To get to the meat of this discussion and in order to open up further dialogue, I have decided to first flesh out what, for me, was the major part of the chapter in the way I read and understood it in order to get a better grasp at it myself as well as to see if others perceived it in a similar light ...
"Ethnomusicology aims to approximate the methods of science insofar as that is possible in a discipline which deals with human behavior and its products" (37).
In this chapter, the author basically takes the discussion we had in class last week about ethnomusicology as a critical lens through which one can listen to and study music in order to create a set of "universals" a couple steps further. He does so by establishing, what for him, are the basic founding "universals" of the field itself. These are (in paraphrase):
. ethnomusicology is a sort of scientific pursuit that produces nonscientific results.
. ethnomusicology is both a "field and a laboratory discipline" i.e. it is concerned not only with gathering and categorizing data, but with analyzing it and coming up with specified "results"
. ethnomusicology has historically leaned towards the study of primarily non-Western or nonliterate societies and cultures ...
. field "technique" in ethnomusicology differs from field "method" in that technique refers more the the "details of data gathering in the field" while field method refers to a much broader scope that encompasses the "major theoretical basis through which field technique is oriented"
He then goes on to a sort of self critique of these universals by stating the following:
"Ethnomusicology has for the most part failed to develop a knowledge and appreciation of what field method is, and has thus not applied it consistently in its studies ..."
"... there has been an artificial divorcing" of the "field" and "laboratory" disciplines of ethnomusicology ... a lean towards "armchair analysis" that has prevented many studies from achieving "its most fruitful results" that must "inevitably derive from the fusion of both kinds of analysis ..."
For him, "the single most difficult problem" in ethnomusicology is "whether the aim of our studies is to record and analyze music, or whether it is to understand music in the context of human behavior."
From what I understand, the author is basically taking on the two extremes of ethnomusicological practice and suggesting some sort of happy medium? But then again, at the same time he suggests that there is a self-separating dichotomy between the two approaches and understandings of ethnomusicological study. For the most part, however, what I am getting from this reading is that the field itself is still undefined and that ethnomusicologists as a whole are still not yet quite united under an umbrella of field "method." He suggests that there is a divide within the "culture" of ethnomusicology that needs to be resolved. In order for ethnomusicology to better "approximate the methods of science" it needs a universalized approach - a mode of listening and documentation that supercedes individualized and specific "personal" approaches and decisions.
I would not necessarily agree with your last sentence that mentions the need for a universalized approach in ethnomusicology. Attempting to apply a single, universal approach to every subject in ethnomusicology will surely result in some sort of skewed result. While ethnomusicology "aims to approximate the methods of science," it is dealing with a completely different beast. In most scientific studies, the scientific method can be used for the subject/topic/issue/phenomenon/etc. being studied. In ethnomusicology, the scientific method will not always work. It would be difficult to identify a control and an experimental trial, for example. Ethnomusicology not only deals with music, but also the people connected with the music, the history of the people connected with the music, the context, and several other factors--factors that cannot always be labeled in a universal manner. Applying a universal approach to this area of study will ultimately result in an incomplete or skewed conclusion to any particular topic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eric in that a universalized approach to ethnomusicology may not be necessary/desirable. While I agree with the first part of 'sayasaurus's [what is the real name..?] that a universalized approach may 'approximate the methods of science' you may find that in science, the universalized approach is often not the best one. Actually nowadays people in the sciences are constantly seeking new methods because there are too/so many limitations to the methods accepted today. While they may still be in their early stages and prone to mistakes and false results, there is an adaptive quality to these newer 'scientific methods' that may be the answer to what ethnomusicology may need. Even if things aren't completely standardized, there should be an element of human researcher relating to the music, and once that is achieved, a means of communicating that relationship & understanding can be devised (as opposed to following a strict standard method without any real stake or attachment to the music being researched -- the element of risk involved in the newer scientific methods seems to really help scientists commit to their work). Merriam seems so focused on the relationship between science, the scientific method, music, musicians, and ethnomusicologists - but to me they still seem disparate fields/professions (music & science). While there is clear overlap in some aspects, the attempt to merge the two [sort of like the language/music discussion we had 2 seminars ago] seems more complicated than we are willing to admit & just another cognate we're trying to form. Or I'm just getting overwhelmed...
DeleteI agree with your last statement, Eunah, in how music and science can be two separate fields; however, I do know that there has been some success in merging the two in certain areas. An example of this would be found in the study of psychoacoustics, the way in which the brain perceives and interacts with sounds and to a detailed extent, music. This isprimarily a psychological and cognitive science field where scientific methods and modes of research can be applied to achieve data. Granted, certain qualities of music are very subjective and can result in skewed results or incomprehensive data. My point though, was stating that it is possible to meld both of these disciplines together and the field exists and has generated research results.
DeleteI agree with your assessment of this chapter leading us to believe that the entire discipline of ethnomusicology is as of yet in disagreement as to a united method of study, but ethnomusicology itself encompasses such a vast realm of subjects--just look at how varied our chosen subjects are! that I am inclined to agree with Eric in that a universal approach is both impractical, and undesirable. Field research is stressed as of the utmost importance for ethnomusicological study, and while there is an effort to apply method and ethics to this research, the situations that researchers find themselves in are bound to vary as much as their chosen areas of study and so adaptability is necessary. It would be nice if tidy studies could be done, and clean conclusions drawn, but neither the subject, nor the subjects are so easily categorized. We have discussed in seminar the inherent biases associated with performers knowing they have an audience with certain expectations, and we have read from Nettl about how different ethnomusicologists weight various areas as of greater or lesser importance within their studies, so it seems that a variety of approaches utilized together, by ethnomusicologists working in collaboration, would be most fruitful, but this doesn't seem particularly cost effective.
ReplyDeleteI also think ethnomusicology should be approached with a broader perspective and look at multiple aspects. However, I do see how it is easier if people actually came up with one. For me trying to grasp the concept is already kind of confusing. As I write my blog, I still am slightly puzzled by how to write it. So I think it would be helpful to have guidance or a 'method'. I know that makes it sound limiting, but the scientific method is not limiting at all. Can't you still perform a huge range of experiments so long as you have a hypothesis, thesis, data, etc.. (I don't know the scientific method) Of course I don't know what method we should use for ethnomusicology, but I feel that if we do find one, it would definitely help define the practice better
ReplyDeleteI think part of the reason why the field of ethnomusicography is so split and undefined is because of this lack of a universal approach. However, I believe that this is a necessary burden. A field with such diverse subjects should not be limited to a single approach for reasons many others have already mentioned here. Taking a universal approach for the sake of making things easier is tempting but that should not be the decisive factor. It should taken if it is flexible (as to account for its numerous subjects), effective, and useful. However, as mentioned from previous responses, a universal approach here would seem to work to the contrary.
DeleteI essentially reached the same conclusion you did and it left me confused. I mentioned this for my response to ch 1 because he has conflicting ideas. On page 38 he describes that "ethnomusicology aims to approximate the methods of science". I took this to mean the Scientific Method, which he kind of goes on to describe. This is his first assumption. Then in his fifth assumption on page 39, he describes that a problem is not understanding field method and that it is too general. If he is comparing enthomusicological field method to that of the scientific method then there is no way that it can't be understood, he even describes formulating a hypothesis and gathering data to form conclusions. He also states that people taking different approaches is an issue, but if different people are studying different types of music and are looking for different types of information then wouldn't their netiquettes also be different? So I wouldn't necessarily view this as a problem in the field. Maybe I am reading this completely wrong so any clarification would be helpful.
ReplyDeleteAlso he states that the goals of ethnomusicology have been to either record and analyze music, or understand music in the context of human behavior, but based on ch 11 which deals with the functions of music IN people's lives it seems that goal has been the latter one.
Delete