You are on page 1of 35
THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSIC ALAN P. MERRIAM. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY PRESS 1964 ea he owing okt as enacted wh emt fhe mb iter: Laut Harp, Socal Root ofthe Ars igtnatond Posies, IS By aon of Inrtatonal Pubes Coy te, 3 F Neel, Phe Popetgn of Kec Antivopaogy, ‘The Pree Pas of Glencoe, 1951; a Reach ¢ Seen Peat tid A. Ricitebrown the Andon Tassdon So fee SR Glencoe, 1948, ‘and Cambridge University Press. Curt Sachs, ‘The History of Mneal oaruent, Copght 1940 by WW Neroa Sey, eh Yea NA" Reprinted by pemisnon of the pabliher sod PH Beek Sey Lid itnla Comes Cnty, The Seon al the Are a Nes Mice He Row, Pabahes, Ines 1S6n Bert Kaper (28) Staging Pee ame Galery Harper & Row, Pblahen, Mes Wh Gomme ae a Le Cinao {ee}, Easy the See of Cull i Hone of base Rs White "Thos Y. Grol” 1960p 716250, eat’ sha, ei Skinnes Music Co, 1950, Mell J: Herskovits, Life in« Haltun Valley Alpe A Reg yeh | elo ne ns, mda i fed A’ Koop 147. Gage Davy Mase Cosa fo Retain CSiyignt 194 by Beacy see ae Rey ae ns fer Rade D om gh ower. aa R,Facoorthy The Suc! Ppchlny Mabe $2 1858. Susan K, Langer, Problem of Ar Tee Phisophi’ echoes Scabners Som 1957 Kesacth Lite The end of acne Lee Roches > Pal Led, 1951 Cate Gort Abe Bane, Faber sod Fake aoe, tod W AW Nonon & Company Ine Ghar Moar Sige Lenteat ad Be Kerio, Cece Brier Ine 1855 Margret Mod Shand Teen Thre Pith Soca, Wiliam Mone ed Conan fe, Wie reel 1955 by Magct Mend Publied ats Nestor Boal By avenger SOR tam Mono snd Company, In Dy the New Aserea bee a Witty ek cae Copyright © 1964 by Alan P. Merriam Library of Congress Catalog Number: 64.2271 ISBN 0.8101.0178-5, Printed in the United States of America Second Priming 1968 Four Pt are Pith Printing 1935 ‘South Printing 1976, Seventh Printing 1978 Eight doth printing 1980 Fire paperback pring 1980 Second papertadk printing 987 Benin bronze statue on ile page courtesy of Chicago Natural History Museum. Photograph by Jusune Cordwell and Edward Darn To the memory of Mavnute J. Hexsxovrrs PREFACE “This book is the result of some fifteen years of thinking and of discussion with colleagues and students in the fields of cultural anthropology and cethnomusicology, two disciplines whose boundary lines are not always ‘dear and perhaps should not be. Of anthropology little need be said by ‘way of explanation, for its content is reasonably clear and its objectives at least moderately welldefined. Such is not the case, however, with ‘ethnomusicology which has undergone a remarkable efflorescence in the past decade during which younger scholars, particularly in the United States, have subjected it to renewed and intensive examination, As 30 frequently occurs, the resulting discussion has served to blur some of the simple pre-existing concepts delimiting the field, and itis no longer easy to say precisely where it begins and ends, what its purposes are, what kinds of materials it handles or how it is to handle them. One point, Ihowever, has clearly reemerged, and this is that ethnomusicology is approachable from two directions, the anthropological and the musi- ological. Given these two possibilities, itis equally clear that since we are all human, anthropologists approaching ethnomusicology tend to stress anthropological aspects, and musicologist, the musicological as- pects. Both groups agree, however, that the ultimate objective is the fusion of the two taken as an ideal inevitably modified by practical reality. ‘When one tums to the literature of ethnomusicology, he quickly finds that this ideal has not yet been achieved, for an overwhelming number of books, articles, and monographs is devoted to studies only of music, Which is often treated as an object in itself without reference to the vii cultural matric out of which it is produced, Ethnomusicology has con- centrated its efforts primarily upon music sound and structure, thus ems Phasizing its musicological component and in great part ignoring the anthropological. This, of course, is a matter of degree which docs not involve absolute dominance of one approach over the other, but the re. sult has been that the anthropological aspect of ethnomusicology, has remained less developed and, most important, less clearly undestood than the musicological, No matter how tentative the ethnomusicologist ‘ray fecl about hs tools of analysis, the fact remains that musicologial techniques have been applied to a surprising number of the musics of the world with signifcant though certainly not final results; the quer- tions concerning human behavior and ideation in conjunction with mune hhave barely been asked. ‘Thus the musicologist may have mote reason than even he knows to wonder what the anthropological approach may be and what Kinds of theory and data may arise from it. At the same time, the nonethnomusi-

You might also like