Apples and Oranges:

Comparative Study

A State of Conflict

We've devoted five chapters now to defining and laying the defined ethnomusicology and music, examined the concepts of. . music, and looked at the world of music in terms of its unity and Its ~Iver­sity-and are now ready to look at some of the things that ethnomusicolo­gists-as ethnomusicologists-actually do. In ~h~pter 1, the first clause the definition of ethnomusicology stated that It IS the study of any ""''"'Y·.· ....

from a comparative perspective, which sees each music as part of a

of musics. Attitudes about the usefulness, efficacy, and even ethics of \-VJcuv=

study have changed. In 1953 I tried to present a panorama of Native can musical styles vvith a few examples for a class of students. There was dearth of readily available records, but I tried to compare those that I ~ad surprised the students with the interesting variety of styles, s~owmg sharply descending contours characterized the so~gs of the Pla~ns Pe4JP1.e~, .....• the use of the "rise" (an ascending phrase in the m1ddle) was typical of some Yuman-speaking people's songs of the Southwest, and antiphonal songs of peoples of the Southeast. Although they had at most h~ard some songs of the Plains peoples, they took this exercise at face value:as 1t was clear to ~em that its purpose was simply to exhibit the variety, which stru~k them as llll-

portant and which could only be illustrated through companson. ' · h 1 f re Twenty-five years later I tried the same thmg, for anot er c ass o mo

knowledgeable and sophisticated students who had heard much more

COMPARATIVE STUDY 61

,u 11._u~~· music. \Vith a different attitude, they questioned the purposes of the wanted to know what valid conclusions one would draw from

;~ ·wheU1er we were looking for differences or for similarities, had adequate ~mlll-''-"'nv' were talking about the same historical period. They criticized the

upon which comparison was made and wondered whether a com-. ···-~,.nrP examination of thirty examples was at all a good way to provide an

to this music. They were suspicious of making comparisons of they claimed were "apples and oranges." Then, twenty-five years fur­

on, a half-century after my first attempt, the students had become more "~~.;.,.~;~,-of comparison again, and they were interested, too, in how the var­

Native American musics related to those of Central Asia, South Amer­Native Australia.

experience suggests agreementvvithAlan Merriam's (1977a) article out­• u.•u'-•o the history of definitions of the field, which argues that there has been

trend from the concept of ethnomusicology as an essentially com­.;. .. •· •. ,,.,,.,,tnJP field to an attitude in which comparative study is criticized, avoided,

nristv,onecL Beginning with Guido Adler (1885: 14), who in the first outline subdivisions of musicology stated that the purpose of this branch was

? t<fC<lmpmre in order to provide groupings and classifications of the world's c;1nusic, Merriam goes on to cite Hood (1963: 233, and in Apel1969: 299) to

'>".J'itn:eeffect that comparisons are premature until satisfactorily accurate de­' scriot1.1 Jns of musical systems are available, also quoting Meyer (1960: 49-50)

Blacking (1966: 218 ), who believed that comparison may result in the im­" •. >c. • .. interpretation of similarities and differences. Most recently, there's a

between scholars who show a greater interest in comparative work ···· ··'"'"'others who find it useless. Thus, we're frequently faced (on Internet dis­

Jk.;·.· '-U·'"'L'lJ groups, for example) with students asking whether this or that kind or behavior, found in one culture, is also known elsewhere, and at time, we have to note that the vast majority of recent ethnomusi­

·.c<'-U!UI!.jtcat publications are in no way interculturally comparative studies. ethnomusicology is in principle a comparative field or not, there is that the nature and the role of comparison have all along been cen-

issues. They will arise many times in these essays, in specific contexts, and here only to address the question in general.

Of course the concept of comparison is problematic. To note that two · are in one way alike does not mean that they are otherwise similar,

from the same source, or have the same meaning. There are some re­in which no two creations of humankind can really be compared. On

other hand, I would maintain that even apples and oranges can very well

be compared; they turn out to be alike in being fruit, round, and about the same size but different in color, taste, and texture. The fact that, to itself,an apple may not feel the least bit like an orange and doesn't know how it is to feel like an orange may be irrelevant for certain considerations, though cru­cial for others. The question is whether we can find systematic, elegant, and reliable ways to carry out the comparison, and whether, having done so, we find that it has been worth the effort. Actually, there is litde discussion in the literature of ethnomusicology about comparative method. Many of the stud"' ies that use comparison do so by implication rather than explicidy, and the conclusions based on comparative work have their great limitations.

The usefulness and social and intellectual acceptability of comparative study hinges on several questions. Is the purpose of comparison to provide a convenient way of systematically setting forth a mass of diverse data, or to reconstruct history, to make possible interpretations about the nature of SO'­

ciety and music, to show broad correlations of one sort or another, to illu­minate social inequalities, or to make aesthetic judgments? Let's first look at the rather convoluted history of comparison in ethnomusicology. Described in Wiora's small but definitive book (1975) and more recendy by A. Seeger (in Nettl and Bohlman 1991 and in Myers 1992), this history includes distin­guished studies carefully executed, with criteria, method, and purpose laid out. At the same time, there are unsupportable random comparisons made for capricious reasons or with an ideological agenda, such as relating Tibet to Portugal, but these make even t..he most devoted comparative musi­cologists cringe. While the concept of comparison appears basic to the early development of the field, it is also true that ethnomusicologists have not often set out systematically to make comparisons. Adler, in his classic article (1885), presumably felt that the immediate need was to classify the musics of the world in an ethnographic, that is, descriptive manner, in order to see what the universe of music contained, something best done through a series of com­pansons.

To a certain extent the early period of ethnomusicology, through fue early twentieth century, is marked by a general if not systematically controlled com­parative approach, let's call it a comparative flavor, in contrast to earlier pub­lications on non-Western music, such as those of Amiot (1779), Kiesewetter (1842), and Villoteau (1809), which approach their subjects with particular­ist zeal. Beginning at the turn of the twentieth century, E. M. von Hornbostel did not engage very much in comparison as such, but nevertheless provided a series of studies covering many parts of the world all based on a single an­alytical model, suggesting that comparative study was the ultimate purpose

H> ·w"''-H these descriptions would be put. His career, encompassing studies the music of five continents, is itself an exercise in comparative method.

scholars coming out of Hornbostel's circle also sustained an interest in study (see also Bingham 1914). There are, for example, the com­

n>u•"'~" of Pima and Pueblo musics in George Herzog's dissertation ( 1936a ), ofYurok and Papago music in Schinhan's thesis (1937), and Helen Rob­

comparison of the styles and instruments in North American Indian areas (1936).And comparison saturates the many works of Curt Sachs

1953, 1962). the comparative approach of the early ethnomusicologists goes hand in

with that of anthropologists of the same period. Around 1900 the pur-of anthropologists' comparisons appears to have been primarily that of

recons,tr11ctio11, and the notion of a comparative method, though hardly ever d~fin~d: ~~;_s deep in the literature. In an important statement of

history of comparative anthropological study, Oscar Lewis ( 1956: 260) very simply said: "Most anthropological writings contain comparisons," something orie could equally maintain for ethnomusicological writings. But the broad comparisons and generalizations of early ethnomusicology, based inevitably on a small sample of evidence, may have made later scholars hesitant to pur­sue comparative method. A period of specialization followed. Spurred by greater opportunities for extended and efficient field research, the typical ethnomusicologist became more involved in one culture. Lengthier exposure instilled a respect for the intrinsic value of non-Western musics, particularly those of the Asian civilizations, which would only be satisfied by lifetime de­votion to one culture, and this kind of study showed that the musics of the world are indeed in certain respects not comparable. While one can compare those elements of a music that are basically alike, each music also has elements so distinct as to make comparison a matter of methodological and conceptual difficulty. The comparative techniques that had been established by Hornbostel and his school-counting tones and intervals in scales, providing typologies of rhythmic units, and so forth-went only so far. It became dear that we must also study each music in terms of the theoretical system that its own culture provides for it, whether an explicidy articulated, written system or one that must be derived from interview and a1·1alysis; and that one must study musi­cal behavior in terms of the underlying value structure of the culture from which it comes. Thus the period after 1940 showed a marked decline in con­cern for comparative work in ethnomusicology. But some forty years later it,\ began again to rear its head, and about 2000, it is dearly here again, fuough without an explicit methodology, and usually without being named.

THE MUSICS OF THE WORLD

Anthropology, which had in many cases served as a model for ethnomusi­cology and preceded it in approach and method by a decade or two, experi­enced a similar fate. A discipline that in the nineteenth and early twentieth cen­turies thrived on comparison, particularly for the purpose of theoretically determining historical processes, it began to move in the direction of special­ized ethnography early in the 1900s. But by the middle 1950s, and later even more, it again began to stress a comparative approach, as shown by the renewed emphasis on comparative study in some of the recent summaries of the field (e.g., Andre Beteille in Ingold 1994: 1010-39; Keesing 1976; Naroll and Cohen 1973) and the development of a specialized literature on ( Sarana 1975) and crit­icism of comparative method. On the other hand, some the major theoreti­cal works of the period after 1980, taking it for granted that one looks at the world broadly by comparing the various phenomena one observes (see, e.g., Geertz 2ooo: 251), don't go further to suggest a general methodology.

Kinds of Comparative Study

Anthropology can provide various broad kinds of classification for types of comparative study. Let's look at one published about the time et..lmomusi­cologists began to turn away from comparison. In his bibliographical and analytical study of comparative research, Oscar Lewis (1956) surveyed 248 publications relevant (almost entirely of American and British origin) from between 1950 and 1954. Of these, 28 deal vv'i.th the theory and methodology of comparison. Lewis did not try to guess the proportion of the comparative studies in the total anthropological corpus of his five-year period. But it is reasonable to assume that these 248 publications occupy a fairly substantial slice of the whole, and that some of the 28 theoretical and methodological pieces are among the important works of theory of the period.

Lewis classifies the studies further, finding six dominant aims: (1) estab­lishing general laws or regularities, (2) documenting the range of variation of a phenomenon or (3) distribution of a trait, (4) reconstructing culture history, and (5) testing hypotheses derived from Western and ( 6) from non­Western societies. Furthermore, 34 studies involved global or random com­parisons; 33, comparisons between continents and nations; 31, comparisons within one continent; 31, within one nation; 70, within one culture area; and 34, within one group or culture. Considerably more than half involved the \Vestern hemisphere.

How did comparison fare in a similar period in the history of ethnomusi-

co logy? The prominence of the journal Ethnomusicology within its field pos­sibly makes it a reliable sample for following Lewis's approach. A survey of vol­umes 2-17 (1958-73) reveals a total of approximately 270 articles. \Vhile it is difficult for us (as it must have been for Lewis) to segregate the "compara­tive" studies, it seems that only 43 of the articles are clearly (though not i..TJ. all

even primarily) addressed to the question of comparison of repertories of segments of repertories, or of cultures. Of these, 13 articles are primarily

hec)relJ.CaJ.Nineteen contain comparisons vv:ithin one culture area, and n are some sense historical, comparing repertories from different periods or of

-'1:+-J-.,,.,,nt areas (such as African and African American) with the purpose of historical insight. All of this is perhaps curious in a discipline that

greatly influenced by anthropology with its comparative orientation, lll~'""~'""''" that long called itself" comparative musicology," and particularly

within anthropology that lends itself, perhaps better than many oth­to statistical examination of components and to quanti_fication (Freeman Merriam 1956: 465). Given the resurgence of comparison in American

education, as demonstrated in the increase in topical courses and sem,-that deal with a variety of cultures, it may be surprising that the editor

Jjft.rnomt<su:ou:wv from 1998 to 2002 reported (ElVf 46/2, frontmatter) that articles submitted during the period, only 9 could be classed as princi­

comparative. (1975: 19-25) also tried to classify-comparative studies through the

(to ca. 1972) of ethnomusicol.OiY, dividing them into eight "centers u.uc\..Llul.l" • (1) the holistically comparative Berlin school of Hornbostel

(2) the somewhat more biologically oriented Vienna school of and W. Graf, (3) European folk music scholarship, (4) comparative

of Jewish and Christian liturgies, (5) scholarship involving compar­of closely neighboring areas, ( 6) American research concentrating on

•u·"'"''·'-a' areas, (7) comparative study of European classical and folk music, (8) comparative study of national styles of art music in Europe.

"""'Lcau of adopting a single agreed-upon comparative method, as for a did linguists and anthropologists, ethnomusicologists engaged, for most

twentieth century, in a variety of comparative studies. A number of .. ,,~'"'-'" for comparison of musical styles, repertories, and individual pieces

-~«~cn<->uvu., with varying degrees of success. Hornbostel, in following a method of stylistic description in many of his studies, provided a tern­

for comparison. The analytical systems of Kolinski (e.g., 1956,1959,1961, 1965b) tried to provide frameworks for the comparison of repertories

1a<xorchm<:ewith individual elements of music such as scale, melodic move-

00 THE MUSICS OF THE WORLD

ment, rhythm, and tempo. Bartok's approach to analysis of Eastern European folk song (e.g., 1931,1935, 1959) provides guidelines for comparison as well and so does the method for comparing English folk tunes developed byBai yard (e.g., 1950, 1954) and Bronson (1959, 1959-72) and further developed by Cowdery (1990). The voluminous work dealing with classification offolk: songs in one repertory, beginning early in the century (Koller 1902-3; Krohn 1902-3-see also chapter 9 here) and continuing through several decades (e.g., Bayard 1942; Elschekova 1966; Herzog 1950; Hustvedt 1936), and the compar­ative work in the field of African American music studies-as indicated in the publications ofHerskovits (1945), R. Waterman (1952), Merriam (1955b), and Jackson (1943)-are also significant here. But these kinds of methodologies seem to have run their course, as the last important attempt in this direction was the system of cantometrics developed by Alan Lomax (1968, 1976; dis­cussed further in chapters 8 and 24).

The Opposition

Ethnomusicologists seem not to have become very much involved in the epis~ temology of comparison and rarely ask whether it is possible to deal intep culturally with music without, in some sense, systematically carrying out comparative study. Yet the importance of the question is suggested by the ubiquitous discussion of the identity of the field, with the presence or absence of comparative components as a major criterion. Some assert that ethno­musicology comprises the study of music or musical culture outside the in­vestigator's own purview. The identity of investigators vis-a-vis their subject matter is here a major factor, and the fact that it should be accorded such significance is epistemologically significant. In several publications, Mantle Hood (1963: 233-341971: 349) maintained that comparison is not a primary goal of the field and cannot, at the present time or perhaps for a long time in the future, be carried out properly. Even so, he states that the American (or European) ethnomusicologist, "because of who he is, is capable of insights and evaluations which no Javanese, even with training ... in Western meth­ods, could ever duplicate" (374). While this statement shows Hood to be perc haps of hvo minds, the view of ethnomusicology as essentially comparative is questioned by many non-European scholars who concentrate on their own musical traditions, feeling that only the "insider" is truly qualified for schol­arship and, by implication, that comparison is not truly possible.

The many criticisms of comparative work revolve around the difficulty of

COMPARATIVE STUDY

;..muau"'n cultures of which one has varying kinds and degrees of under­personal contact, data; and the problem of knowing any culture or sufficient depth and breadth to carry out meaningful comparison.

is fear of unwarranted conclusions. There is the allegation that the pur­comparison is to make value judgments, detrimental to some whose

is being compared. One is in awe of the complexity of musical sys­... ,·.·'-'-'--h itself can make them inherently incomparable. There is suspi­

W L>'-'u·~•

quantitative techniques inevitably used in comparative study, and that in a field devoted to this kind of work, data gathering will be

in favor of materials that lend themselves to comparison. But let's a few of these objections a bit more.

musics indeed comparable? In a widely cited discussion, John Black­(1978: 75-76) suggested that superficial similarities may not be worth not-1b find the same intervals in the scales of hvo cultures, he contends, may no inter,est at all if these intervals have different meanings in the twu sys-

and good, if one is also concerned at the moment about meanings. an~aer1t sounds weaker when Blacking gives its opposite number: "Sta­

analyses may show that the music of hvo cultures is very different but ... may reveal that they have essentially the same meaning, which translated into the different 'languages' of the hvo cultures" (1966:

.The latter finding would seem to be highly significant and interesting, h'''" h'""Would one ever come up vvith it if one had not made the compari­

the first place? VVhat Blacking is objecting to is the drawing of unwar­conclusions, and he seems to have in mind certain studies that go no than making statistical comparisons. No one can take exception to

critique, but the prescription would seem to be not avoidance of com­study but more and better comparative study.

Western traditional harmony has become a major component of the mod­iii!'''eJ:ni:i~dsector of traditional music in twentieth-century sub-Saharan Africa

the Middle East. A comparison yields the broad conclusion that Afri­do better with it, that is, conform more closely to European practices.

''·'·' -·v"''"'can assign a broad meaning to the use of harmony in the hvo cultures, grossly speaking, the same: a major musical symbol of modernization. fact that the Africans use it differently and, from European perspective,

• , .... ~4• · " than Middle Easterners may tell us something about the relative of the hvo sets of systems. Considering the longstanding use

.~., v<•w• harmonic systems in parts of Africa, it may also show something the effect of one harmonic system on the adoption of another and also the role of somewhat successful (in Africa) versus less successful (in

68 THE MUSICS OF THE WORLD

the Middle East) Christia...11 missionary efforts, as well as many other things (seeR. Waterman 1948, 1952).

The question of comparability of entire musics-and, for that matter, of components of musics such as tune variants-is closely related to the po~ litical and social relationships betvveen field investigators and consultants, between Western scholars and those of developing nations. The growing skepticism of comparison goes hand in hand with a viewpoint characteris~ tic of some scholars from the latter areas, its basis the deep conviction that a musical system can be properly understood only by its own people. It's not the simple act of making comparison that is itself unacceptable. Rather, one objects to the way in which it has been, or L~reatens to be, carried out. Thus; for example, non-European scholars may have a point in saying that if eth­nomusicology is the study of music outside one's culture, it can hardly be taken seriously, for this definition seems like an excuse for superficiality. And it is undignified for anyone to study a musical system if the purpose is· only to compare it to others.

On Lhe issue of dignity: Is looking for differences or similarities a politi­cal gesture? In simply making a comparison, ethnomusicologists would ap­pear to be neutral, though they have been criticized-particularly in Africal1-ist studies-to have emphasized homogeneity over diversity (Agawu 1995b, 2003). Quite true, the conclusions that have been drawn are ovenvh;=In1m.gly based on similarities-among musics, among genres and pieces-for observations lend themselves more readily to positive interpretation. tifying historical strata, as was done by Curt Sachs for instruments 1940 ), establishing musical areas (Merriam 1959; Nettl1954b ), ,.· iProht-vl

tune relationships among Spain, England, and Hungary (Wiora are conclusions, justified or not, that came about as scholars at work similarities persuasive enough to lead them at least to tentative conclusions. W"!.'latever differences they found seem to have played a small role. So the picion has foundation: Comparativists, not so neutral as all that, are · pressed by similarity, and seek it out.

A major purpose of comparative study has always been an ing of history. We compared musics to see how they have developed, wrteDac.t they have a common origin, and so on (Wiora 1975: 81-90). Conclusions best will always be conjecture. VVhether it was worth doing or whether, a$ John Blacking said, speculative history is a complete waste of effort ( 1973: 56) depends on the value one places on historical knowledge. If an ing of history is accorded enormous importance, then, I would think, way in which one can gain insight, however tentative, in situations ,u~~-c·-...,

COMPARATIVE STUDY

verifiable data is worth a lot of effort. If it is a matter of only second­or, as Blacking puts it, "encyclopedic" interest, then one is better off de­

one's energy to other pursuits, for even a great deal of effort at com­IJ.a,,v~··wiii indeed produce only the most tentative results.

related objection came from certain students of the complex classical of Asia. They accepted the ethnomusicologist' s comparative approach

,,.·'·"''~· and folk musics, which they saw as simple and inferior systems tr,__._ .. a,~" 1973: 28-33). But greater dignity, they would assert, must be ac­

to classical systems, because they are in the same league as Western oa.:>"l'-a.l music, closer to unique. Western scholars should treat these classi-

' svsieni:s as they have dealt with European classical music, which has hardly the object of primarily comparative study. Thus it is sometimes put.

knowledge of non-·western musics and the admonitions musicians (e.g., Becker 1986; Shankar 1999) are supposed to rid us

kind of prejudice that always places Western music and its values at But then we shouldn't substitute the insistence that classical music

study pervades the academy. We have comparative anatomy, psychology, linguistics, law, religion all found as terms in ency­

as titles of courses and books. In all cases, separate systems, usually as belonging to different populations, cultures, or societies, are some-

0"''·"';,.'""'·-" It seems that scholars are attracted more by similarities than J.Ie.rertces. trying to draw conclusions regarding function and history from

have been some attempts to draw together the many venues and the concept of comparison (Warwick and Osherson 1973), and there

70 THE MUSICS OF THE WORLD

are even departments of "comparative study" in some universities, with the implication that this represents a particular disciplinary focus. vVe also en­counter the idea that comparative study is circumscribed by particular meth­ods and limitations that go beyond the subject matter of an established disci­pline. Thus Myrdal (in Warwick and Osherson 1973: 98) suggests that­contrary to Hood-comparison should precede detailed examination of a phenomenon in its own terms, that "generalizations about reality, and their organization ·within an abstract framework of presumed interrelations, pre­cede specification and verification." But a "comparative method" valid many fields may not amount to much more than Merriam's very general ad­monition that "the approach must be cautious, that like things must be com­pared, that the comparisons must have some bearing upon a particular prob­lem and be an integral part of the research design" (1964: 53).

On the other hand, individual disciplines have had specific, and in many cases unique, purposes for comparative study. The general purpose of com­parative psychology is simply to ascertain the similarities and differences in behavioral organization among living beings, v.rith a large variety of specific aims. Comparative law, while encompassing historical and anthropological in­terests, seems to have as its major aim the articulation of various legal sys­tems and the improvement of the world's legal security, in the character of an applied field. Comparative literature deals with themes and motifs erary content across linguistic boundaries, while linguists have reserved the name "comparative method" specifically for a way of reconstructing earlier languages or earlier stages in language by structurally comparing sinlilar words, with identical or related meanings, in different languages and dialects. Lin­guists engage in comparison for other purposes, such as the establishment of cognitive systems or the solution of problems in the interrelationship of lan­guage and culture, but the comparative method tries to establish the history of genetic language relationships. In ethnomusicology the purpose of compari­son is-or perhaps the major and even first purpose of comparative musi­cology was-also to contribute to an understanding of history. Linguists have established a clear-cut method, and its results are generally accepted by the profession and the public at large. The existence of proto-Germanic, pro to-e Indo-European, proto-Algonquian is not seriously questioned, although these languages are simply constructs (Anttila 1972: 65-66).

There has been no similar comparative method to deal with the recon­struction of musical forms. While comparison of widely separated cultures, or of variants of a song in a restricted area, has provided insights analogous to those of the comparative linguist, their significance is not agreed upon

COMPARATIVE STUDY 71

often denied. Ethnomusicologists have rarely tried to adopt the meth­of comparative and historical linguistics directly, and Gilbert Chase's

~~,.c..-,nn that "the term 'comparative musicology' should be revived ... it is used in linguistics" (quoted in Brook, Downes, and Van Solkema

fell on deaf ears. Comparison in ethnomusicology has been more of attitude (e.g., "a comparative approach provides insight")

group of techniques used ad hoc to deal with specific problems. Eth­has never had a comparative method.

if no single comparative method has been accepted, there are a p­un."•~·-·-~ that have, by implication, tried to claim such a title-the analyti-

C.(:alaPJJrc>acnes of Hornbostel, Bartok, and Kolinski and the various ap­C'"'NOJ)ro~acJtles to stating geographic distribution of styles all seem at one point

to have been informally considered as filling this role. The most it's actually pretty old-is Alan Lomax's cantometrics ( 1959,

1976), which provides a system of describing musical style within cmnpannnre framework, valuable because it includes for the first time a

••. lJlUlJtlv•-• of aspects of music such as timbre and ways of using the voice. While the main value of cantometrics seems to me to be its system of de~

sci-rmng singing style, Lomax and his staff carried out comparisons of music type in major culture areas, largely for the purpose of identifying

"'""'"'"''u determinants of musical style. Large culture areas (e.g., American In­sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific Islands, Australia, Europe, the "old high

Cllihtrei{' of Asia) were involved, and culture groups that contrast in some sig­way, as in the fundamentals of social and political organization, type

v• , ... v~·•-'L'~"'-'- economy, and child-rearing. Certainly the matching of culture and musical styles is a venerable habit in ethnomusicology; M. Schnei-

12-14) asserted that hunters, gatherers, and agriculturists have dif­styles of music, and Sachs (1937: 31-33) tried to distinguish patriarchal

m<ltntar,ch<ll peoples. Lomax differs from them in large measure by his of a more formal technique for comparison.

musical discipline that is most concerned with establishing method­for comparison is music theory, a field that was once considered a

... ""'Jl subdivision of musicology, then a component (with psychology of ""'u"'L and acoustics) of "systematic musicology," and eventually, especially

English-speaking world, a field with greater independence focusing in the analysis and comprehension of music. Music theorists have

to establish templates that would make possible the analysis of any (Rahn 1983, 1996), and they have tried to apply concepts and methods

en!~encdered by studies of Western music to a broader scope (e.g., D. Tern-

72 THE MUSICS OF THE WORLD

perley 2000 ), with varying degrees of success. In general, music theorists deal with music without major consideration of cultural context, but while this may have its problems, many theorists have the countervailing advantage of experience as composers. A number of scholars from theory, for example, Michael Tenzer, Jay Rahn, and John Rahn, have found themselves attracted to ethnomusicological subject matter and found ways to combine the ap­proaches of both fields.

While almost all of the work touched upon in this chapter involved the comparison of musics because musical styles lend themselves to statistical analysis, there is a trend, exemplified early on by the rather formal juxtapo­sition of Ibo and Hausa musicians by David At"TTes (1973a), to provide com" parisons of cultures in terms of musical behavior aside from the sounds that are produced. This too is evident in Lomax's work, as his parameters include aspects of the social roles and interrelationships of musicians. Another re­cent trend is the use of explicit comparisons within a repertory or a single musical culture to identify norms and deviations.

Some publications of the 1970s foresaw a bright future for comparative study. John Blacking, often skeptical, nevertheless acknowledged its uses and felt that its problems could be solved by such concepts as the relationship of "deep structures" and "surface structures," borrowed again from linguistics. We need, he wrote, "a unitary method of musical analysis which can be ap­plied to all music," and which takes into account and explains sound itself and musical behavior as well (1971: 93). A number of attempts to develop such a method have been made and are described in chapter 8. Only when a sat­isfactory one is established, Blacking implied, will we be in a position to make acceptable comparisons, which are our ultimately efficacious technique (1972: 108). Wiora (1975), who did not simply equate comparative study with eth­nomusicology, nevertheless showed dozens of examples successfully carried out. Porter (1977) considered a renewed interest in comparative work to be the last, best hope for research in European folk music.

In the period after 1980, comparative study as a concept does not appear very much in the literature, but comparisons nevertheless abound. One rel­evant area of study is the musical cultures of immigrant societies compared with the traditional homeland, a type of study begun fifty years earlier but now a standard, often labeled with the catchword "diasporas." Important studies include those of Sugarman ( 1997) on Albanians outside Albania · rope and the United States, Myers (1998) on Hindu culture in Trinidad its antecedents, Manuel (zooo) on the various ways Indian music has been preserved in the Caribbean, Turino (1994) on Aymara musical culture in a

COMPARATIVE STUDY 73

a middle-size town, and the capital of Peru, and Reyes (1999) on the ofVietnamese at home, and in the Philippines and eventually United exile. A.Tlother kind of evidence for the strength of comparative study

degree to which it is accepted is the vast number of edited volumes appeared since 1980, works in which a number of authors speak to problem or issue from t.he perspective of different cultures. It's al­

to try to pickexan1ples from the many, but Koskoff (1987), music, Moisala and Diamond (2ooo), on issues involving gen­

and Cooley (1996), on fieldwork in a variety of cultures, Nettl and (1998), on improvisation in the world's cultures, and Radano and

.·v•J"'·"·~~· (2000 ), on issues involving race, illustrate the genre and its popu-in the ethnomusicological academy. It seems that ethnomusicologists

Kolinski (1971: 160) when he said that the avoidance or indefinite postpon•emem of the comparison of musics "deprives the discipline of an es­

tool in its quest for a deeper insight into the infinite multifariousness universe of music."