With the Pegg reading, which was mostly a background of the developments of ethnomusicology in the Western world, I couldn't find much in the way of opinions or material I could easily engage. However, in looking for something I felt I could engage and write about, in the conclusion of Pegg's introduction to the article I noticed that he stated that Ethnomusicology, "...never fitted happily into the modernist dichotomization between ‘us’ and ‘them'...". I don't agree with that point.
As is stated throughout the article there were many methodologies and theories that were disproven and many of them seem to create the dichotomy of an 'us' and 'them'. For example comparative musicology would seem to encourage the idea of the 'other'. That being said, as time goes on the ideas of 'us' and 'them' are shown to be false and born out of ideas that are built on ethnocentric presumptions, but nonetheless it is all too easy to fall into this trap of ethnocentrism when studying music.
While Pegg might say that Ethnomusicology does not fit into such a dichotomy I believe it can be very easy to create one, sometimes even subconsciously, and if one does not question the common ideas that are gained through their society it is almost impossible NOT to create this problematic dichotomy.
I'm wondering if the dichotomization of 'us' and 'them' is referring to the 'us' of ethnomusicology & 'them' of different study practices (i.e. musicology, anthropology, etc), rather than the dichotomies which (I agree with you) seem inevitable within ethnomusicology (whether we mean to or not) when comparing different musics.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who loves objectivity I found this introduction disheartening somewhat in finding that ethnomusicology is so ambiguous and without a single definition..but I can also appreciate the freedom that this ambiguity can allow, especially in terms of my project!
After rereading the Pegg reading and after seeing your comment, I have to totally agree with your interpretation of the dichotomy being a reference to the different study practices and the interdisciplinary nature of ethnomusicology. Which is one of the reasons I am interested in ethnomusicology, not just the ability to use other disciplines, but even the necessity to use them so as to better understand the subject we are attempting to study.
DeleteIt seems that music is a very hard subject in which to be objective. In describing ethnomusicology, it seemed that Pegg was trying to say that this subjectivity lessened as time went by, and its inclusivity increased, but there is still so much that is left up to interpretation that, even with the same prior education, it seems that two people could draw different conclusions. Just like in acquiring subsequent languages, new musical styles will first be learned based on your native tongue until fluency is achieved, and I don't really see any other way to approach musical study. People outside of the style can't be objective because they are comparing it to their own style, and people native to the style must also be assumed to have some level of preferential bias based on it being in their heritage.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eunah's interpretation of the dichotomy as referring to the different fields of study. It seems Pegg is saying ethnomusicology is so interdisciplinary that it is neither "us" nor "them". However, I think in today's world, many of these separate disciplines are interwoven to be as comprehensive as possible. Anthropology, ethnomusicology, etc. incorporates biological and scientific techniques and ideas to truly study whatever is of interest. On the other hand, the scientific world also considers cultural and geographical beliefs to come to conclusions that are accurate and valuable. In a way, nothing is distinctly isolated, and ethnomusicology is no exception.
ReplyDelete