The Gestation of Cross-Cultural Music Research and the Birth of Ethnomusicology

Toner, P. G.

doi:10.22459/hr.xiv.01.2007.06

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An important goal of the new comparative musicology is to establish classification schemes that objectively and reliably classify non-acoustic features such as behavior and semiotic meaning (e.g., Feld 1984;Nattiez 2000), so as to permit comparative analyses of such features. This will be a crucial step toward mitigating the Eurocentric bias of earlier comparative musicology, which placed excessive emphasis on pitch-related features derived from Western classical music theory (Toner 2007).…”

Section: C) Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The intellectual and political history of comparative musicology and its modern-day successor, ethnomusicology, is too complex to review here. It has been detailed in a number of key publications-most notably by Merriam (1964Merriam ( , 1977Merriam ( , 1982 and Nettl (2005;Nettl and Bohlman 1991)-and succinctly summarized by Toner (2007). Comparative musicology flourished during the first half of the twentieth century, and was predicated on the notion that the cross-cultural analysis of musics could shed light on fundamental questions about human evolution.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward a new comparative musicology

Savage¹,

Brown²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a return to the forgotten agenda of comparative musicology, one that is updated with the paradigms of modern evolutionary theory and scientific methodology. Ever since the field of comparative musicology became redefined as ethnomusicology in the mid-20th century, its original research agenda has been all but abandoned by musicologists, not least the overarching goal of cross-cultural musical comparison. We outline here five major themes that underlie the re-establishment of comparative musicology: (1) classification, (2) cultural evolution, (3) human history, (4) universals, and (5) biological evolution. Throughout the article, we clarify key ideological, methodological and terminological objections that have been levied against musical comparison. Ultimately, we argue for an inclusive, constructive, and multidisciplinary field that analyzes the world’s musical diversity, from the broadest of generalities to the most culture-specific particulars, with the aim of synthesizing the full range of theoretical perspectives and research methodologies available.

show abstract

Section: C) Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a new comparative musicology

Savage¹,

Brown²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The discipline of comparative musicology changed its name from "comparative musicology" to "ethnomusicology" following World War II and began to emphasize ethnographic "thick description" (Geertz 1973) of individual musical cultures rather than cross-cultural scientific comparison. Although this shift involved a confluence of complex reasons, one key motivation for this change was a reaction against Eurocentric models of unilinear cultural evolution used by early comparative musicologists, particularly after seeing scientific racism used by Nazi Germany to justify its atrocities (see Nettl 2015;Nettl and Bohlman 1991;Toner 2007;Schneider 2008; Savage and Brown 2013; Savage 2019 for detailed discussion). However, Steven Brown and I have recently proposed a "new comparative musicology" (Savage and Brown 2013) in which we take advantage of new interdisciplinary theories and methods from fields such as cultural evolution and digital humanities to help return to the unanswered questions of comparative musicology.…”

Section: Comparative Musicology and Corpus Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An overview of cross-cultural music corpus studies

Savage¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The past few decades have seen a rapid increase in the availability and use of large music corpora. However, most music corpus studies remain limited to Western music, limiting our ability to understand the diversity and unity of human music throughout the world. I argue for the potential of cross-cultural corpus studies to contribute to comparative musicological studies in domains including music classification, evolution, universals, and human history. I highlight and discuss a number of important cross-cultural corpora, including the Berlin Phonogramm-Archiv, CompMusic Project, Essen Folksong Collection, Cantometrics Project, Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Natural History of Song, and Deep History of Music projects. In the process, I discuss the pros and cons of music notation vs. recordings, automatic vs. manual analysis, regional vs. global analysis, and associated challenges regarding choosing appropriate analysis methods that can allow meaningful comparison across cultures. I argue for the need for bigger and better global music corpora and more emphasis on integration within and beyond academia, including to domains such as the music industry and cultural heritage organizations.

show abstract

“…Gilman (1909) also revealed his ethnocentric view by describing the exotic musics as "rude, primitive, and nugatory" (p. 534). In addition, scholars such as Stumpf, Hornbostel, and Sachs believed in music evolution based on music universalism (Toner, 2007). If they found any music styles different from the Western style, they were viewed as incomplete, primitive, and in the process of development.…”

Section: Thesis: Music Is the Universal Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Through their research, the scholars came to realize and accept unquestionable differences existing among cultures. For example, Hornbostel's (1933) standpoint was based on music evolutionism at first, but he gradually combined the view of music evolutionism with the geographical diffusion of cultural traits (Toner, 2007). At some point, Hornbostel (1933) seemed to admit the limit of evolutionary theory by stating that "theories of evolution, however ingenious, can contribute little to the classification of cultural phenomena in chronological order" (p. 133).…”

Section: Antithesis: Music Is Not the Universal Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

The History of Multicultural Music Education and Its Prospects

Kang

2014

Update: Applications of Research in Music Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how American perspectives about world music have evolved based on the controversial discussion of “music is the universal language.” At earlier periods, scholars showed their interest in musics of other cultures from the ethnocentric standpoint. Gradually, scholars came to value the music differences of cultures, which generated the antithetical discussion of “music is not the universal language.” These past discussions contributed to the awareness of cultural differences of musics. However, we should go beyond mere awareness, until we reach the degree to which world music is actually learned and taught maintaining the sound balance of the two extreme aspects of music. Technology can promote the quality of both music class and music teacher education by offering real opportunities for engaging and exploring world musics.

show abstract

The Gestation of Cross-Cultural Music Research and the Birth of Ethnomusicology

Cited by 8 publications

References 11 publications

Toward a new comparative musicology

Toward a new comparative musicology

An overview of cross-cultural music corpus studies

The History of Multicultural Music Education and Its Prospects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About