SEM History Post: Understanding Origins

After reading the first newsletter from December 1953, it is evident that the principles of comparative musicology were still present and that many of the reports of research involve the recording of several forms of music from around the world. In somewhat of an archivist mindset, the main thrust of the journal seems to be a mere collection of reports for reference. After examining later reports, however, much more emphasis seems to be placed on ethnomusicological training and research methods, in addition to more detailed and thoughtful field reports.

Focusing in on the second newsletter, the purpose of the journal begins to take shape as “the present mailing was to go to 364 persons and institutions--227 in the United States and 137 in other countries.” What is striking to me the the subtle disconnect in the mailings. What does it say when a distinction must be made between the mailings staying within the United States and those going to other countries? From the vantage-point of a young periodical designed to provide a written forum for “the exchange of ideas and opinions, news and information among the widely scattered members of our field of study,” it is hard to say anything, but that the initial core of this effort is fairly localized. It is in this same newsletter however, that ideas from Detroit and Arizona all the way to Belgium and Spain have made their way to the forefront. I can only speculate about the written language of the first few entries as being French and the reports conveying novel ethnomusicological progress being made around the world, but who is to say that actual progress is being made? At the time, ethnomusicology was too new.

For example, Jaap Kunst writes from Holland confirming that “only a very few persons are working in this field and that the financial position of the Institute seems to be such that it cannot afford more expenses for its ethno-musicological section than a single salary and the money for a few small publications” (Vol.1, No.2). In the midst of an apparent transitional phase, Jaap Kunst has had to take on a jack-of-all-trades role in an attempt to foster the growth of a budding discipline.

The emergence of the journal Ethnomusicology may have been a direct result of the skepticism surrounding the lack of progress within comparative musicology as F.A. Kuttner writes, “I have come to believe that the whole system of comparative methods is obsolete and inadequate, and that something else and much better will have to replace it if we are going to expect any significant progress in the future” (Vol.1, No.2)

One hypothesis, I believe, can be universally applied to explain the driving force behind this new discipline called ethnomusicology. Dr. Merriam, after examining several ethnomusicological papers at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, theorized, “when two human groups which are in sustained contact have a number of characteristics in common in a particular aspect of culture, exchange of ideas therein will be much more frequent than if the characteristics of those aspects differ markedly from one another” (Vol.1, No.2). By actively participating in the music-culture of study, one can then open the floodgates for the knowledge of cultural ideas to flow between the informant and the ethnomusicologist. That is to say participant-observation was a step up from mere recordings in the field, and another progressional aspect of ethnomusicology.

In comparing the subsequent newsletter, it is apparent that this journal is beginning to catch on as the number of mailings immediately increased from 364 persons to 437 persons in the span of one mailing. By the time the first annual meeting was scheduled in 1956, the society had already picked up steam and was looking to make an impact.

After skimming a later issue from 1957, it is apparent that ethnomusicology is not trying to mar the footprint of comparative musicology entirely, especially when Mieczyslaw Kolinski mentions that “the tendency of Western ethnomusicology to deal with the musical styles of the world’s peoples without including those of the European countries as an essential facet of the overall picture is not justified, though historically understandable” (Vol. 1, No. 10). This realization was a big step in the advancement of ethnomusicology because it shows that ethnomusicologists were not only willing to break away from comparative musicology, but they were willing and able to understand its origins and learn from them. I believe that this very notion is a resounding theme that keeps ethnomusicology progressing forward as a “multimusicultural” discipline.