academisation of popular music in higher music education: the case of Norway.
Music
Education Research,
19 (4), pp. 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1204280
Eckhoff, Øivind, 1975.
Om musikalsk analyse
[On musical analysis]. Unpublished manuscript,
March 1975.
Edwards, Peter, 2016. Resisting closure: the passacaglia finale from György Ligeti’s
Le Grand
Macabre
.
Music Analysis,
35 (2), pp. 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/musa.12056
Edwards, Peter, and Nielsen, Nanette, 2023. Kunstmusikken lever! Også på Universitetet i
Oslo [Art music is still going strong! Also at the University of Oslo].
Scenekunst
, 12
December. https://scenekunst.no/artikler/kunstmusikken-lever-ogsa-pa-universitetet-i-oslo
(accessed 18 January 2024).
Eggen, Erik, 1923.
Skalastudier: studier over skalaens genesis på norrønt område
[Scale studies:
studies of the genesis of the scale in the Nordic area]. Kristiania: Oppi.
Ekgren, Jacqueline Pattison, 1981. The Norwegian ‘nystev’ and the ‘thump-theory’: three
methods of nystev classification.
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
7, pp. 9–28.
Enge, Håvard, 2008. Systemet og musikken: om den analytiske resepsjonen av 1950-tallets nye
verktyper [The system and the music: on the analytical reception of the new work types of
the 1950s].
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
34, pp. 26–50.
https://doi.org/10.18261/
ISSN1504-2960-2008-01-03
Engebråten, Tom-Egil, 1983. Han river ned musikalske barrierer [He tears down musical
barriers].
Vårt Land
, 25 November.
Eriksen, Asbjørn Ø., 1995. Humor i instrumentalmusikk – et forsøk på systematisering
[Humour in instrumental music – an attempt at a systematisation].
Studia Musicologica
Norvegica,
21, pp. 5–51.
Eriksen, Asbjørn Ø., 2008.
Sergej Rachmaninovs tre symfonier: en studie i struktur, plot og
intertekstualitet
[Sergei Rachmaninoff’s three symphonies: a study in structure, plot and
intertextuality]. Dr. philos. thesis. Oslo: University of Oslo.
EuroT&AM, n.d.
European network for theory & analysis of music
. https://europeanmusic
theory.eu (accessed 15 November 2022).
Ewell, Philip A., 2020. Music theory and the white racial frame.
Music Theory Online,
26 (2).
https://doi.org/10.30535/mto.26.2.4
Gadir, Tami, 2018. Understanding agency from the decks to the dance floor.
Music Theory
Online,
24 (3). https://doi.org/10.30535/mto.24.3.7
Gaukstad, Øystein, 1976. O. M. Sandvik og Norsk Samfunn for Musikkgranskning – Norsk
Musikksamlings venner [O. M. Sandvik and the Norwegian Society for Music Research –
friends of the National Music Collection].
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
2, pp. 7–13.

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
23
Godøy, Rolf Inge, 1984. ‘Tonalitet’ og ‘intensjonalitet’ i Pierre Schaeffers musikkteori [Tonality
and intentionality in the music theory of Pierre Schaeffer].
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
10, pp. 119–141.
Godøy, Rolf Inge, 1991. ‘Hors-temps’: tid og objekter i Iannis Xenakis’ musikkteori [‘Hors-
temps’: time and objects in the music theory of Iannis Xenakis].
Studia Musicologica
Norvegica,
17, pp. 41–53.
Godøy, Rolf Inge, 1993.
Skisse til en instrumentasjonsanalytisk systematikk
[Outline of a
systematisation of instrumentation analysis]. Unpublished manuscript, August 1993.
Godøy, Rolf Inge, 1997.
Formalization and epistemology
. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Godøy, Rolf Inge, 2018. Motor constraints shaping musical experience.
Music Theory Online,
24 (3). https://doi.org/10.30535/mto.24.3.8
Greni, Liv, 1942.
Rikard Nordraak 1842–1942
. Oslo: Tanum.
Grinde, Nils, 1961. Halfdan Kjerulfs klavermusikk [The piano music of Halfdan Kjerulf]. In:
O. M. Sandvik, ed.
Norsk musikkgranskning: årbok 1959–1961
. Oslo: Tanum, pp. 9–73.
Grinde, Nils, 1971.
Norsk musikkhistorie: hovedlinjer i norsk musikkliv gjennom 1000 år
[A
history of Norwegian music: main lines in Norwegian musical life through 1000 years]. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Grinde, Nils, 1989.
Lærebok i kontrapunkt etter Bach-stilen: trestemmig fuge
[Textbook in
counterpoint in the style of Bach: three-part fugue]. Oslo: Musikk-Huset.
Grinde, Nils, 1990.
Kontrapunkt etter Palestrinastilen: konsentrat fra regler i Knud Jeppesen:
Kontrapunkt
[Counterpoint in the style of Palestrina: a summary of rules from Knud
Jeppesen: Counterpoint]. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.
Grinde, Nils, 1993.
Norsk musikkhistorie
[A history of Norwegian music]. 4th ed. Oslo:
Musikk-Huset.
Grinde, Nils, 2022. Olav Gurvin. In:
Norsk biografisk leksikon
. https://nbl.snl.no/Olav_Gurvin
(accessed 15 November 2022).
Grinde, Nils, and Nielsen, Ludvig, 1966.
Lærebok i kontrapunkt etter Bach-stilen: tostemmig
invensjon
[Textbook in counterpoint in the style of Bach: two-part invention]. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Groven, Eivind, 1927.
Naturskalaen: tonale lover i norsk folkemusikk bundne til seljefløyta
[The nature scale: tonal laws in Norwegian folk music tied to the willow flute]. Skien: Norsk
folkekulturs forlag.
Guldbrandsen, Erling E., 2023a. Kunstmusikken og universitetet [Art music and the university].
Scenekunst
, 10 December. https://scenekunst.no/artikler/kunstmusikken-og-universitetet
(accessed 18 January 2024).
Guldbrandsen, Erling E., 2023b. Musikkfaget i nåtid [The music subject in the present].
Scenekunst
, 15 December. https://scenekunst.no/artikler/musikkfaget-i-natid (accessed 18
January 2024).
Gurvin, Olav, 1938.
Frå tonalitet til atonalitet: tonalitetsoppløysing og atonalitetsfesting
[From
tonality to atonality: the dissolution of tonality and the establishment of atonality]. Oslo:
Aschehoug.
Gurvin, Olav, 1941. Norske serdrag i musikken [Norwegian features in music]. In: O. M.
Sandvik, ed.
Norsk musikkgranskning: årbok 1940
. Oslo: Tanum, pp. 45–57.
Gurvin, Olav, 1956. Some comments on tonality in contemporary music. In: O. M. Sandvik,
ed.
Norsk musikkgranskning: årbok 1954–1955
. Oslo: Tanum, pp. 111–136.

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
24
Gurvin, Olav, 1959. Musikkvitskap [Musicology]. In: O. M. Sandvik, ed.
Norsk
musikkgranskning: årbok 1956–1958
. Oslo: Tanum, pp. 199–208.
Gurvin, Olav, 1962.
Fartein Valen: en banebryter i nyere norsk musikk
[Fartein Valen: a
trailblazer in contemporary Norwegian music]. Oslo: Lyche.
Gurvin, Olav, and Anker, Øyvind, eds., 1949.
Musikkleksikon
[Music encyclopaedia]. Oslo:
Dreyer.
Halvorsrød, Hilde, 2023. Spisskompetanse på vikende front [Expertise on the wane].
Scenekunst
, 15 December. https://scenekunst.no/artikler/spisskompetanse-pa-vikende-front
(accessed 18 January 2024).
Hammersmark, Marit, 1998. Mange strenger å spille på [Many strings to play on].
Uniforum
, 2
(12), 17 September. https://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/1998/uniforum12-98/07.html
(accessed 15 November 2022).
Haugen, Mari Romarheim, 2021. Investigating music-dance relationships: a case study of
Norwegian
telespringar
.
Journal of Music Theory,
65 (1), pp. 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1215/
00222909-9124714
Hawkins, Stan, 2001. Joy in repetition! structures, idiolects, and concepts of repetition in club
music.
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
27, pp. 53–78.
Hindemith, Paul, 1953.
Et konsentrert kursus i harmonilære (Traditional Harmony): med
hovedvekt på øvinger og med minst mulig regler
[A concentrated course in harmony
(Traditional harmony): with emphasis on exercises and a minimum of rules]. Translated by
Olav Gurvin. Drammen: Lyche.
Holme, Thomas, 2019. Glimt af nordisk musikvidenskab i første halvdel af det 20. århundrede:
Knud Jeppesens brevvekslinger som kilder og kontekst [Glimpses of Nordic musicology in
the first half of the twentieth century: Knud Jeppesen’s correspondences as sources and
context].
Svensk tidskrift för musikforskning,
101, pp. 49–73. https://musikforskning.se/stm-
sjm/node/270
Horton, Julian, 2020. On the musicological necessity of musical analysis.
Musical Quarterly
,
103 (1–2), pp. 62–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/musqtl/gdaa005
Holter, Stig Wernø, 2005. Et ekspansivt tiår: Griegakademiet – Institutt for musikk 1995–2005
[An expansive decade: The Grieg Academy – Department of Music 1995–2005]. In: Reidar
Storaas, ed.
Med Grieg i ryggen: musikkutdanning i Bergen gjennom 100 år
. Bergen:
Griegakademiet – Institutt for musikk, pp. 100–115.
Huldt-Nystrøm, Hampus, 1959. Thomas Dyke Ackland Tellefsen. In: O. M. Sandvik, ed.
Norsk musikkgranskning: årbok 1956–1958
. Oslo: Tanum, pp. 80–198.
Hvidtfelt Nielsen, Svend, 2019. Parallel og stedfortræder [Relative and substitute].
Danish
Musicology Online,
9, pp. 23–61. https:danishmusicologyonline.dk/arkiv/arkiv_dmo/
dmo_09/dmo_09_artikel_02.pdf
Hvidtfelt Nielsen, Svend, 2022. Funktionsteorien som masternarrativ [Function theory as
master narrative].
Danish Musicology Online
, special issue, pp. 70–95. https://danish
musicologyonline.dk/arkiv/arkiv_dmo/dmo_saernummer_2022/dmo_saernummer_2022_e
uropean_music_analysis_04.pdf
Hvidtfelt Nielsen, Svend, 2024.
Dansk musikteori og dens ophav
[Danish music theory and its
origin]. 2 vols. Copenhagen: Multivers.
Igland, Alf Kjetil, 1984. En musikkens håndverker [A musical craftsperson].
Fædrelandsvennen
, 15 December.

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
25
Karevold, Idar, 1996.
Kontinentale impulser i en norsk musikerslekt før 1850: en studie i
brever, musikalier og skrifter etter slekten Lindeman
[Continental impulses in a Norwegian
musical family before 1850: a study of letters, musical sources and writings from the
Lindeman family]. PhD thesis. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
Kirkegaard, Thomas Husted, 2022. Schenker (not) in Scandinavia.
Danish Musicology Online
,
special issue, pp. 18–45. https://danishmusicologyonline.dk/arkiv/arkiv_dmo/dmo_saer
nummer_2022/dmo_saernummer_2022_european_music_analysis_02.pdf
Kirkegaard, Thomas Husted, 2024. Riemann in Scandinavia: reception and rejection. In:
Stefan Keym, ed.
Kreative Missverständnisse oder universale Musikprinzipien? Hugo
Riemann und der internationale Wissenstransfer.
Baden-Baden: Olms, pp. 221–247.
Kirkegaard-Larsen, Thomas Jul, 2018. Transformational attitudes in Scandinavian function
theories.
Theory and Practice,
43, pp. 77–110. https://jstor.org/stable/26892828
Kirkegaard-Larsen, Thomas Jul, 2019. A history of Swedish function theory.
Svensk tidskrift för
musikforskning,
101, pp. 137–163. https://musikforskning.se/stm-sjm/node/276
Kirkegaard-Larsen, Thomas Jul, 2020.
Analytical practices in Western music theory: a
comparison and mediation of Schenkerian and post-Riemannian traditions
. PhD thesis.
Aarhus: Aarhus University. https://doi.org/10.7146/aul.449
Kjeldsberg, Peter Andreas, 2023. ‘Å samle gamle instrumenter er absolutt nødvendig …’
[‘Collecting old instruments is absolutely necessary …’]. In: Bjørnar Utne-Reitan and Karina
Ayguavives Krokaa, eds.
NMH50: jubileumsmagasin
. Oslo: Norges musikkhøgskole, pp.
96–105.
Kleiberg, Ståle, 1985. Impresjonismens formtenkning – et forsøk på en tolkning [Impressionist
ideas of form – an attempt at an interpretation].
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
11, pp. 41–
57.
Klempe, Hroar, 1991.
Musikkvitenskapelige retninger: en innføring
[Musicological disciplines:
an introduction]. Oslo: Spartacus.
Klempe, Hroar, 1999.
Generative teorier i musikalsk analyse
[Generative theories in musical
analysis]. Oslo: Spartacus.
Klungsøyr, Anne Berit, 2021. Ole Mørk Sandvik. In:
Store norske leksikon
. https://snl.no/Ole_
Mørk_Sandvik (accessed 15 November 2022).
Kobberstad, Jakob N., 1879.
Musiklære for folkeskolen
[Elementary music theory for primary
schools]. Bergen: F. Beyer.
Kobberstad, Jakob N., 1881.
Elementær musiklære: nærmest til brug for seminarier og
lærerskoler, samt ved selvundervisning
[Elementary music theory: for use in seminars and
teacher-training colleges, as well as for self-teaching]. Christiania: Cappelen.
Kolberg, Kåre, 1968. New terms in the theory of music.
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
1, pp.
133–153.
Kvifte, Tellef, 2004. Description of grooves and syntax/process dialectics.
Studia Musicologica
Norvegica,
30, pp. 54–74. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-2960-2004-01-04
Lande, Tor Sverre, 1978. Musikkanalyse med datamaskin [Music analysis with computer].
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
4, pp. 47–60.
Lange, Gustav Fr., 1897.
Praktisk harmonilære
[Practical harmony]. Christiania: Warmuth.
Ledang, Ola Kai, 2021. Musikkteori [Music theory]. In:
Store norske leksikon
. https://snl.no/
musikkteori (accessed 15 November 2022).

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
26
Lett, Stephen, 2023. Making a home of the Society for Music Theory, Inc.
Music Theory
Spectrum,
45 (1), pp. 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/mts/mtac021
Lindeman, Trygve, and Solbu, Einar, 1976.
Musik-Konservatoriet i Oslo 1883–1973
[The Oslo
Conservatoire 1883–1973]. Oslo: Tanum-Norli.
Lundberg, Mattias, 2019. Two musical theories of Sven E. Svensson reconsidered: ‘tension of
fifths’ and ‘intervallic pulse’.
Svensk tidskrift för musikforskning,
101, pp. 165–184. https://
musikforskning.se/stm-sjm/node/272
Medbøe, Jon, 1950.
Om formen i musikken: et bidrag til å bevisstgjøre våre opplevelser og
vurderinger av musikk – på psykologisk, historisk og formanalytisk basis
[On form in music:
a contribution to raising awareness of our experiences and assessments of music – on a
psychological, historical and form-analytical basis]. Oslo: Universitetets studentkontor.
Norges musikkhøgskole, 1982.
Kandidateksamen: studieplan for orkesterinstrumenter
[Bachelor’s degree: curriculum for orchestral instruments]. Oslo: Norges musikkhøgskole.
Øien, Anfinn, 1971.
Grunnbok i funksjonell harmonilære
[Textbook in functional harmony].
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Øien, Anfinn, 1975.
Harmonilære: funksjonell harmonikk i homofon sats
[Harmony:
functional harmony in homophonic writing]. Oslo: Norsk Musikforlag.
Özgen, Zafer, 2023. Villet nedbygging, en styrt fagpolitikk? [Deliberate downsizing, a directed
disciplinary policy?].
Scenekunst
, 13 December. https://scenekunst.no/artikler/villet-
nedbygging-en-styrt-fagpolitikk (accessed 18 January 2024).
Paulsen, Nikolai Birger, 1987. Fra ‘Olavsmusikk’ til Avantgarderock: noen refleksjoner
omkring hovedoppgaver skrevet ved Musikkvitenskapelig institutt [From ‘Olavsmusikk’ to
Avantgarderock: some reflections on master’s theses written at the Department of
Musicology]. In: Ola Kai Ledang, ed.
Musikklidenskapelig: tretten essay:
Musikkvitenskapelig institutt 1962–87
. Oslo: Solum, pp. 77–88.
Paulsen, Nikolai Birger, 1990. Skalaer og intervaller i samiske joiker [Scales and intervals in
Sámi joiks].
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
16, pp. 105–124.
Paus, Mari, 2013.
Avhandlinger: en oversikt over avhandlinger i musikkvitenskap levert ved
UiO fra 1913 til i dag.
[Theses: an overview of theses in musicology presented at the
University of Oslo from 1913 to the present day]. https://hf.uio.no/imv/forskning/
publikasjoner/avhandlinger/ (accessed 15 November 2022).
Reuven, Ram. 2021. Undersurface sequences.
Music Theory Spectrum,
43 (2), pp. 280–298.
https://doi.org/10.1093/mts/mtab002
Richter, Ernst Friedrich, 1853.
Lehrbuch der Harmonie
[Manual of harmony]. Leipzig:
Breitkopf und Härtel.
Richter, Ernst Friedrich, 1867.
Richter’s manual of harmony
. Translated by John P. Morgan.
New York: G. Schirmer.
Riemann, Hugo, 1893.
Vereinfachte Harmonielehre; oder, Die Lehre von den tonalen
Funktionen der Akkorde
[Harmony simplified; or, The theory of the tonal functions of
chords]. London: Augener & Co.
RITMO, n.d.
RITMO Centre for interdisciplinary studies in rhythm, time and motion
. https://
uio.no/ritmo/english/ (accessed 15 November 2022).
Rugstad, Gunnar, 1959. Hans Hagerup Falbe. In: O. M. Sandvik, ed.
Norsk musikkgranskning:
årbok 1956–1958
. Oslo: Tanum, pp. 12–77.

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
27
Rugstad, Gunnar, 1979.
Christian Sinding 1856–1941: en biografisk og stilistisk studie
[Christian Sinding 1856–1941: a biographical and stylistic study]. Oslo: Cappelen.
Ruud, Even, 2016.
Musikkvitenskap
[Musicology]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Sandvik, Ole Mørk, 1921.
Norsk folkemusik: særlig østlandsmusikken
[Norwegian folk music:
particularly music from eastern Norway]. Kristiania: Steenske.
Sandvik, Ole Mørk, and Schjelderup, Gerhard, eds. 1921.
Norges musikhistorie
[Norwegian
music history]. 2 vols. Kristiania: Oppi.
Schjelderup-Ebbe, Dag, 1953a.
A study of Grieg’s harmony: with special reference to his
contributions to musical impressionism
. Oslo: Tanum.
Schjelderup-Ebbe, Dag, 1953b. A study of Grieg’s harmony: with special reference to his
contributions to musical impressionism. In: O. M. Sandvik, ed.
Norsk musikkgranskning:
årbok 1951–1953
. Oslo: Tanum.
Schjelderup-Ebbe, Dag, 1964.
Edvard Grieg 1858–1867: with special reference to the evolution
of his harmonic style
. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Skyllstad, Kjell, 1968. Theories of musical form as taught at the Leipzig Conservatory, in
relation to the musical training of Edvard Grieg.
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
1, pp. 69–
77.
Solomon, Thomas, 2012. Theory and method in popular music analysis: text and meaning.
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
38, pp. 86–108. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-2960-
2012-01-06
Stigar, Petter, 2002.
Trond Kvernos Matteuspasjon: en semiologisk studie
[Trond Kverno’s St
Matthew’s Passion: a semiological study]. Dr. philos. thesis. Bergen: University of Bergen.
Stigar, Petter, 2004.
Elementær harmonilære: koralharmonisering, kontrapunkt, generalbass og
variasjonssatser
[Elementary harmony: chorale harmonisation, counterpoint, figured bass
and variations]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Stigar, Petter, 2007.
Lær å lytte
[Learn to listen]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Stigar, Petter, 2011.
Musikalsk analyse: en innføring
[Musical analysis: an introduction]. Oslo:
Unipub.
Sørensen, Olve, 1978. Metoder og metodeproblemer ved harmonisk analyse med EDB
[Methods and methodological problems in harmonic analysis with computers].
Studia
Musicologica Norvegica,
4, pp. 201–216.
Thoresen, Lasse, 1981. En fenomenologisk tilnærmelse til musikkteorien [A phenomeno-
logical approach to music theory].
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
7, pp. 105–140.
Thoresen, Lasse, 2015.
Emergent musical forms: aural explorations
. Ontario: University of
Western Ontario.
Tjøme, Berit Kvinge, 2002.
The articulation of sonata form in atonal works by Fartein Valen:
analyses of his Violin Concerto, Op. 37 and Symphony No. 3, Op. 41
. Oslo: Unipub.
Tveit, Sigvald, 1984.
Harmonilære fra en ny innfallsvinkel
[Harmony from a new perspective].
Oslo: Aschehoug/Tanum-Norli.
Tveit, Sigvald, 1994. Funksjonsharmoniske trekk i det 20. århundrets musikk [Function-
harmonical features in twentieth-century music].
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
20, pp. 71–
124.
Tveit, Sigvald, 1996. Den tradisjonelle funksjonsteoriens tilsløring av harmonilæras simplisitet:
om grunnutdanninga i satslære [The traditional function theory’s disguise of the simplicity of

Bjørnar Utne-Reitan
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
28
harmony: on the fundamental training in music theory].
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
22,
pp. 111–115.
Tveit, Sigvald, 2000. Mellom tonalitet og atonalitet: begrepet ‘klangomgivelse’ (harmonic
environment) hos den amerikanske komponisten David Angel [Between tonality and
atonality: the American composer David Angel’s concept of ‘harmonic environment’].
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
26, pp. 133–142.
Tveit, Sigvald, 2008.
Harmonilære fra en ny innfallsvinkel
[Harmony from a new perspective].
2nd ed. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
UiO, 2022.
Rolf Inge Godøy
. https://hf.uio.no/imv/english/people/aca/emeriti/rolfig/ (accessed
15 November 2022).
Utne-Reitan, Bjørnar, 2018. Edvard Griegs øvelser i harmonilære og kontrapunkt [Edvard
Grieg’s exercises in harmony and counterpoint].
Studia Musicologica Norvegica,
44, pp. 57–
78. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2960-2018-01-05
Utne-Reitan, Bjørnar, 2020. To symfonier og et mysterium: om formbehandlingen i de første
symfonisatsene til Grieg og Svendsen [Two symphonies and a mystery: on the treatment of
form in the first symphony movements of Grieg and Svendsen].
Studia Musicologica
Norvegica,
46, pp. 41–60. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2960-2020-01-05
Utne-Reitan, Bjørnar, 2021. Schematic deformation: systematic linearity in Grieg’s ‘Takk’ and
other lyric pieces.
Music Analysis,
40 (2), pp. 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/musa.12165
Utne-Reitan, Bjørnar, 2022a.
Harmony in conservatoire education: a study in the history of
music theory in Norway
. PhD thesis. Oslo: Norwegian Academy of Music. https://hdl.
handle.net/11250/3031991
Utne-Reitan, Bjørnar, 2022b. Music theory pedagogy in the nineteenth century: comparing
traditions of three european conservatories.
Journal of Music Theory,
66 (1), pp. 63–91.
https://doi.org/10.1215/00222909-9534139
Utne-Reitan, Bjørnar, 2022c. Norse modes: on Geirr Tveitt’s theory of tonality.
Danish
Musicology Online
, special issue, pp. 46–69. https://www.danishmusicologyonline.dk/
arkiv/arkiv_dmo/dmo_saernummer_2022/dmo_saernummer_2022_european_music_analy
sis_03.pdf
Utne-Reitan, Bjørnar, 2023. Funksjonsteori – en musikkteoretisk tradisjon [Function theory – a
music-theoretical tradition]. In: Øivind Varkøy, Ellen M. Stabell and Bjørnar Utne-Reitan,
eds.
Høyere musikkutdanning: historiske perspektiver
. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk,
pp. 113–144. https://doi.org/10.23865/noasp.199.ch6
VanHandel, Leigh, 2023. Who does the Society for Music Theory gather?
Music Theory
Spectrum,
45 (1), pp. 156–161. https://doi.org/10.1093/mts/mtac028
Vollsnes, Arvid O., ed. 1999–2001.
Norges musikkhistorie
. 5 vols. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Wasserloos, Yvonne, 2004.
Das Leipziger Konservatorium der Musik im 19. Jahrhundert:
Anziehungs- und Ausstrahlungskraft eines musikpädagogischen Modells auf das
internationale Musikleben
[The Leipzig Conservatoire in the nineteenth century: the
attraction and impact of a music-pedagogical model on international music life]. Hildesheim:
Olms.
Wikshåland, Ståle, 1983. Musikkvitenskap i krise? [Musicology in crisis?].
Studia Musicologica
Norvegica,
9, pp. 103–122.
Winter-Hjelm, Otto, 1888.
Elementær musiklære grundet paa tonesystemets væsen, takt og
klang
[Elementary music theory based on the essence, rhythm and sound of the tone system:

Music theory in/as musicology in Norway
STM–SJM vol. 106 (2024)
29
a textbook for use in seminars and teacher courses, for all music teachers and for self-study]
.
Christiania: Cappelen.
Winter-Hjelm, Otto, and Grieg, Edvard, 1957. Musik-akademi under ledelse av Otto Winter-
Hjelp og Edvard Grieg [An academy of music under the direction of Otto Winter-Hjelm
and Edvard Grieg]. In: Øystein Gaukstad, ed.
Edvard Grieg: artikler og taler
. Oslo:
Gyldendal, pp. 221–226.
Abstract
This article presents historical reflections on relations between music theory and
musicology in Norway. More specifically, it asks two questions: What roles has music
theory played
in
musicology in Norway (i.e. as part of musicology education and
research)? To what extent has music theory been considered
as
musicology in Norway
(i.e. existing as a distinct subdiscipline of research)? Taking these questions as its point
of departure, the article presents the first discussion of the broad intertwining of the
histories of music theory and musicology in Norway. It argues that there has long been a
shared (regulative) music theory discourse between conservatoire education and
university musicology education. The picture is more complex regarding music theory
in/as musicology research. Music theory in Norway has existed uneasily between being
an established practical-pedagogical field (in both conservatoire and university contexts)
and having a somewhat unclear position within musicology research. There are,
however, recent tendencies that indicate a stronger focus on music theory research in
Norway, including closer contact with the established international (primarily Anglo-
American) field of academic music theory. The article is an edited version of the
author’s trial lecture for the PhD degree.
Keywords:
history of music theory, history of musicology, music theory in Norway,
musicology in Norway, music research, higher music education.
The author
Bjørnar Utne-Reitan (b. 1994) studied musicology, music theory and music education at
the University of Oslo and the Norwegian Academy of Music. In 2022, he earned a
PhD from the latter institution for the dissertation
Harmony in conservatoire education:
a study in the history of music theory in Norway
. Utne-Reitan is currently head of the
Academy’s ‘History Project’ and is additionally an active Grieg researcher. He has
published or forthcoming work in
Music Analysis
,
Journal of Music Theory
,
Music
Theory Online, Music Theory and Analysis
,
Danish Musicology Online
,
Zeitschrift der
Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie
and
Studia Musicologica Norvegica
. Utne-Reitan is
associate editor of the latter journal and co-editor of the book
Høyere musikkutdanning:
historiske perspektiver
[Higher music education: historical perspectives] (Cappelen
Damm Akademisk, 2023).