Theory and Method in Historical Ethnomusicology ed. by Jonathan McCollum and David G. Hebert (review)

In the closing chapter of Theory and Method in Historical Ethnomusicology, Jonathan McCollum and David G. Hebert argue that ‘historical ethnomusicology is not merely a specialized kind of ethnomusicology—nor an ethno-graphically enlightened form of historical musicology—but rather, a holistic and rigorous approach to research on the musical past that may be applicable to scholarly work across an array of music subfields’ (p. 361). McCollum and Hebert thus propose to bridge subdisciplines such as ‘ethnomusicology’, ‘jazz studies’, or ‘historical musicology’ by the shared application of the theoretical and methodological approaches discussed in this volume, which they group under the rubric of ‘historical ethnomusicology’. The problem with such a broad remit, of course, is that it becomes impossible meaningfully to define ‘historical ethno-musicology’, which seems here to encompass almost any form of research about music.

Nonetheless, some of the individual contributions offer insightful and enjoyable reflections on the place of history in ethnomusicological research. Ann E. Lucas analyses notions of historical continuity in Persian classical music with reference to Foucauldian discourse analysis. Reflecting on the difficulty of reconciling her own historical research with the narratives that she encountered among Iranian musicians during fieldwork, she argues that emphasis on an illustrious musical past devalues present-day practices. Yet by viewing historical periods as ‘successive but not cumulative’ (p.179), Lucas suggests, as atemporal counterpart to the idea of cultural relativity, that each epoch may be viewed on its own terms, allowing for change and continuity but avoiding narratives of decline or triumph.

Daniel M. Neuman presents an engagingly personal account of the way his understanding of Hindustani music history has developed over four decades of research. He points out that such long-term field activity offers an opportunity for ethnomusicologists to observe historical processes ‘in real time’ (p. 279). The chapter raises a range of important points about the relationship between ethnography and historiography that are relevant for Indian musicology but also address wider theoretical and methodological concerns. Neuman frankly acknowledges the theoretical naivety of post-Second World War ethnomusicology, and recognizes that his own privileging of oral rather than written narratives of Hindustani music history was a result of his ‘bias towards the authentic’ (p. 290). He also tackles issues of gender and postcolonialism, and he offers a compelling description of the way in which female courtesan musicians have been largely erased from the historical record due to social stigma.

The chapter by Keith Howard (who also contributes a foreword) looks at differing approaches towards the history of East Asian music among foreign and local scholars, and represents the most direct critical engagement with previous historically oriented ethnomusicological literature. Contrasting the work of the Cambridge-based scholar Laurence Picken and his students with that of Japanese and Korean musicologists, Howard shows how the two groups were motivated by different intellectual concerns, leading to some cross-fertilization but also to misunderstandings and disagreements. Howard rightly argues that local, contemporary performance practices and historical narratives—regarded somewhat dismissively by Picken—form an integral part of the history of East Asian music and must therefore be respected by ethnomusicologists.

Jonathan McCollum’s individual chapter discusses the interpretation of Armenian notation in Armenian and European sources from the medieval period to the twentieth century. The chapter offers a thorough overview of Armenian neumatology, and McCollum’s comparative translation of a table of neumes from Fétis’s Histoire générale de la musique (1869–76) will be a handy resource for specialists. But as an exercise in ‘historical ethnomusicology’ the essay raises problems, particularly in terms of its uncritical reliance on secondary literature by Soviet Armenian scholars such as Nikoghos Tahmizian and Robert Atayan, from whom the author also borrows a conventionally ethnocentric view of Armenian music history. This might have been prevented by integration of more recent research by Aram Kerovpyan, which makes clear...