In this chapter, Merriam begins by discussing the dual nature of Ethnomusicology; the anthropological and musicological aspects. He discusses their differences and says there are 5 main discrepancies between the two: the differences between the artist and the social scientist, methods, results, activities, and content. The most divisive point he brings up is that of the scientist and the artist and their main purposes. According to Cassidy, communication of knowledge is the primary function of the scientist, but merely a "bonus" for the artist. He goes on to say that the scientist primarily communicates knowledge while the artist primarily communicates feelings. I think this is an interesting topic of conversation because a scientist can take on the role of an artist (i.e. theoretical postulation) and an artist can take on the role of a scientist (i.e. mathematical music). Here is an example of music based on math, particularly the Fibonacci sequence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIIhC5bAX84
Merriam goes on to discuss the differences between the social sciences and the humanities. The difference between the two lies in the fact that we can derive the subject matter of the social sciences from the basic needs of the human biosocial organism, while we cannot do the same for the humanities.That being said, there are a couple things that the two share in common. Firstly, they both deal with what man does and why (despite using different approaches). Second, both consider human behavior to understand the art product. Merriam deems that ethnomusicologists are essentially "sciencing about music".
Similar to Nettl, Merriam attempts to define music by bringing up several different definitions coined by the Oxford dictionary, various anthropologists, musicologists, etc. Like Nettl, Merriam makes the point that music "cannot be defined as a phenomenon of sound alone", because of the element of human involvement and social interaction.
I think it's pretty interesting to view music through a scientific perspective as well. I do agree that communication of knowledge is more of a "bonus" for the artist because I do communicate through feeelings more as a musician myself. Though it is true that an artist can take on a form of a scientist, I've never really analyzed what I play in that sense. But for the our research project, I'm definitely willing to analyze my topic with this perspective.
ReplyDeleteArman, that was a really cool video.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting thing that I thought of while reading through this section was the classification of a music teacher (one that teaches how to play an instrument). Would the music teacher be considered a scientist because of the fact that he or she is communicating the knowledge of how to play the instrument, or is the music teacher an artist simply because he or she is a musician that communicates his or her feelings through the music?
That is a really good point. I would argue that the teacher is both but not at the same time. That it would depend on the role he/she is playing. But at the same time students can learn through a teachers performance, even when the teacher is not 'teaching'. I guess this all depends on what Merriam's definition of a scientist is because for most people being a teacher doesn't constitute being a scientist.
DeleteThat was a really interesting perspective, especially if we consider that a teacher employs (usually) distinctive methods, often including trail and error, in their lessons. I think the teacher may view him/herself more as an artist, but in the capacity of teaching, to me, it seems more a scientific endeavor. We often hear that you can't teach certain aspects of art very successfully, such as taste and musicality which have to come more from ourselves after teachers have provided us with necessary technique and knowledge. While our future musical choices are, it is safe to say, influenced at least in part by our previous teachers, they more give us the knowledge/science and we fill in the art ourselves.
DeleteI disagree with the Cassidy reference stating that "communication of knowledge is the primary function of the scientist" - as someone who has lived with and been surrounded by scientists all her life, I feel confident in saying that 'communication of knowledge' is not their primary function. If anything 'communication' is a much lower priority than the pursuit of 'knowledge.' The limitations of scientific rhetoric in conveying knowledge in a comprehensive manner to a wider public/audience seems to reduce the scientist's function as a communicator. Social scientists and physical scientists alike, they seem to have a goal that does not necessarily entail communication so much as perhaps dissemination of the knowledge/information they gather. I think discovery is more a primary function...
DeletePersonally I wouldn't say a teacher is a scientist or an artist. I would feel more comfortable saying a teacher may also be an artist and/or scientist. Why try to make the concepts overlap? They can be all three things or even just one. A teacher may not be a scientist in the sense that a [social] scientist by profession is a scientist. etc etc...
Eunah I think that is a great point about communication and scientists. I too have been around scientists most of my life and I feel that their primary focus is not that of the communication of knowledge but the pursuit. However I can somewhat see that the primary focus could be seen as communication of knowledge as the end result of their pursuit is to in a way display the knowledge they have gained. It could be through experimentation or research etc. Not only showing results visually but communicating it to other scientists, fields, or the public in papers and whatnot in hope of advancing towards their end goal/result (ex: a cure for a disease or maybe a better pharmaceutical drug).
DeleteIn terms of Cassidy's argument I believe that you can't classify the primary focus of an artist as not being that of knowledge because like the example of mathematical music above I think it is depends on the artist themselves and what message they are conveying through their work. If we listen to a musical piece that is about let's say WWII and in it expresses sounds or lyrics representative of real events occurring during that time and the artists intent is not only to express the feeling but inform the listener about real occurrences I don't think that we can leave out knowledge as a part of their primary focus.
I think bringing up the example of a teacher is a good example of Cassidy's argument being incomplete. I think that a teacher is a good example of someone that is both a scientist in Cassidy's definition, but can also be an artist whether it be in their personal life or career. I've often heard the expression "there is an art to teaching". I think that can be taken literally in that the primary focus of teaching is to communicate knowledge but a primary focus for a teacher in how they will conduct that is an art form seen through their approach and reflected in the student.
It's kind of interesting how so many things over time become more science-based. Science is indeed very important, and to me personally as a biology major/future physician, but it seems to be overwhelming other fields. When Merriam discussed the differences of social sciences and humanities to be based in science, it gave me the impression that things that don't have a scientific tinge are of somewhat lesser importance. By coming to the conclusion that ethnomusicology is a combination of social sciences and humanities, it seems to make ethnomusicology something that is more "worthy" of pursuing. And in a way, although it is unfair to rank disciplines like this, it makes sense. There is only so much funding to go around and it should be used on things valuable to mankind. By making scientific connections, it becomes more clear what is "true". Science is generalized to have a true answer (although it is often very difficult to find) that if found, is pretty hard to argue that it isn't true or relevant in some manner. There seems to be a sort of validation by finding a purpose for ethnomusicology and giving it a definition.
ReplyDeleteWhile I would agree that science does produce a "true" answer and is important to further mankind in technology. We should not dismiss humanities completely. The humanities IS culture. Art, music, history, etc.. They all play a major role in studying culture, along side with the sciences (whether social or hard sciences). Which would beg the question; why study culture at all then? Why not use that funding/time/resources for sciences. Well, because culture is what defines us socially, our; art, music, religion, history is what unites us as a community. All of these things should be understood about one another in hopes to keep open minds about each others' culture. Ignorance about another's culture breeds hate and fear, and hate and fear causes war. My point is that it is important to learn/teach both. This would enable growth in both technology and understanding.
DeleteI agree with Brent on this one. I think it is important to point out that the humanities are valuable to mankind as well. They may not have as many immediate examples of helping us out like science would with something like curing polio, but they are still valuable, especially in the long run. There appears to be a deep desire for us to try to understand who we are within some community and where we're from, and the humanities helps guide us towards this understanding. Also, as Brent mentioned, culture defines us, and by studying the humanities and understanding others' cultures, we may better interact with one another. These are obviously all valuable to mankind. Despite what some out of touch scientists may try to lead us to believe, we are not so intellectually cut and dry. Having just that cut and dry knowledge of ourselves will not get us to some better place as a whole. Another part of what makes us so complex is the emotional and cultural aspect that we need to understand as well.
DeleteThis is a very unanswerable topic for me. Music and science are connected. Music and math are even stronger connected. When learning a piece, I tried to fully analyze it with all the chords, the phrases, where the phrases go based on the chords, the climaxes of the phrases, what the range is in comparison to different place, etc. In my mind, these things would definitely be a scientist thing as discussed in this chapter. However, they are to make me be a better artist to share the music and feelings. Does this make me a scientist while learning a piece and an artist only when performing?
ReplyDeleteAs for the question if a teacher is an artist or a scientist, I think we also have to go back to the old ways of teaching music. Music lessons as we think of them are modern invention. Even just 400 years ago, an apprentice or student would watch their master (teacher) play and that would be their lesson. Looking at it this way, I think it would really depend on where the teacher's attention is and what the perspective of the audience/student is.