Some questions to think about when reading this week’s articles for our Puget Sounds seminars (http://guides.lib.washington.edu/ps-honors14 and http://guides.lib.washington.edu/ps-collegiate14)
- What do you think motivated early comparative musicologists to record the music of so-called “primitive” people?
- What was one of the primary differences between the Vienna and Berlin archives?
- By what means did the Vienna archive collect “exotic music”?
- What does it mean to, as Stump noted, “hear with European ears”?
- What does Ames mean by the following: “As ‘participant observer,’ the scientist became a kind of impresario in his own right”?
- From what you can tell so far, where do you think the Puget Sounds project fits w/in Nettl’s definitions of ethnomusicology (pp 4-5)?
- How would you define ethnomusicology? Fieldwork?
- What is your opinion of Nettl’s stated “truism” on page 10?
- Is ethnomusicology doomed by the apparent contradiction between searching for “unitary phenomenon” and never ceasing to “marvel at the incredible variety of manifestations of music”?
- Is musical egalitarianism possible?
And while you read, listen to early EM von Hornbostel recordings here: http://offcampus.lib.washington.edu/login?url=http://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/71672