SEM History Post

In Volume 1, No. 2 (Aug 1954) of Ethnomusicology, various readers contribute to a section of the periodical called “Notes and News”. In this section, a reader and ethnomusicologist named F.A. Kuttner wrote a short blurb voicing his concern about the direction of this young field of study. He states:

Again, I am concerned about ... the question of methods and methodology of ethno-musicology ... I have come to believe that the whole system of comparative methods is obsolete and inadequate, and that something else and much better will have to replace it if we are going to expect any significant progress in the near future.

In this second publication, F.A. Kuttner plainly states that he feels ‘comparative musicology’ is an inadequate form of study. He doesn’t offer an alternative and it seems to me (after some Google-ing), that his name and works are lost but for perhaps a small group of ethnomusicologists.

On the other hand, the ethnomusicologist Bruno Nettl has written volumes about the subject. His name lights up the Internet when Google’d. Soon after reading the first volume of Ethnomusicology, I stumbled upon the article Transposition as a Composition Technique in Folk and Primitive Music (Volume 2, No. 2, May, 1958). On page 56 Bruno Nettl begins his paper with the sentence, “Among the various composition devices found in folk and primitive music, transposing a section to various pitch levels is one of the most widespread.” I’m not as interested in the note about transposition as I am in his rhetoric. As we read in Helen Myers’ first chapter on ethnomusicology, a lot of these terms were commonplace and slowly died out. However, upon continuing, I discovered that one of his most used devices is comparison to Western music. His third paragraph starts with,

The use of a section, theme, or motif at different pitch levels is part and parcel of Western art music and has been so for centuries... But in folk and primitive music we rarely, if ever, find development of themes and motifs, and thus transposition does not function, as it does in most art music, as a development device.

The blanket statement that no ‘primitive (in reference to ‘other’) music’ develops themes or motifs (or in other words, does not develop ideas) is a clearly an employment of comparative methodology. Another example can be found on page 62. “Music with a small range must of necessity make use of small transposing intervals; here are included those very simple cultures whose scales and melodies are restricted to a small number of tones.” His use of the word ‘simple’ astounds me, as he isn’t even referring to the music of the culture, but the culture itself. While I’m not surprised at the content and comparative musicology presented in this early issue, I am surprised at Bruno Nettl’s prevalence as an ethnomusicologist, even today. His tune and technique must have gone through some changes in his papers dating from the 1970’s through today.

Despite F.A. Kuttner’s lack of alternative to comparative musicology, his forsight has garnered my respect. I would imagine that upon reading Nettl’s article in this later issue, he couldn’t help but feel a twinge of disgust. This backward step in the discipline surprised me.