I went to town!
The first thing you notice when you go through the earliest issues of Ethnomusicology is how it seemed to function as a networking journal as opposed to a place where people published their findings. It's historical roots as an offshoot of musicology and its relative novelty are really highlighted by the first few issues. There is a clear intent to really try and flesh out the discipline
The earliest issues are dominated by studies of decidedly "exotic" cultures. Throughout many of the earlier articles, I got the distinct impression that these ethnomusicologists perceived the people they were studying as "primitive." They also read very scientifically, with very little usage of the first person and almost no personal narrative. The scientific approach to ethnomusicology and the purposeful placement of distance between them and their subjects was probably intentional, almost in the same way scientists avoid "contaminating" their samples.
They earlier articles tend to focus more heavily on notation, recording, and form. In "A Transcription Technique Used by Zygmunt Estreicher," Roxanne McCollester talks in very precise detail about how to transcribe a melody. "The transcription process should now proceed by listening again to the music at half speed...to pick up as many as possible of the 'microrhythmic' relations..." It seems that early ethnomusicology was very involved with finding new ways to fit (more like force in) and bend non-Western music systems into the Western tonal system.
The articles we've read and the articles posted in 2000 and beyond tend to focus more on music and its cultural context. The earlier articles seem to treat music as a product of the society, to be taken back to the laboratory and examined like a physical object. The earlier articles also seem to be more like research papers than what we would consider an "ethnography." We talk about how the ultimate goal of fieldwork is an ethnography, but that doesn't seem to be the goal of these ethnomusicologists. Perhaps our modern conception of "ethnography" is drastically different? Or maybe they were trying to do something else completely!
I think as a modern student, it's great to look back at some of these articles and see how attitudes have changed in society as a whole. In a 1961 article by Ed Cray entitled "An Acculturative Continuum for Negro Folk Song in the United States," the tone and language strongly suggest that the author thinks of music produced by African Americans should be considered in a context completely separate from the music of "mainstream America." I think this is an interesting snapshot of how people perceived the "otherness" of African Americans in the period before the civil rights movement went into full swing. Also, I think any modern listener of American music would agree that it is impossible to separate it from its African American influences. "R and B records are being replaced by rock and roll, essentially a white musical style." lol.
1 comment:
Many nice observations here. I appreciate your discussion of so-called lab work and transcription practices. These methods were certainly central concerns in earlier comparative musicology. As you observed, these lingered into the new "ethno" period too. CM certainly valued the work that could be done on and with music itself once it was objectified, usually first as a recording and then as transcription. Certainly, for some current ethnomusicologists, transcription remains an important tool. Usually, though, today's scholars employ it after having completed intensive fieldwork and having attained some insight into the musical concepts of the culture being studied. Transcription comes later, and is targeted toward specific cultural questions.
Bradley
Post a Comment