Some
observations on the newsletter and journal Ethno-musicology.
·
The first issue, from December 1953, doesn’t
have any articles and is described not as a journal but as a newsletter
aspiring to become a journal. It is
comprised simply of an introduction discussing the aims of the publication, a
section of “Notes and Reviews” with short submissions from fieldworkers
outlining their current work, and a bibliography compiling a list of recent
publications in the field (to be purchased on Amazon, of course). The divisions of the bibliography are Africa,
American Indian, and Other, the last comprised mostly of a list of recordings. The call for correspondence and information
in the introduction is fascinating and it gave me a sense of how scattered
academic disciplines were. Having grown
up with the internet, I take it for granted that scholars can communicate
easily with one another, access information immediately, and identify each
other and the salient writings of their discipline.
·
The publication begins as the newsletter of
“Ethno-musicology.” In 1958 it becomes “Ethnomusicology.” I think people used to be more into dividing
these types of words with a hyphen.
Archaeo-musicology is another example that came up in one of the early
newsletters.
·
Without easy means of disseminating and
collecting news, the world seems so much bigger! One note reads “news of the present situation
in Germany.” Scholars had left Germany
during the Nazi regime and they were trying to reconstruct the discipline
there.
·
The authors make clear from the start their
intention to establish an organization to connect ethnomusicologists
internationally. And they had received money
from the “defunct American Society for Comparative Musicology.” I think this is cool, because as the organization
using the old term died out, it passed some of its last funds on to help start
the new organization under the new term Ethnomusicology.
·
Newsletter No. 2 begins its “Notes and News” section
with an entry from Belgium written in un-translated French (one of two such
entries). Would most of the academic
audience have spoken French? It’s
interesting to consider language choices in this international English journal. They don’t address the issue directly, but it
seems they assume scholars in other countries to whom they have sent this
publication will read English.
·
The submissions for the second newsletter were
much longer than those in the first. The
bibliography that follows includes a comprehensive compilation of works by German
scholar Erich Moritz von Hornbostel. Then
the bibliography then continues on from the first newsletter, listing more work
on Africa and America (they switched from American Indians to the broader term)
and adding sections on Asia and Oceania and Europe.
·
F. A. Kuttner writes about his work on a two
volume “history and sociology of Chinese music.” He also criticizes “the whole system of
comparative methods” as “obsolete and inadequate” and discusses his intention
to establish the discipline of Far Eastern archaeo-musicology. I wonder what became of this project. I tried to find out on Google, but couldn’t
find it, although I found an article by Kuttner.
·
Jaap Kunst writes in that he is one of the few
people in Holland “working in this field.”
In his position in the ethno-musicological section of the Royal Tropical
Institute, he is “all at the same time, founder, leader, assistant, clerical
help, and messenger boy.” It seems that
in many countries (in Germany too, as I mentioned), a career as an
ethnomusicologist is a lonely one. Many
contributors to this newsletter come across as eager to participate in a dialogue
with their peers. This level of
isolation is really quite unimaginable to me, having grown up with Google and
Facebook.
·
The newsletter evolved into a journal with
extended pieces by fieldworkers. And
pictures and diagrams. “Music on Ifaluk Atoll in the Caroline Islands”, by
Edwin Grant Burrows, offers precise observations, but its conclusions include words
and phrases such as “display the rudiments of”, “”an art so meager in total
content”, and “extremely primitive.”
This piece really showed the mindset Burrows was approaching this work
with: scientific (decidedly etic) analysis of a Primitive Culture.Some
observations on the newsletter and journal Ethno-musicology.
·
The first issue, from December 1953, doesn’t
have any articles and is described not as a journal but as a newsletter
aspiring to become a journal. It is
comprised simply of an introduction discussing the aims of the publication, a
section of “Notes and Reviews” with short submissions from fieldworkers
outlining their current work, and a bibliography compiling a list of recent
publications in the field (to be purchased on Amazon, of course). The divisions of the bibliography are Africa,
American Indian, and Other, the last comprised mostly of a list of recordings. The call for correspondence and information
in the introduction is fascinating and it gave me a sense of how scattered
academic disciplines were. Having grown
up with the internet, I take it for granted that scholars can communicate
easily with one another, access information immediately, and identify each
other and the salient writings of their discipline.
·
The publication begins as the newsletter of
“Ethno-musicology.” In 1958 it becomes “Ethnomusicology.” I think people used to be more into dividing
these types of words with a hyphen.
Archaeo-musicology is another example that came up in one of the early
newsletters.
·
Without easy means of disseminating and
collecting news, the world seems so much bigger! One note reads “news of the present situation
in Germany.” Scholars had left Germany
during the Nazi regime and they were trying to reconstruct the discipline
there.
·
The authors make clear from the start their
intention to establish an organization to connect ethnomusicologists
internationally. And they had received money
from the “defunct American Society for Comparative Musicology.” I think this is cool, because as the organization
using the old term died out, it passed some of its last funds on to help start
the new organization under the new term Ethnomusicology.
·
Newsletter No. 2 begins its “Notes and News” section
with an entry from Belgium written in un-translated French (one of two such
entries). Would most of the academic
audience have spoken French? It’s
interesting to consider language choices in this international English journal. They don’t address the issue directly, but it
seems they assume scholars in other countries to whom they have sent this
publication will read English.
·
The submissions for the second newsletter were
much longer than those in the first. The
bibliography that follows includes a comprehensive compilation of works by German
scholar Erich Moritz von Hornbostel. Then
the bibliography then continues on from the first newsletter, listing more work
on Africa and America (they switched from American Indians to the broader term)
and adding sections on Asia and Oceania and Europe.
·
F. A. Kuttner writes about his work on a two
volume “history and sociology of Chinese music.” He also criticizes “the whole system of
comparative methods” as “obsolete and inadequate” and discusses his intention
to establish the discipline of Far Eastern archaeo-musicology. I wonder what became of this project. I tried to find out on Google, but couldn’t
find it, although I found an article by Kuttner.
·
Jaap Kunst writes in that he is one of the few
people in Holland “working in this field.”
In his position in the ethno-musicological section of the Royal Tropical
Institute, he is “all at the same time, founder, leader, assistant, clerical
help, and messenger boy.” It seems that
in many countries (in Germany too, as I mentioned), a career as an
ethnomusicologist is a lonely one. Many
contributors to this newsletter come across as eager to participate in a dialogue
with their peers. This level of
isolation is really quite unimaginable to me, having grown up with Google and
Facebook.
·
The newsletter evolved into a journal with
extended pieces by fieldworkers. And
pictures and diagrams. “Music on Ifaluk Atoll in the Caroline Islands”, by
Edwin Grant Burrows, offers precise observations, but its conclusions include words
and phrases such as “display the rudiments of”, “”an art so meager in total
content”, and “extremely primitive.”
This piece really showed the mindset Burrows was approaching this work
with: scientific (decidedly etic) analysis of a Primitive Culture.