SEM History Findings

SEM History Findings

In researching the journal, Ethnomusicology, I was most intrigued by the connections made between issues from the 1950’s and those published more recently in 2003. Before reading earlier issues, I had made assumptions that information in the 1950’s would have been limited and that research would be more singly focused on Western music and culture rather than non-Western cultures. However, in reading the earlier articles in relation to the more current ones, I was interestingly surprised to find just how eager researchers were to expand their ethnological horizons.

In the 1954 Ethnomusicology newsletter, researchers and ethnomusicologists showed their eagerness in wanting to keep the study of non-Western cultures, and ethnomusicology in general, alive. Ethnomusicologists write of their different studies of the music from China, Rome, Spain, and Germany. I was interested to see just how this defied my original belief that ethnomusicologists in the United States would be reluctant to take their fieldwork to music of other cultures. In relating how articles in the 1950’s wrote of non-Western cultures in relation to what more recent articles present, it is interesting to note that issues from 2001 and 2003 include numerous articles that delve into the music of specific cultures, while articles from the 1950’s write of them in a less detailed manner. For example, an article written in a 2003 issue is titled “Jose Maceda and the Paradoxes of Modern Composition in Southeast Asia.” Clearly, this is only one of many articles that goes into great detail on the music in non-Western cultures.

Furthermore, I also noticed the comment made by Jaap Kunst, noting, “I am sorry to say that in Holland only a very few persons are working in this field… The financial position of the Institute seems to be such that it cannot afford more expenses for its ethno-musicological section…” If anything, this comment makes evident that ethnomusicology has always been a desirable area of study, and its popularity has grown over decades.

The article, “Training and Research Methods in Ethnomusicology,” gives another view of how ethnomusicologist’s views on fieldwork have shifted. While this article was written only three years later than the previous, it takes up where the 1954 issue left off. Unlike the previous article, it provides a definition of ethnomusicology as a “field of knowledge, having as its object the investigation of the art of music as a physical, psychological, aesthetic, and cultural phenomenon.” Author, Mantle Hood acknowledges that the definition of ethnomusicology, at the time, is limited by “traditionally narrow requirements.” However, he knows that this definition is malleable and sees possibility in expanding it in years to come.

In articles written in 2001 and 2003, it is evident that the study of ethnomusicology has advanced. In today’s fieldwork, ethnomusicologists are able to delve further into their research of other cultures due to advancements in technology. In the 1900’s, ethnomusicologists conducted fieldwork using (what we would call) primitive methods. Today, ethnomusicologists base their fieldwork using digital processing techniques and synthesizers. The numerical process that was used in 1955 to calculate the exact expression of relative consonance-dissonance, acts as a precursor to the advanced technologies used today to monitor sound structure, psychoacoustics, and the synthesis of tone. Today, we are able to use graphs and charts to visually capture and understand the layers within sound. As a result, this has given current day ethnomusicologists the ability to not only witness live performances within any culture, but to also preserve them by using the advanced forms of technology mentioned above.