I. Introduction
Music theorists often find themselves navigating a delicate balance: between identifying overarching principles that resonate across diverse, allegedly all, musical cultures and recognizing the unique contexts shaping each tradition, group, and paradigm.
Some scholars, such as Christopher Small[1], Michael Tenzer[2], and Robert Gjerdingen[3], lean towards seeking common threads uniting human musical expressions. On the other hand, some others, like Kofi Agawu[4] and Philip Bohlman[5], emphasize the importance of acknowledging culturally specific nuances. Bridging these seemingly opposing viewpoints is Alexander Rehding’s[6] concept of music-theoretical “instruments” as “epistemic things,” demonstrating how tools and technologies are themselves embedded within historical and cultural contexts while simultaneously shaping how music is perceived and conceptualized, acting as both specific artifacts and universal tools for understanding music.
Ultimately, when considering these multifaceted aspects—the similarities, the differences, and the potential conflicts—what emerges is the realization that any discussion of “universal” or “specific” in music necessitates a “practice scope,” a framework, perhaps unspoken in many cases but nonetheless assumed, that defines the boundaries of the musical practices under consideration, guiding both researchers and readers towards a more nuanced and critical understanding of the complex interplay between shared musical principles and culturally specific expressions.
II. Seeking Common Ground
1. Small’s Concept of “Musicking”
Christopher Small challenges the Western tendency to prioritize “music objects”—scores and compositions—over the act of engaging with the music itself. Small advocates for the concept of “musicking,” which encompasses all activities related to a musical performance, including composing, practicing, rehearsing, performing, listening, dancing, and so on. He posits that “musicking” is a fundamental human impulse that transcends cultural boundaries, suggesting that the act of engaging with music is a universal human experience. It is criticized that the preoccupation with “music objects” can lead to a narrow and potentially biased understanding of musical meaning, particularly when applied to non-Western traditions.
However, Small indeed acknowledges the limitations of his approach. While “musicking” might be a universal impulse, the specific forms and meanings associated with musical practices vary widely across cultures. The way people “music” and the meanings they derive from it are deeply intertwined with their cultural backgrounds and social contexts.
2. Tenzer’s Search for Cross-Cultural Principles
While recognizing the diversity of musical practices, Michael Tenzer endeavors to identify universal principles underlying temporal transformations in music. He investigates the concept of temporal augmentation—the lengthening of musical elements’ durations—across seemingly disparate traditions such as Baroque, Carnatic, and Balinese music. Tenzer’s approach is notable for its combination of music theory with ethnomusicological methods: He emphasizes the importance of both insider knowledge and analytical rigor in cross-cultural comparisons, meaning that a deep understanding of the cultural context is crucial for meaningful analysis and that comparative analyses should be conducted with a degree of methodological neutrality to avoid imposing the values of one system onto another.
The meticulous approach is a two-sided blade in terms of maintaining neutrality while reconciling diverse musical systems at the same time. For instance, the limitations of notation itself are particularly evident when attempting to represent the nuances of rhythm and timing found in many non-Western traditions. Additionally, seemingly similar phenomena, such as augmentation, may have drastically different origins and intentions in different cultural contexts.
3. Gjerdingen’s Fictional Music Theory System
Lastly, Robert Gjerdingen explores the potential for universal principles in music theory through a unique approach: the creation of a fictional musical grammar for a hypothetical society called the “Bijou” people. By imagining a musical system from scratch, Gjerdingen aims to uncover the underlying mechanisms that drive the formation of musical grammars, suggesting a potential universality in how humans perceive and organize musical patterns. This approach implies that the process of developing musical rules and structures from observed patterns might be a common human cognitive function.
However, while the mechanism behind the formation of music theory might be universal on a theoretical level, it does not necessarily translate into a one-size-fits-all approach for analyzing diverse musical traditions. The specific grammar and analytical tools appropriate for one culture, again, cannot be completely compatible with the others. That being said, Gjerdingen’s experiment would perfectly serve as a reminder that the universality of musical principles might be most evident at a high level of abstraction while the specific manifestations of these principles remain deeply embedded in their cultural contexts.
III. Empowering the Context
1. Agawu’s Critique of Tonal Colonization
Kofi Agawu argues that the introduction of European tonality into African musical traditions through colonialism through a process called “tonal colonization” had detrimental effects on those traditions, reflecting a broader dynamic of cultural domination. This process is evident in the widespread adoption of Western harmonic practices in various African musical genres, from church hymns to popular music. European tonality, emphasizing a hierarchical system of pitch relations and a drive towards resolution, fundamentally differs from the diverse tonal systems found in pre-colonial African music. It is contended that missionaries and colonial administrators promoted Western musical forms as part of a larger project of cultural assimilation, aiming to replace indigenous musical practices with European ones.
However, Agawu’s observations about the impact of European tonality on African music can be extended to a broader context. The phenomenon of cultural influence and assimilation through music is not unique to Africa or the colonial period. Throughout history, musical systems have been used as tools of cultural dominance, often accompanying political, religious, or economic expansion. The introduction of Western musical practices into other parts of the world, such as Asia and the Americas, has also had profound effects on local musical traditions, leading to both hybridization and the suppression of indigenous forms.
2. Bohlman’s Plural Ontologies of Music
Philip Bohlman’s concept of “multiple ontologies of music” underscores the importance of recognizing cultural specificity in understanding music. Bohlman argues that different cultures have diverse ways of conceiving, experiencing, and valuing music, challenging the notion of a single, universal definition of music. He points out that what constitutes “music” can vary significantly across cultures, with some societies having elaborate systems for categorizing and defining music, while others may not even have a specific term for “music.” According to Bohlman, musical meanings are constructed through specific cultural practices and belief systems. For example, music may be deeply embedded in ritual practices, social structures, or cosmological beliefs, making it difficult to separate musical meaning from its cultural context. Thus, the need for a clearly defined “practice scope” when discussing the universal and specific in music is stressed by the fact that the very act of defining “music” can be culturally specific, as different cultures may prioritize different aspects of sound, performance, and meaning.
IV. Merging History and Technology
1. Rehding’s “Epistemic Things”
Alexander Rehding proposes the concept of music-theoretical “instruments” to highlight the crucial role that tools and technologies play in shaping our understanding of music. These instruments are not merely tools for producing sound but also function as “epistemic things”—objects that embody and convey knowledge. They act as lenses through which we perceive and conceptualize musical sound and structure. The analyses of three specific instruments—the monochord, the piano, and the siren—demonstrate how each era’s technology emphasizes particular facets of music:
The monochord, with its focus on string lengths and ratios, has been central to Pythagorean and ancient Greek music theory, privileging the study of intervals and the mathematical relationships between pitches, fostering an understanding of music based on numerical principles.
The piano, on the other hand, emerged as a significant music-theoretical instrument in the context of common-practice tonality. Its keyboard layout and the use of equal temperament encourage a focus on triads and chords as perceptual units, shaping an understanding of music centered on harmonic function and progression.
Finally, the siren, a device that generates sound from a rotating disc with strategically placed holes, prefigures a more algorithmic and “scientific” approach to music. Its ability to produce both rhythms and pitches, which essentially and physically share the same nature, by controlling the speed and pattern of air pulses highlights the close relationship between the physical properties of sound and our perception of musical elements.
By analyzing these instruments as “epistemic things,” Rehding challenges the assumption that music theory operates solely on an abstract, conceptual level. He reveals how material objects and technologies are deeply intertwined with our theoretical frameworks and influence the questions we ask, the methods we use, and the knowledge we produce. That being said, these tension dynamics between abstraction and materiality here share a common ideological construction with universality and specificity and further indicate the potential for the two sides to merge, given a defined condition.
2. The Interplay of Technology, Culture, and Power
The adoption and development of music technologies are not neutral processes but are shaped by cultural values, historical circumstances, and power dynamics. Essentially, the dominance of certain technologies can significantly influence the evolution of musical styles and theoretical frameworks. For example, the widespread adoption of the piano in the 19th century contributed to developing and disseminating common-practice tonality, making it the dominant musical system in Western music for centuries. Meanwhile, the emphasis on written notation in Western music theory, facilitated by printing technology, further privileged the study of “music objects” over the act of “musicking,” as Small argues. Therefore, to recognize the interplay of technology, culture, and power, it is again necessitated to develop a “practice scope,” a more critical and inclusive perspective, acknowledging the diversity of musical practices and knowledge systems that exist across cultures, throughout history, and spanning a range of media.
V. Defining “Practice Scope”
Although the discourse surrounding “universal” and “specific” aspects in music theory often presents these concepts as absolute opposites, their relationship is far more nuanced and fluid than such binary opposition suggests. The concept of “practice scope” emerges as a crucial framework for understanding how these seemingly contradictory approaches can coexist and inform each other meaningfully. While this essay has employed various terms such as context, framework, perspective, and lens that may seem interchangeable with the “practice scope,” the uniqueness and essence of the practice scope lie above these received definitions and common constructions. Rather than replacing existing theoretical constructs, it establishes an additional, fluid layer around the concept of “practice” itself.
Drawing from Small’s concept of “musicking,” which emphasizes the continuous nature of musical engagement, we can understand that music studies themselves constitute an active part of this ongoing process. The practice scope, therefore, must reflect this dynamism by being mindfully flexible rather than remaining static. It demands a conscious flexibility that encompasses geographical, ethnographical, cultural, contextual, and temporal dimensions. This flexibility becomes particularly crucial when considering the evolution of different epistemological tools across various eras, as illustrated by Rehding’s analysis.
This flexibility of the practice scope requires a dual consciousness: the ability to simultaneously occupy multiple positions within the musical discourse. This includes navigating between insider and outsider perspectives, understanding the responsibilities of both knowledge producers and consumers, and acknowledging the varying levels of expertise from professional to amateur engagement (if such distinctions exist) with music and music studies. Such multiplicity of viewpoints echoes Bohlman’s concept of plural ontologies while providing a structured framework for their consideration.
For instance, as a tool for critical analysis, the practice scope serves several vital functions. First, it helps researchers delineate the boundaries of their analyses more precisely, preventing overly broad claims about universality while still allowing for meaningful comparative work. Second, it encourages scholars to acknowledge and examine their own cultural biases and limitations, fostering more thoughtful and nuanced interpretations of musical practices outside their immediate experience. Furthermore, the practice scope facilitates more sophisticated cross-cultural comparisons by providing a framework that respects the diversity of musical practices and ontologies while still allowing for meaningful analysis. Finally, it enables scholars to communicate their findings more effectively to targeted audiences, reducing potential misunderstandings and misapplications of their work.
The practice scope thus germinates not merely as another theoretical framework but as a meta-analytical tool that helps scholars navigate the complex interplay between universal and specific aspects of music. It acknowledges that any discussion of musical universality or specificity must be grounded in a clear understanding of its own limitations and possibilities.
VI. Conclusion
The exploration of universal and specific elements in music studies reveals a complex interplay between seemingly opposing approaches. Scholars like Small, Tenzer, and Gjerdingen highlight the quest for common ground in musical expression, enhancing our understanding of human cognition and culture. However, as Agawu and Bohlman emphasize, universal goals must respect cultural specificity and historical power dynamics. Additionally, Rehding shows that music-theoretical tools are shaped by specific contexts while also serving as universal means of knowledge production, adding complexity to the relationship between universal principles and specific practices in music studies.
The concept of “practice scope” emerges from this complex terrain as more than just a theoretical framework—it represents a conscious approach to navigating these tensions. By maintaining mindful flexibility in considering geographical, cultural, and temporal dimensions while simultaneously acknowledging the position of both knowledge producers and consumers, the practice scope offers a pathway toward a more nuanced and inclusive music theory. This approach neither dismisses the possibility of finding common ground nor sacrifices the richness of cultural specificity. Instead, it provides a fluid framework that embraces both the universality of human musical expression and the profound diversity of its manifestations across cultures and time.
Bibliography
[1] Christopher Small, Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening (Wesleyan University Press, 1998), [Prelude, 1-19].
[2] Michael Tenzer, “Temporal Transformations in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Augmentation in Baroque, Carnatic and Balinese Music,” DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals), July 1, 2011.
[3] Robert O Gjerdingen, “Musical Grammar,” The Oxford Handbook of Critical Concepts in Music Theory, January 6, 2015, 650–72, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190454746.013.2.
[4] Kofi Agawu, “Tonality as a Colonizing Force in Africa,” Audible Empire, January 2016, 334–55, https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822374947-016.
[5] Philip V Bohlman, “Ontologies of Music,” Oxford University Press EBooks, March 18, 1999, 17–34, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198790037.003.0002.
[6] Alexander Rehding, “Three Music-Theory Lessons,” Journal of the Royal Musical Association 141, no. 2 (2016): 251–82, https://doi.org/10.1080/02690403.2016.1216025.
Комментарии