CONFERENCE Contemporary Music Theory: Approaches, Challenges, Limits

Academy of Performing Arts, Prague

09–10.04.2026

Lucia Reiprich Maloveská

The second iteration of the conference “Contemporary Music Theory: Approaches, Challenges, Limits” was held at the Faculty of Music and Dance of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague (HAMU), April 9–10, 2026. This year’s theme was ‘Music Theory in Relation to Contemporary Music Praxis’. The event was organized by the Department of Music Theory, with the objective of “comparing different perspectives on the field of music theory, on what can be its subject, and what it means to be a music theorist in the twenty-first century”. Let me preface this report by saying that this goal can be considered accomplished, thanks primarily to the diverse range of speakers and their selected choices of topics.

The diversity inherent in this conference was one of its most significant features, with one of the contributing factors being the broad focus of the whole event. Oriented on the relationships between contemporary-music theory and practice, the conference was open not only to music theorists, but also to musicologists, composers, and performers; students could actively participate as well. Another important factor was the variety of affiliations, with speakers coming from ten different countries (Europe and the US).

Perhaps owing to the broad theme, there was a tendency to go beyond the scope of music theory and to extend its ambit. Speakers rarely relied on truly ‘pure’ music theory (by which I mean music theory oriented exclusively on musical structure) or on analytical methods based solely on scores, without considering listeners’ experiences or other dimensions of music. This led to a prevalence of papers that examined some applied forms of the discipline or in which music theory was a part of a broader interdisciplinary field. This might imply that the modern concept of ‘formalist’ music theory and its score-based positivism are still being rethought and could seem to be partly obsolete in contemporary discourse. The speakers frequently explored the fruitful relationship between music theory and cognitive sciences or phenomenology, as well as connections to aesthetics, semantics, and philosophy. Emphasis was also placed on taking broader cultural and even sociopolitical issues into account.

It was the sociopolitical aspect that also came to the fore in the keynote lecture delivered by Ariana Philipps-Hutton from the University of Leeds. In her lecture “Sound the Alarm: Thinking Musically in Crisis”, Philipps-Hutton explored the role that music and musicology can play in the context of today’s global situation. To capture this situation, the speaker borrowed the specific term “polycrisis”. Phillips-Hutton encouraged her audience to reflect on the polycrisis in the framework of the critique and repair concept. Moreover, she suggested the crisis might be closely related to creativity. The speaker articulated her points in an exceptionally compelling manner, thereby reinforcing her call for musicology to fully recognize its roles and identify the opportunities that might arise from this complex situation, captivating her audience and convincing them of the importance of the addressed topic, despite not offering quick solutions.

The conference opened with three papers dedicated to approaches to musical analysis, especially to those that enable analysts to offer not only a mere description, but a certain interpretation of the work, including its semantic, cultural, or other dimensions. In the paper “Analysis and Interpretation of 20th and 21st Century Polish Musical Works with a System of Textural and Sonic Figures”, Agnieszka Draus from the Akademii Muzycznej im. Krzysztofa Pendereckiego w Krakowie (AMKP), Kraków, presented some updated ideas on semantic functions of the structures. Using convincing examples, she discussed the ‘neo-rhetorical’ figures in contemporary Polish music. Her perspective is also well reflected in the presented assertion that the figures in contemporary music had “triple meaning: structural, dramaturgic, and semantic”. The exploration of Polish music continued in Natalia Szwab’s paper (AMKP, Kraków). Szwab suggested that music by Marcel Chyrzyński could be analyzed and interpreted through the prism of intertextuality, pointing out how the composer combines ‘new texts’ with references to other, often older works. As a basis for her observations, Szwab used Gérard Genette’s ideas of transtextuality. The last paper of this section was “Analyzing Structure, Respecting Context. New Tools of Music Theory with Emphasis on Judy Lochhead’s Approach” by the author of this report. The aim was to demonstrate how music theorists can combine the examination of non-musical contexts with the analysis of musical structure. As an example, the author chose to analyze a piece by Slovak composer Martin Burlas, composed in a time of great social tension.

The second section of the conference was more closely linked to performance practice. Alexandra Magazin (Gheorghe Dima National Academy of Music, Cluj-Napoca) discussed the interconnections of practice and music theory through the aspect of semiography and notation, especially graphic notation. Magazin raised questions of the limits of the various types of notations, basing her presentation on the Romanian publications on this topic (Bianca Temeș, Nelida Nedelcuț). Wenhao Huang (a student at City St George's, University of London) brought music theory and performance practice even closer together. In his paper “Analysis as Practice: John Rink’s Performer-Centred Reconfiguration of AIP”, Huang attempted to apply John Rink’s concept of ‘analytically informed performance’ to his own practice. This was intended to be demonstrated by a short performance, however, some questions about the impact that the analysis had on the speaker’s artistic approach remained unanswered.

Among the papers that combined music-theoretical questions with the aesthetical or even philosophical, were those presented by Nikola Komatović (independent researcher, Belgrade) and James Peter Falzone (University of Buffalo, and University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna, Fulbright Austria Fellow). In the paper “Does the Present Future Lie in the Past?” (presented online) Komatović discussed the methodology of music theory in the context of postmodern and metamodern compositional practice in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, while emphasizing that this music may draw on older aesthetics. In doing so, he directly addressed one of the oldest questions of music theory: the relationships of music theory and practice. Falzone also dealt with the sociohistorical and philosophical context of music in his paper “Hauntology of Microtonal Music”. Hauntology, characterized as a longing for an unrealized future, became a central term for him. From this perspective Falzone considered microtonal music, noting that the “project of microtonality” can be problematic to grasp, since it has its roots in the past, but has never gained widespread acceptance.

Microtonality as well as spectral music were also discussed in Pierluca Lanzilotta’s (Conservatory of Bolzano Bozen) paper. Lanzilotta, however, drew on more ‘traditional’ music theory and on methods of theory-based analyses, rather than interdisciplinary connections. He presented in detail a possible application of transformational theory to microtonal and spectral music, frequently referring to the works of Robert Hasegawa. Another paper of an analytical nature was given by Matteo Cenerini (a student at Civica Scuola di Musica Claudio Abbado, Milan). Through four case studies, Cenerini focused on observing a modular technique of the composition, combining a music-theoretical perspective with his experience as a composer. An interesting part was the inclusion of a non-notated piece by Julien Desprez, although it would have been advantageous to have been provided with a more detailed description of the analytical method.

Analysis was examined differently, primarily from the pedagogical standpoint, in Iva Oplištilová’s (HAMU, Prague) paper “Gestalt Music Analysis?”. By comparing analytical and theoretical concepts (e.g., Dora Hanninen), Oplištilová highlighted shifts in the subjects of music theory while emphasizing the importance of the reflection of the perception. She also raised questions regarding the application of these approaches in teaching, pointing out that in connection with the issues of perception, both teachers and students must grapple with various, partly subjective interpretations. Adela Țârc (Gheorghe Dima National Academy of Music, Cluj-Napoca) focused more specifically on the teaching of music theory. She introduced the audience to the work of conductor, theorist, and pedagogue Constantin Rîpă, a prominent figure in Romanian music theory and musical life in general, particularly in the Cluj-Napoca region. Among other aspects, this presentation brought up the topic of the regional specificities of music theory.

The section in which music theory was truly seen as an applied discipline can certainly be described as thought-provoking. Ivana Petrać (Kunstuniversität Graz), whose current research focuses on reviews from the Donaueschingen Festival, presented stimulating thoughts on the interrelationships between theory and music criticism. Petrać discussed the possible roles of criticism, among which she mentioned those that can also be inspiring for music analysis. Additionally, she drew attention to how critics, particularly in the field of contemporary music, fail to articulate their criticisms or formulate sufficient arguments. Marcin Strzelecki (AMKP Kraków) attempted to address the currently highly sensitive topic of artificial intelligence. Strzelecki uses AI tools (his own “neural classifier”) to map listeners’ emotions. He does so across genres, comparing, for example, the repertoire of the Warsaw Autumn festival with some mainstream genres. He then highlighted that contemporary music evokes more polarized responses. Strzelecki presented this tool as a possible extension of music theory methods. In this form, however, it mostly represents a rather considerable and perhaps deliberately provocative departure from the traditional conception of the discipline.

Another timely, though less controversial topic, inclusion, was addressed in an inspiring manner by Cameron Storey (a student at Michigan State University). In her paper “Not With Your [Ears], With Theirs: Comparing Neurotypical and ASD Perceptions of Rhythm and Meter”, Storey used examples from musicals to highlight various ways of perceiving specific and somewhat ambiguous metrical and rhythmic patterns. She emphasized that people with autism spectrum disorders commonly prefer to evaluate these patterns as irregular, whereas neurotypical listeners tend to perceive the same patterns as regular. The closing paper was given by Maeve Sterbenz (Smith College, Massachusetts). Sterbenz explored the connection between music and dance. She suggested, rather audaciously yet convincingly, viewing choreography as an analytical tool and a way of “mapping” the musical experience, similarly to other types of visualizations of the music. She thereby built upon the phenomenological branch of music theory, as exemplified by Judy Lochhead.

The conference concluded with a deliberately interdisciplinary panel discussion led by Iva Oplištilová (head of the Music Theory Department HAMU Prague), featuring Agnieszka Draus (dean at AMKP, Kraków), composer Michal Rataj (HAMU, Prague), and musicologist Tereza Havelková (Charles University, Prague). The panel’s most resonant topics centered on the nature of contemporary music theory. A prominent point was the need to reflect on the relevance of speculative, non-applied concepts of music theory, which can sometimes seem too detached from practice. Topics related to the teaching of music theory at universities proved also to be suitable subjects for discussion. Opinions varied on how to strike a balance between technical skills and facts, and a more open-ended process aimed primarily at stimulating independent thinking, which once again underscores the diversity of the field.

Thanks to its open, broad focus, the second volume of the conference “Contemporary Music Theory: Approaches, Challenges, Limits” served as a meeting place for diverse perspectives and strategies. It enabled the participants to map out the various directions music theory is taking in Europe and the US, thereby also providing them with a certain glimpse beyond their own conception of the field. This outcome can serve as a solid foundation for future meetings, where it will be possible and perhaps beneficial to focus attention on more specific, narrowly defined issues.

About the author

LUCIA REIPRICH MALOVESKÁ is an Assistant Professor and researcher at the Department of Music Theory of the Music and Dance Faculty at the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague. Here she also defended her dissertation “The Role and Methods of Music Theory in the 21st Century” (2024) and earned her master’s degree (“Dynamic Aspects of Musical Form”, 2021). In 2018 she undertook an Erasmus internship at the University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna (mdw). Her research is focused on contemporary music theory, contemporary music, and topics of musical form and time. She was a scholarship holder at the State Institute of Music Research in Berlin in November 2023. Recently, she completed her scholarship at the Paul Sacher Stiftung in Basel, where she focused on the temporal aspects of György Ligeti’s works from the 1950s and 60s. Lucia Reiprich Maloveská is also active as a music journalist and music theory teacher at Prague Conservatory.