COMPARATIVE STUDY

,u 11 ._u~~

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 ~Iver
sity-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 llllcompanson.
p ortant' and which could only be illustrated through
for anoth er c1ass o f mo re
Twenty-five years later I tried the same thmg,
knowledgeable and sophisticated students who had heard much more

61

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 furon, a half-century after my first attempt, the students had become more
"~~.;.,.~;~,-of comparison again, and they were interested, too, in how the varNative 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' scriot1.1Jns 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 disJk.;. '-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 cenissues. 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

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 comn>u"'~" of Pima and Pueblo musics in George Herzog's dissertation (1936a),
ofYurok and Papago music in Schinhan's thesis (1937), and Helen Robcomparison 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 purof 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 a11alysis; 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.

H>

w"''-H

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-

cology? 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 princicomparative.
(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 ternfor 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

COMPARATIVE STUDY

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

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 suspiquantitative techniques inevitably used in comparative study, and
that in a field devoted to this kind of work, data gathering will be
W
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 not1b 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 sysand good, if one is also concerned at the moment about meanings.
an~aer1t sounds weaker when Blacking gives its opposite number: "Staanalyses 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 comparithe 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
;..muau"'n

L>'-'u~

, ....

"

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 Africal1ist 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 deone'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 acto 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 encyas titles of courses and books. In all cases, separate systems, usually
as belonging to different populations, cultures, or societies, are some0"''"';,.'""'-"
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 apun."~--~ that have, by implication, tried to claim such a title-the analytiC.(: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. Schnei12-14) 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
. . ." " ' J l 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 alto try to pickexan1ples from the many, but Koskoff (1987),
music, Moisala and Diamond (2ooo), on issues involving genand Cooley (1996), on fieldwork in a variety of cultures, Nettl and
(1998), on improvisation in the world's cultures, and Radano and
.vJ"'"~~ (2000 ), on issues involving race, illustrate the genre and its popuin the ethnomusicological academy. It seems that ethnomusicologists
Kolinski (1971: 160) when he said that the avoidance or indefinite
postponemem of the comparison of musics "deprives the discipline of an estool in its quest for a deeper insight into the infinite multifariousness
universe of music."