Comment to Leen's Challenge Question Response

Comment to Leen’s Challenge Question

As students well-versed in our understanding of music, it is sometimes hard for us to realize that there are people outside of our scope of knowledge who don’t have as deep of an understanding of music. While this may sound elitist, it really is true and is a large part of your response. In mapping out the different ways people study music, it’s clear that there isn’t just one way to approach a piece or a genre. In recognizing each of the different modes through which we can view music through, it is really interesting to see which ones are considered more applicable to music students and scholars and those that correspond with the understanding and musical limitations of people who don’t study it. In reading your response, it becomes clear that the more “universal” approach to understanding music lies within the aural, oral, and recorded forms. Why is this? Is it because there is more room for interpretation from all types of listeners and not just the music scholars? Do the written and printed forms automatically inhibit those who are less familiar with the technicalities of music? Is it the mere sight of multiple sixteenth notes on a page that scares the average listener away?

Your argument in your conclusion really makes clear that the answers to these questions are working ones. Just as we don’t expect everyone to be able to comprehend sheet music, we, as ethnomusicologists cannot restructure our ways of approaching music to suit those whose knowledge of music is more limited. You’re right-- it is impossible to choose just one of Nettle’s points and deem it the “correct” or “right” way to approach music. Instead, it is our job as ethnomusicologists to embrace the oral, aural, written, printed, and recorded approaches and see which fits our own personal understanding of a piece of music.