Talk:Ethnomusicology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm very unsure about the last paragraph which somebody just added. I mean, man isn't the only creature to have music - what about birdsong, or various apes drumming on bits of wood? And I'm not sure how the whole thing relates to ethnomusicology at all, really. Don't have time to look at it properly now (though I suspect I'll end up just taking it out), but I'l return later. All comments welcome, of course, especially from whoever added that part. --Camembert

Hi Camembert, I wrote this article. Maybe the last paragraph is just in the wrong context here, but it would be very kind of you if you wouldn´t take it out but instead put it somewhere where it fits better.

Hmm, I'd like to put it somewhere better, but as I suggested above, I'm not sure it's really correct. For instance:

In the evolution of mankind music developped as a means of communicating feelings to fellow humans.

This is rather speculative - we don't really know why or how music developed.

By having the need for music, humans distinguish themselves from gorillas or chimpanzees.

This is probably demonstrably false: various apes do use music, in the form of drum signals. Sorry, but I'm going to move the last paragraph to the talk page here. --Camembert

In the evolution of mankind music developped as a means of communicating feelings to fellow humans. Thus our ancestors were forced to live in groups and not alone or in couples. By having the need for music, humans distinguish themselves from gorillas or chimpanzees. In the modern world , with the invention of walkmen or the like, music is in part freed from its social purpose.

---

I'm removing/rewriting this:

It is often thought of as a study of non-Western musics, but may include the study of Western music from an etic perspective.

First off, "etic" is a jargony word - I don't know it, and I doubt many other people will. We should use simpler terms if we can, and I think we can. Second, I'm not convinced the word is appropriate anyway. [1] says that "etic" means:

Of or relating to features or items analyzed without considering their role as a structural unit in a system, as in behavioral science or linguistics.

I don't think ethnomusicology could be described in that way, since many ethnomusicological studies do go into the social role of music. As far as I can tell, "etic" is exactly what most ethnomusiciology isn't. --Camembert

First of all: ETIC means OUTSIDER in terms of cultural perspective. The opposite is EMIC that means INSIDER. Secondly: I have many problems with the entry regarding the scope, method & meaning of Ethnomusicology, most obviously problematic is the sentence about the study of "oral traditions". This might have been the case until the 1970's but, because of its colonial weight contained within, this is no longer the case. Where until recently (thanks to Nettl) etic study was applauded; the recognition of EMIC studies has finally come to the fore. Thus we find the majority of ethnomusicologists now work within an urban context. Personally I work within Jazz and Electronica.

John Baily (who studied under John Blacking) wrote (1994) that it is "the study of any sonic (or movement) structure and the culture that surrounds it". This is still the closest I can get to the scope & nature of Ethnomusicology.

Thus: is there any chance ofchanging this entry to the contemporary meaning of the word?

Of course: go to the article and click "Edit this page" - be bold in updating pages! Consider, however, that if you use terms like "etic" without any explanation, they are not likely to be understood - the Wikipedia isn't a specialist publication, and if you don't clearly explain terms such as that, it's just going to cause confusion. I've done a bit of reading up since my previous comments, and I think I understand more now - I'd put a little about the etic/emic distinction in the article myself, but I'm sure you're in a better position to do so. --Camembert

[edit] Minor edit

"People who have done well known ethnomusicological work have sometimes been previously trained as anthropologists studying many other aspects of a society as well as their music. "

I changed this a little bit to make it more fluid. Nothing drastic; just caught my eye. I'd like to contribute a lot more to this article when I have more time.

Also, the link to the young ethnomusicologist is broken. Should it be removed?--JEMathews 21:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible expansions

I'd be very interested in expansions on this topic, but don't yet know enough about it to write with much authority. Two things come to mind:

• what sort of quantitative and/or objective systems have been devised for looking at differences between cultures in musical expression? The only instance I can find is Alan Lomax's cantometrics approach, which doesn't seem to be well-regarded among ethnomusicologists as far as I can tell.
• the article as it stands suggests that most ethnomusicology is practiced as a subdiscipline of cultural anthropology. Are there any field researchers who have applied principles of evolutionary anthropology to the same topics? The only work I can find on this is in "the origins of music" (eds. Wallin, Merker, & Brown) and doesn't have a lot of anthropological data to back it up.

Delmonte 22:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)