IV. Ethnomusicology in North America: Historical Reflections
Alan P. Merriam, Alan P. 1969. “Ethnomusicology Revisited.” Ethnomusicology, Vol. 13, No. 2: 213-229.
阿兰·P·梅利亚姆：“重审”民族音乐学
主讲：高贺杰 专业：民族音乐学
1968年5月9日-10日我走访了UCLA的音乐系和人类学系的研究生小组，在南加州大学民族音乐学（Ethnomusicology）社团、人类学系、民族音乐学研究所、非洲研究中心的正式资助下，我应邀就民族音乐学（E）进行了两个附加讨论。在讨论中产生了许多有价值的观点，随之而来的是开放性的思考及友好的争论。我曾为此专门写过文章，这篇文章我只就前两段中忽略的部分进行了改动，并略微调整了句子结构，另外，就听者与我自己间不同的重要观点添加些注脚，以便大家更加明确。
演讲中的一些观点源于我所执教的印第安纳大学民族音乐学席明纳上的讨论，因此我要感谢半晌同学们给我的启发，他们小P、小M、还有Stephen A.Wild/Michael Williams等。
我希望能够澄清我们大家最关心的问题，写这篇文章我并无什么特殊的用意和论点，比如拯救人类学家、民族音乐学家、音乐学家等宏大思虑。save for musicologists, anthropologists, and ethnomusicologists as broad groupings.（虽然这句是让步，但也可以看出梅利亚姆的胃口）。我的目的是对这些领域（是Musicology、Ethnomusicology、Anthropology吗?）的一般概括，试着解释为什么一些学者会专注于特殊的方法？（particular directions指的是什么？）像我一直所做的那样，我们想弥合表面上的分歧而领导建立起一个真正民族音乐学（E）的学科体系。
没有人会否认现在E出现了两个严重的分歧。从中我们看到了在E中迥然不同的研究，有的关注于自然历史过程、有的关注结构技法、有的重描述、有的重分析，当然还有一些什么也不是。我们的所做所为和我们秉承的理念、初衷是多么的不同。(Is ethnomusicology a discipline?如果是，那么学科的规范是什么？学科规范的基础又是什么？我们该怎么学习？) 我们对它的定义其实非常的宽泛，比如“在文化中研究音乐”（梅利亚姆1966）“研究非欧文明中人类的音乐”（内特尔1956）“研究世界上所有听觉感知的声响”（吉尔兹的个人交流）（1、在探讨E学科定义时，梅利亚姆引用的是自己著作中的主张，可以看出，他的AofM实际上是认同于E；2、民族音乐学的社会科学视野，面对音乐，吉尔兹的解释明显要比内特尔的高一筹，所以，如果只看到音乐，那么就不会wild sight）。
不管怎么界定，也不管技巧和方法是如何运用的，主要的分歧在于，当把E作为一个学科来看的时候，事实上很难寻找到两个学科间的调和的方式。当然，这两个体系，实际上是音乐学和人类学。同时，不难想象还有许多延伸学科如历史的、心理的、生理的、物理的、社会的、哲学的一级其他许多。一开始，民族音乐学E就显示出建立在许多catch-all体系中，但是我们的意图是对讨论有所限定，因为学科的两个基础音乐学和人类学是有很多不同的。我们的问题是检查彼此，真正理解各自的核心问题，然后在两学科之间找到平衡点。音乐学研究的主要目标是什么？人类学的又是什么？他们之间的切合点又是什么？还有最重要的，当解决民族音乐学的问题时，两个学科的学科训练又分别给了我们什么？
·音乐学·
先来看音乐学，当我在研究音乐学的一些讨论以及与了解周围同事研究的领域时，我发现一些困惑。武断的说，我觉得音乐学家们言行不一（what musicologists do and what they say they do, are often quite different things批判意味十足），当然这也许者出现在所有学科（“打一巴掌揉一揉”）。这也许是老传统，Willi Apel在《哈佛音乐辞典》解释“音乐学”条目时说“有关音乐的科学（自然科学的定位，和人文科学的现实）”，然而与此同时他也说“研究中出现了对音乐历史的研究。”
宽泛的说，音乐学研究包括了对音乐艺术的发展、功效、过程以及对事实的理解与调查的所有学术与科学的研究行为。
而在引用时帕里斯卡则马上进行了系统的改变，这包括音响学、美学、生理学、心理学、教育学、音乐社会学等等，而这些都是与音乐学相关的领域而非音乐学的所属部分（as related fields and not as a part of musicology per se (pp. 102-16)）。帕里斯卡界定的不是音乐学，而是对音乐学家进行了解释：“音乐学家关注的是音乐的存在，包括书写的与口头的，也包括与之有关的社会背景”，我便感到奇怪，老帕的解释与他曾建议的并不相同(很难自圆其说)。
·人类学·
我们所需要特别注意的是，人类学始终将自己为“科学”，持科学的研究方法，并将科学作为自己的目的和手段。
就民族音乐学（E）而言，社会文化人类学所给与的冲击最大，虽然考古人类学、体质人类学及语言人类学也有很大影响。但是音乐通常被看作是人类的文化活动——这里的文化是从人类学的角度——因此无论是观念还是理论社会文化人类学对民族音乐学的推动力无疑是最大的。
因此我们可以总结如下人类学的特征：
1、涉及任何时候的所有人的研究；
2、他把人类文化和社会的所有层面视为整体的互动的/可变化的机制；
3、强调科学性的定位；
4、学科方法有一部份属于历史研究范畴，但首先是科学的；
5、将理解人类行为作为研究任务。
鉴于对音乐学和人类学在方法及任务上的区分，老梅认为有必要进而讨论一下人文学科和社会科学。他还补充道自己曾经做过讨论，这里不再重复，只讲讲要点。
基于刚才的分析两者有五个不同：艺术家与社会科学者，以及两领域所涉及的方法、行为、结果等。从两者的沟通（交流、表达）方式上可以看出，艺术家沟通的是情感，而科学家沟通的是知识。艺术家的中心任务是建立在感情之上的知识，而人类学家则关注听众所需要的知识（老梅认为这是本质区别）。想想那些搞艺术的，他们最终任务是交流音乐，然而社会文化人类学家，他们是要理解人类的行为，不承担艺术交流之类的任务，他们的任务是关于音乐的知识。我意识到这样地区别在之前已经提出来了,但我没有意识到它如此精确的提出了,也没有意识到它的内涵，这里研究目的是关键，从目的可以清晰地推断出结果的不同。
老梅进一步阐释，“社会科学是把人作为社会动物（social animal）解决日常生活中的社会问题”而人文学科则是“在人们社会生活之外（beyond his social living）自我提炼出社会经验”（老梅1964：24）……作为社会体系的表达，这属于社会科学的研究。而人文学科则是研究个人的创造性为的产生。从这里我们也能看出二者的区别。
以上简要的阐释目的就是为了将人文学科和社会科学从方法和目标上进行区分，其实更多的讨论也都是为了要厘清一件事，音乐学和人类学从来不穿一样的衣服，关键的问题就是民族音乐学在说谎（ethnomusicology lies precisely hereP.219最后一段）。我努力在其中寻求切合点。不过现在先让我们再看看这两个不同的学科其研究、所关心的对于民族音乐学的影响。
这两者最显著的不同是对音乐的种类上。在民族音乐学中，音乐学家极为偏好对东方艺术音的研究，即所谓的艺术音乐或高文化音乐，如印度、阿拉伯、印度尼西亚等。而人类学倾向的民族音乐学家（anthropological ethnomusicologists），关注与对无文字（低文明）人群的研究，美国印第安、非洲、大洋洲土著人等。想想我一直跟你们说的这两个领域的主要倾向，其原因是不是很清楚了。让我们先看看音乐学家的兴趣。
就像我前面说过的一样，东方艺术音乐或许是最早被认可的非欧音乐，然而音乐学家却在这个领域犹豫不决。就像那个提出过一个老套的音乐学定义的Apel同志，将比较音乐学定义为“研究异族音乐”，那么反过来异族音乐却又排除了东方的印度的印度尼西亚的音乐。音乐学研究很难轻易的接受对无书写文化民族的音乐研究。
比起当代的非洲音乐，我们的音乐听起来就像几千年前的一样（小儿科）。这样粗鲁、令人不悦的说“当代的祖先”，我需要困难的提醒各位，这是不负责任的。
但是要说清楚为什么音乐学和人类学关注的研究对象是不同的仍然很困难。我建议音乐学者、民族音乐学者把对象对所谓的高文化音乐中拉回来，因为这种训练本来是在他们学习的时候该进行的。其实音乐学的主要关注对象是西方音乐，特别是西方艺术音乐。
音乐学研究之关心少量的艺术音乐、有书写历史、记谱体系的音乐。事实上，就是面对东方音乐很多音乐学家也用同样的方法对待，这个观点连老P都说过“……（"Such a scholar is a musicologist in the same sense as a historian of Western music is, except that he specializes in a foreign musical culture" (Harrison, Hood, and Palisca 1963:107).）”
而另一个方面，音乐人类学倾向的民族音乐学家，则将其注意力放在无文字民族上。历史上来讲，人类学的推动力就是对纷繁复杂的不同人的研究。西方人已经被研究的差不多了，东方人正在研究，而对无文字民族的研究则基本上是空白。因此，人类学倾向的民族音乐学家在人类学的推动下开始了对无文字民族的研究。
我还看到了另一个不同，就像前面所说的，因为人类学对“所有时代的不同的人的研究”，所以人类学倾向的民族音乐学者或多或少的接受了这个理念，一定程度上比音乐学者拓宽了研究对象的范围。民族音乐学努力研究所有的音乐而不仅仅是非欧音乐。人类学研究中出现的扩张体现在两个方面,既有研究兴趣的增长也有研究疆域的扩张,因此在人类学的研究中有越来越多的人开始从事对印第安人甚至是美国本土的研究。我还没有看到人类学倾向的民族音乐学者转向这方面的研究，但是这不妨碍他们对这方面进行研究的热情和精力。与此同时，音乐学倾向的民族音乐学家也开始转向了他们原来很少关注的对无文字民族的研究。总而言之，从学科的训练及态度两方面，研究转向了世界的特殊区域和特殊人群的研究。因为人类学研究倾向于对所有时空的人的研究，同时又因为音乐学研究关注与于欧洲文化以及与之联系紧密的文化的研究，所以明显的看到人类学倾向的民族音乐学家的视域宽于出自其同文化国家的音乐学研究。
第二个显著的不同，出现于建立在研究对象概念上的不同的研究方法。对于音乐学家而言，反过来说，对于人类学家，将人类的行为和音乐的学习作为文化的一个方面。结果，音乐学家关注于在音乐表演或体系中特殊的结构和特定的研究。音乐学倾向的民族音乐学研究几乎不需要文献，甚至M·胡德这样支持“我们或许可以这样绝对的说对音乐风格透彻的分析——无论西方还是非西方——建立在绝对准确和详细的信息基础之上，这种信息是调查者的想象以及基于电子时代才可以产生的奇异景观。”这里的研究对象显然是作为音乐的音乐，还有很多细微的细节。音乐和文化的关系并不是音乐学倾向的民族音乐学者的研究对象。
对人类学而言，最重要的研究对象是对人类行为的理解，在这个基础上，人类学倾向的民族音乐学研究将人类文化和社会的所有方面视为丰富变化的一个方面。因此他们对音乐的观点不同于音乐学家。首先，作为很多表达行为的一种，音乐可能并不重要，其次，就象所有人类的产品，作为概念化和行为的一种，音乐的产生不可避免的需要介质。因此人类学家并不局限于对单一问题和单一行为的研究，而是要将音乐充分放置在其文化环境中。可以说几乎无法孤立的看待音乐，相反地……。最后，作为人类行为理解音乐，很少不充分关注行为过程。我记得在这方面C·F这样说“人文科学聚焦于……人的产品……然而社会科学聚焦于人们聚居的方式。”人类学倾向的民族音乐学研究将音乐的声音作为动作、概念以及有关音乐的行为的复杂体的一个部分；而音乐学倾向的民族音乐学者这往往只关注与音乐声响本身。
第三点不同在于民族音乐学具体研究方法上的不同，这主要是对于音乐表演的研究，而它根植于前面所说的两个不同体系的学科的区别。如果我理解正确的话那么音乐学将音乐作为了研究对象，而中心是对包含表演在内的艺术地研究，不难想象音乐学倾向的民族音乐学研究对表演想象实质。而另一方面，这不是人类学者所最关注的。他们的对象不是为听众新创造出文化；他们的任务是分析那些他们观察和引申出来的音乐的沟通。
分歧出自于两个阵营对表演活动的认识，此外，涉及的理由，我认为一些民族音乐学家（在指胡德吗？）强调表演准确的说是因为这是他们早期训练的一部分，对于一部分音乐学家也一样。我相信在面对非西方音乐时，通过表演他们可以获得大量的感受，这是欣赏音乐，宽泛的讲他们也是一个听众而已。通过演奏时风格学习的不二法门。的确，学习演奏时这个领域的很好的方式。然而我却不这样想，就像J·M说的那样“the investigators actual rendition of a native song will make him feel the emotions and perceive directly the aesthetic image ”。
我并不认为表演对于理解音乐有比其他方式更好的贡献。简而言之，我对民族音乐学者学习演奏没有意见，但不要因此排除其他理解的方式，对表演的作用意义也不可言过其词。表演对民族音乐学者而言的确有用，但我要讲清楚，它对于音乐学者的作用要大于对人类学者的作用。
第四点不同在于对人类综合活动的认识，将联系着大量数据、理论、对理论的理论，并趋向于臆测、理论和法则。在这里我对音乐学有一点担心，但是在这里我更多的感到，人类学有更多的兴趣被卷入这两个学科。我已经意识到人类学不仅仅是取决于科学的方法，它的目标是所有的学科，我们也可说成是科学的。因此他所归纳的许多数据可以说是臆测的，同时还因此形成了理论，甚至是法律，这些对人类的行为来说是适用的。人类学家不是孤立的看待、研究问题，他们知道这些问题是建立在臆想基础之上的，他们能超越人类学的理论发展出系统的方法学。这是社会科学的标准程序。因此人类学倾向的民族音乐学家不满足于仅仅对资料的收集，他们将资料即视为方法又视为目的。
音乐学家更乐衷于收集资料并分析那些与他们个人兴趣相关联的资料。作为权威的观点，我引用胡德在1963年写的条目“早期涉及不同音乐间比较所得到的结论是概论性质的、过于简化的……”，三年后，胡德还进行了补充。
假如胡德的论述表现出了ME中所盛行的一个观点，那么我有把握论证人类学家可能对此保持异议。依我个人的意见，预先的设想和对未来调查的划定永远不嫌太早。因为，理论或调查的原理法则有赖于已有论断的科学和知识的积累。建立一种理论预设，并进而打破和推翻，将使我们获得越来越多的并且越来越准确的知识。智性的思考过程需要我们不断的将理解有序化，使之越来越精确，其中，失败和更正是思考过程中所不可缺少的。缺少这一过程，我们将仅仅只是获得越来越多的数据，而这也正是我所不断反复论证的：为什么数据的搜集对于民族音乐学研究来说是远远不够的缘由。数据的搜集必须靠一种强有力的主体理论和方法论的支撑。数据、方法论以及理论是任何研究所不可或缺的三方面——它们不可避免的相互依存，互相之称。正如我曾在其他地方所指出的：“这是为什么在任何研究领域中，业余性是如此大的一个难题。我们并不是因为他是一个业余人士而厌恶业余，而是因为因为对于研究他无所作为，或者贡献极小”。
两个领域之间的第5个争议，则是关于所调查的相关学科的亲缘关联。在此，我再次发现音乐学从根本上是态度冷淡的，可以用帕里斯卡为例，因为他将“声学、美学、物理学、生理学、教育学、音乐社会学、以及人类学”从音乐学的主体中去掉，只将其视为“相关领域”而不是视为重要关注点。这一做法再次论证了，音乐学的研究对象只是音乐其本身。
另一方面，人类学则欢迎姊妹学科的研究，只要其能解决所研究中所遇到的问题，任何学科都可大胆借用。我相信这一现象，源自其自身学科的发展历史，因为自人类学产生之初，它所面对的就是人类社会和文化的整体视域，或者至少是全部无文字的世界和族群。这就注定了人类学必须大胆的吸收或者说是吞噬其他学科的方法论原理，以一种开放的态度去吸收异文化知识。
因此，当音乐学家貌似在捍卫其学科的纯粹性时，人类学家则海纳百川，而不担心这样的人类学是否合适？其答案必定是一个广延的视域，其内容并远远超越于音乐声音的本体研究。
但是要进一步指出的是，我在这里对两种学科所进行的比较，并不是扬此贬彼。这类两学科的确是不同的，但是重要的是，我们要去理解它们为什么不同，其意义在于何处？下面，我希望能够将两者的分歧调和。
我希望能够提出一种研究的理论模式，能够为两个领域之间的共同关注点服务。这一模式四年前曾经在《音乐人类学》中提出过。
假如我们的研究对象是音乐，但是从其最宽泛的意义上而言，它是一种人类现象，那么我可以基于三个分析层面提出一个理论模式
A、 关于音乐的观念；
B、 和音乐相关的行为；
C、 音乐本身；
其中，第一和第三个层面可以用来解释所有音乐体系所展现出来的变化及动态本质。声音体系有其结构，但是它必须视为行为所导致的结果。行为包括生理的、社会的、口头的以及学习方面，但是反过来说，行为也是来自于观念的。“没有和音乐相关的观念，行为无从引发，同时，若没有行为，音乐也不能制造出来”。
这一模型还隐含着一个更大的含义，即，民族音乐学家研究音乐的目的，并不仅仅在于音乐本身；它是将音乐声音视为一种人类的产品，而不是仅仅将其看作自在之物。
对三分模式的批评
我看到了对此的批评，但我认为其中有一部分并不公正客观。
内特尔：认为我的建议并不能真正消除两大阵营的分歧。
反驳：人类的行为不就是音乐吗，我的模式本意就在于将二者融合而不是割裂的看待。
民族音乐学E既不是“音乐的人类学化（研究）”也不是“音乐的音乐”，它恰恰是二者的结合！
没有“音乐的人类学”，民族音乐学称为音乐学简单化的偏见；没有“音乐的音乐”，民族音乐学变成了人类学中部分文化的研究。
第二种批评来自于人类学界——
考林斯基：仍间坚持用“比较音乐学”这一称呼，的确，他关注于音乐在精神层面上对人生理的影响，他只考虑听觉上的声音，而我则关注音乐的方方面面——这是民族音乐学家了解“人们为什么制造音乐”的必由之路。
同时，我不同意他将音乐学分为“音乐的人类学”和“比较音乐学”两个阵营，这其实非常危险。
·结语·
• 民族音乐学永远在找寻：用最合适的方法达到最好的效果；
• 我希望可以真正理解我们究竟要做什么；如果想拥有广泛的理解，就要理解不同人的不同认识和不同的行为方式；
• 也许你我总有人要强调音乐学家与人类学家的区别，但是我真诚的希望，这些都仅仅是我们的学习过程；
• 也许我们还要经历漫长的过程，但当有一天民族音乐学不用再分所谓“音乐学倾向的”和“人类学倾向的”两个“阵营”，我相信这将是我们最终寻找的。
曹老师：当然音乐与行为、概念有关，但是否这一定是一个局内人有“意识”的过程？我举两个简单的例子让大家思考，在很多地方的民俗文化中，往往会有很多巫师、巫婆，可能一直以来他们都和正常人一样的生活，突然有一天他/她失踪了一段时间或者得了一场大病，然后他们回来了、或病好了，就会唱很多很多的歌、会看到过去和未来、会治病。这个唱歌的行为和概念有什么关系？是局内人有“意识”的过程吗？还有一种心理学神经学称为“Savant”的人，他们往往很内向，智商在很多方面都和比常人低，但却有一两个特别的方面超过常人许多，特别是在我们所谓的艺术天才哪方面，他们的行为和概念之间又有什么关系？是否还有其他的可能性？
曹老师的点评：
Merriam是美国民族音乐学中走人类学偏向的学科领先人物。他提出的“to study music as (in) culture”研究取向和“musical sound – behavior – conceptualization”的理论框架为美国民族音乐学提供了以人类学视野研究音乐文化的主导理论思维。
Structure of the Article
Introduction
Background circumstances
Aim of the article
Horns of a Bifurcated Dilemma (musicology and anthropology)
Musicology (5 approaches)
Anthropology (4 branches, 3 concerns，5 characteristics)
Humanities (musicology) and Science (anthropology): 5 basic differences
Ethnomusicology, Musicology and Anthropology
Kinds of music being studied
Resolution
以下是曹老师希望同学在文章中注意的地方：
Introduction
p. 213
In writing this paper I had no particular individuals or groups of individuals in mind, save for musicologists, anthropologists, and ethnomusicologists as broad groupings. My aim was to generalize about these fields, and by isolating what I felt to be their major orientations, to attempt to explain why particular groups of scholars concentrate their efforts in particular directions. 【是吗？文章似乎只有对音乐学的批评而没“explain”】 As always, it seems to me that understanding who we are and why we do what we do will help to minimize the apparent differences of approach among us and perhaps lead to the establishment of a true discipline of ethnomusicology. 【这里的“us”指的是本段前面的“musicologists, anthropologists, and ethnomusicologists”，似乎意味着三者是“一家”。但全文没给读者这个感觉，更多的是“分家”之说。】
Horns of a Bifurcated Dilemma (musicology and anthropology)
l Musicology (five approaches)
p. 213 – 214
, some analytic, and even some which seem to be none of these… Is ethnomusicology a discipline? And if it is, what is the nature of that discipline, what are the principles on which it is based, and what is it seeking to learn? Our definitions of the field vary widely, from “the study of music in culture,” (Merriam 1960) 【Merriam后来扩展到“the study of music as culture”】through “the science that deals with the music of peoples outside of Western civilization” (Nett1 1956:1), to “the study of those world musics which are aurally transmitted” (Gillis : personal communication). 【怎么不提Hood的“the study of music within its cultural contexts”呢？】
p. 214
…the major difficulty lies in the fact that ethnomusicology…made up of two established disciplines trying uneasily to find a modus vivendi. The two major disciplines…are musicology and anthropology…it would be easy to add several others to the pot we call ethnomusicology – history, psychology, physics, physiology, sociology, philosophy, and perhaps some others as well. 【对学科的平面认知！】At the start, then, it appears that ethnomusicology is essentially a catch-all discipline, 【“catch-all”？就是因为如同Merriam的这种对学科的定位的平面概念，导致学科失去了核心，所以在学科认同（discipline identity）上纠缠不清！】but for our purposes let me restrict the discussion to the two major bodies of knowledge which cause the basic difficulty – musicology and anthropology…. What do students of musicology see as their major goals? What is the main direction of interest in anthropology? Where do these fit together? And most important, what is it in the training procedures of the two disciplines which give musicologists and anthropologists such different perspectives when each approaches the problems of ethnomusicology? 【人类学的研究对象并不是“音乐”，如以所谓的“文化”关注来说两者的“approaches the problems of ethnomusicology”，那么社会学、语言学…等人文社科学科便也是在“approach the problems of ethnomusicology”了？！】
p. 214
Turning first to musicology, I find myself somewhat bemused when I read discussions about what musicology is and when I seek a better understanding by talking with my colleagues in the field. 【Merriam的第一个攻击，对象是“音乐学”。“bemused”？可能人家也觉得你这个民族音乐学是可笑呢。在没搞清楚什么是“musicology”之前便把它视为对立的】To put the matter rather flatly, I find that what musicologists do and what they say they do, are often quite different things, though that may be true in all disciplines. 【“they”？文章的开场白可是用的是“us”，似乎是想扮演一个包容的态度。但这里却用把音乐学分界为“they”？ 究竟是谁在“说一套做一套”呢？】
p. 215
…My musicologist friends at Indiana University tell me that a more modern statement of what musicology is and does is to be found in the more recent book, Musicology, co-authored by Messrs. Harrison, Hood and Palisca (1963), and I am happy to agree. But I run across confusing obstacles here, too. 【难道民族音乐学没有confusion？如果它没有混淆，为何自50年代有了“民族音乐学”这名称以来的50多年后，我们仍然需要澄清它是什么？民族音乐学的混淆，可能没其他学科可以与它“比美”。Merriam的这一段对音乐学的批评，与他前言所说的“minimize the apparent differences of approach…”是背道而驰的；他前言中的所谓“lead to the establishment of a true discipline of ethnomusicology”，其“true”，看来只是他眼中的“ethnomusicology”才是“true ethnomusicology”！】
p. 216
What I gain from a reading of musicologists, and from discussing musicology with friends in the field, is that musicology is characterized by five basic points of approach: 1) musicology is concerned in the main with Western art music; 2) it sees sharp distinctions between what are most often called “art” and “primitive” music, based primarily on the presence or absence of a written literature and so-called “developed” theory; 3) it is specifically humanistic, and excludes, except as tangential or related fields, the sciences; 4) it is essentially historical; 5) it views as its study-object music per se. 【片面之词。同学回顾一下Adler对音乐学的构图便知。我到觉得Merriam的批评暴露了人类学背景的他，对音乐学的认识是不全面的，且具偏见。人类学背景的他，使他缺乏对音乐“历史”的概念，也不能接受音乐中“works of art”的存在。】
l Anthropology (4 branches, 3 concerns/5 characteristics)
p. 216
We must begin in anthropology by differentiating among its four major branches. Archaeology deals with the physical, and increasingly with inferences about the social remains of extinct cultures. Physical anthropology examines the biology of man through time. Anthropological linguistics seeks an understanding of the structure and function of the languages of man, and social and cultural anthropology attempt to understand why man behaves as he does. Three major concerns override all four fields of specialization in anthropology, however. First, anthropology… looks at all men everywhere, regarding any particular group of men as but a single variable in human behavior as a whole. 【他所见的“人”，是只有群体，不见个人的“all men”】Second, it seeks an understanding of all men everywhere through all of man’s time on earth. 【除了考古学，其他三个对民族音乐学有直接影响的分支，基本上都是对“现在”的研究，何来“all of man’s time on earth”？说一套做一套。】And third, it seeks its information through the methods of science and regards itself as a social science.
pp. 216 – 217
. 【从这里可以看到北美学界文化中的“理论”、轻描述偏见。在此，Merriam也以此偏见来批评他认为是描述性的历史音乐学。但是，无论他以为人类学是何等的“科学化”或“理论化”，拆去了包装，实质上最终仍然是对“人”的描述！】 Thus anthropology does depend upon the scientific method, but more importantly it identifies itself not only with the procedures of science but with its goals as well. Science begins with observation and experimentation…, moves through repetition and verification (in anthropology often expressed through the comparative method), to classification of observations, formulation of hypotheses, prediction of further experimentation, testing of predictions, and the verification or modification of hypotheses. 【这早就是Adler时期的从所周知、而且谁都在用着的方法学了。正如“比较”不是只有“比较音乐学”才有的一样，这种“observation – verification – classification – hypotheses”也不是只有“人类学”才有的。】
p. 217
In respect to ethnomusicology…social and cultural anthropology have had the greatest impact…. music is usually conceived of in anthropology as a cultural activity …thus the ideas and theories of social and cultural anthropology are brought to the forefront in connection with ethnomusicology .
We can, then, characterize anthropology…: 1) anthropology is concerned with all peoples at all times; 【真的吗？】 2) it sees all aspects of human culture and society as a single interacting set of variables; 【这是没有个人的“人”】 3) it is specifically scientific in its orientation; 4) its methodology is partly historical, but primarily scientific; 5) it views its study-object as an understanding of human behavior. 【这里是p. 216的重复，但前面的3个人类学关注，在这里重复时变成了5个特征。结构逻辑有些问题】
l Humanities (musicology) and Science (anthropology): 5 basic differences
The humanities【指历史音乐学】and social sciences【指人类学】 have been differentiated in the past on five major bases: the differences between the artist and the social scientist, 【这中两分，同学们可以联想到上一篇Nettl的文章中提及的“doers”和“talkers”，我认为是很遗憾的概念】and the differences between the methods, results, activities, and content of the two areas of concentration. 【这，也是Merriam的书里第一章所用的比较】You will perhaps recall that the difference between the artist and the social scientist is what each communicates; that is, the artist communicates feelings while the scientist communicates knowledge. 【感性和理性。同学可以考虑一下，在对待“音乐”（关及人的creativeness）之时，两者如何平衡？我们要单纯从“说”去了解音乐，还是从“奏”、“听”、“看”、“感”、“想”去了解音乐？】 Given what I have attempted to establish above, the musicologist, then, has as a central task the communication of that kind of knowledge which will enable the artist to communicate feeling. The anthropologist, on the other hand, has no obligation to such an intervening personage as the artist; it is his task only to communicate knowledge【“knowledge”不包括人的感受？】in any way he sees fit and to whatever audience suits him. This seems a crucial difference to me in assessing the two fields.
p. 218
Since music per se is the study-object of the musicologist, his ultimate task is to communicate music, which he must do through the artist. Since the study object of the social and cultural anthropologist…is an understanding of human behavior, he is under no obligation to communicate music as such, or its feelings – to the contrary, his task is to communicate knowledge about music…. 【音乐作为人类文化中的“产物”，它是有一个社会化的“过程”的，Adler对音乐学的构图已经清楚理解到这一点。Merriam在这里把“产物”和“过程”分别拿来等同音乐学和人类学，其合理性和逻辑见仁见智。】 Crucial here is the study-object; what results from the particular concentration in the two fields is a sharply different set of obligations.
Within this framework the methods used are of little concern to us, for scholars in either field may use any methodology deemed appropriate to their task, and scholars in both may use the same methodology. …anthropologists use both scientific and historical methodology and so do musicologists… it is the results achieved that provide us with another characterizing difference between the humanities, as represented by musicology, and the social sciences, as represented by anthropology. 【这些“要点”反复重复了几次了】
p. 219
This brief examination of the methods and goals of the humanities and social sciences indicates that the two areas of study do differ from each other… Musicology and anthropology are not cut of the same cloth, and the crucial problem for ethnomusicology lies precisely here… the thrusts of these two disciplines move in different directions, and if I am correct in this then we should expect to find that the two approaches to ethnomusicology must differ, and in predictable ways. Let us turn, then, to the studies and concerns of each discipline as reflected in ethnomusicology.
Ethnomusicology, Musicology and Anthropology
l Kinds of music being studied
p. 220
One of the most noticeable differences between the two is the kinds of music they study. The musicologists in ethnomusicology have a strong predilection for Oriental art music, and in general, … “fine art” music of …“high” cultures, i.e., India, Arabia, Indonesia, and so forth. The anthropological ethnomusicologists, on the other hand, have concentrated most of their attention on the music of …“non-literate” peoples, that is, American Indians, Africans, peoples of Oceania, and so forth…Let us look at musicologists and their interests first. 【这是Merriam自己（或他那个时代）的分类，同学在Nettl、Myer等人的有关民族音乐学的专著中可以知道，如此概念已给时间淘汰。我们可以略过Merriam的这个“不同点”。】
p. 221
I do see one other difference, …that anthropology is concerned with all peoples at all times. Thus, the anthropological ethnomusicologist is probably more receptive to a broad listing of the kinds of music he will study …than the musicologist. I see this receptivity in the anthropological definitions of ethnomusicology in which stress is laid on working with all music rather than non-Western music alone.... In sum, the training and attitudes of both fields move students toward particular world areas and particular kinds of societies.
pp. 221 – 222
A second notable difference between the two approaches is found in the conceptualized study-object of each which, for the musicologist, is music per se, and for the anthropologist, human behavior and the study of music as an aspect of culture. As a result of this focus the musicologist tends to emphasize structural and particularistic studies of music performance or style. That this focus is evident in the work of musicological ethnomusicologists 【这是文章中的第二个攻击，对象是Hood，把Hood带上了一顶“musicological ethnomusicologist”的帽子。】hardly needs documentation, and the extent to which it may be carried is demonstrated by Mantle Hood when he writes that “. . .we may state categorically that a thorough stylistic analysis of music – whether Western or non-Western – must be founded on the most accurate and detailed information that the imagination of the investigator and the marvels of an electronic age can produce” [Hood’s italics] (Harrison, Hood, and Palisca 1963:273). The basic objective here is clearly music as music…. The relationship of music to the rest of culture is not the objective of the musicological ethnomusicologist. 【如果我们回顾Adler对音乐学的构图，我们可以知道，Adler的音乐学并不是没有考虑到“文化”！另外，在研究音乐的过去的时候，“田野”在那里？“田野”应该不是Merriam或人类学家所熟悉的那种“田野”了（当然他们是不会明白的）。而且，Hood从来没有说过他不关注音乐的文化问题，只是他提倡的是从音乐切入，在文化中理解而已。Merriam是见而不闻呢，还是故意误导？】
For the anthropologist the essential study–object is the understanding of human behavior, and in this context the anthropological ethnomusicologist sees all aspects of human culture and society as a single set of variables. Thus for him music is viewed differently…In the first place, music as such is probably less important, for it is but a single kind of expressive behavior among many. And second, music is inevitably a product produced through the medium, as in the case of all human products, of a number of kinds of conceptualizations and behaviors. Thus the anthropologist is trained not only to focus upon a single problem or a single kind of behavior, in this case music, but to view it in the context of an entire culture, all parts of which impinge in multiple ways upon what he is studying in particular. He should be virtually incapable of seeing music as an isolate, then, and conversely, it is his specific task to see music in a broad context. Finally, since he is attempting to understand music as human behavior he is less likely to direct his entire attention on what to him is a product of behavior. I am reminded in this connection of Carl Friedrich’s statement that “the focus of the humanities is upon . . . the products of man . . . whereas the focus of the social sciences is upon the way men live together” (Parker 196 1 :16). The anthropological ethnomusicologist sees the sound of music as but one part of a complex of activities, conceptualizations, and behaviors connected with music; the musicological ethnomusicologist sees music sound as the precise focus of his attention. 【音乐是产品和过程，这才是音乐学研究对象的应有概念！】
pp. 222 – 223
A third difference in ethnomusicological approach concerns the emphasis, or lack of it, placed upon performance of the music studied…. If I am correct in my understanding that musicology holds music per se as its study-object, and that the central concern of musicology is to provide the artist with music to perform, then it is not surprising that performance assumes substantial importance in musicological ethnomusicology…On the other hand, this is not the anthropologist’s central concern. His object is not to recreate the cultures he studies for an audience; his job is to analyze what he observes and elicits and to communicate knowledge about it…【这就又要回到上一篇Nettl文章中描述美国的所谓学者认为他们应该是“讲者”，而不是“做者”的问题了。按Merriam的说法，看来我们要把我在北美读书时音乐圈里用来讥笑音乐学的名句（“those who cannot play, study musicology”）移去北美民族音乐学者中的人类学偏向的“讲者”身上了：“those who cannot play, study ‘anthro’-ethnomusicology”。补充：“performance practice”演奏习惯的研究是历史音乐学的研究课题之一】 …Learning a style 【进一步攻击Hood的“双重音乐感”】teaches the performer a good deal about that style which may be obtainable in no other way. It is also true that performance is an excellent methodological device in the field. I do not, however, share Jose Maceda’s belief that “the investigator’s actual rendition of a native song will make him feel the emotions and perceive directly the aesthetic image . . .” of the music (Maceda 1966:224). 【再一个攻击！菲律宾学者Maceda（已故）是UCLA Hood阵营的成员，是Merriam的所谓的“音乐学”倾向的民族音乐学学者，在这里也免不了要受到Merriam的攻击。明显的，Merriam反对的不只是Maceda的这一句话，他是在攻击Hood的“双重音乐感”，一个当时普受学界认同的概念。】Neither do I believe that performance is more than one contributory mode of understanding a music. 【Hood没说过“双重音乐感”是唯一理解音乐的途径】In short, I have never had any objection to performance in ethnomusicology except as it has tended to overshadow other aspects of our study, and as exaggerated claims for its importance have been made. 【念来有些吃醋的味道】Performance is and will continue to be a useful part of ethnomusicology, but because of the factors I have tried to make clear it always have greater appeal for the musicologist than for the anthropologist. 【十分荒唐的强辩！这那里是在合二为一啊！说一套做一套。】
pp. 223 – 224
【这两段引言都是Hood针对比较音乐学的宏观比较仍不是时候，因为尚缺乏足够的数据基础。Merriam引来用在此地有些张冠李带的感觉，颇为误导。】
Assuming that Hood’s statements represent a prevalent view in musicological ethnomusicology, I think it is safe to say that anthropologists would disagree. In my own view, it is never too early to suggest hypotheses and lines of further inquiry. 【为了攻击Hood，这里到读来好像Merriam是赞同比较音乐学的宏观比较了？那么，比较音乐学是否算是人类学视野的民族音乐学呢“anthropological ethnomusicology”呢？不明！】 This is, after all, the principle upon which science and the accumulation of knowledge is predicated. 【总算看到可以认同的东西了。即是，学科的宏观目的（对“人”的研究）必须通过比较获得。】The building and subsequent destruction of hypotheses and principles always leaves us with more accurate and greater knowledge; 【那么Merriam就应该对前期欧洲比较音乐学的贡献给予肯定】the intellectual process demands that we constantly attempt to order our understanding and make it more precise; failure and subsequent correction are a necessary part of the procedure.
pp. 224 – 225
A fifth difference between the two fields concerns their relative hospitality to the investigations of related disciplines. Here again I find musicology to be essentially inhospitable, and cite as part of my evidence Palisca’s careful stripping away of “acoustics, aesthetics, physiology, psychology, pedagogy, musical sociology, and anthropology” from the main body of musicology, treating them as “related fields” but not as central concerns. 【对学科的立体定位是学科认同（discipline identity）的基本；就是Merriam式的多学科平面排列使民族音乐学主客不分，搞不清自己究竟是什么学。】
The anthropologist, on the other hand, welcomes the investigations of sister disciplines and tends to borrow whatever he can master from them which throws light on the problem he is pursuing. Anthropologists have thus been forced to learn all they could from their sister disciplines and have welcomed all the assistance they could get. Thus, where musicologists seem to defend the purity of their discipline, anthropologists use anything they can get their hands on… result is inevitably a broad scope which extends far beyond the study of music sound. 【另一个结果是，什都不是，什么都不象，外行充内行。】
…I would expect the musicological ethnomusicologist to be far more preoccupied with the history of ethnomusicology than he apparently is. We badly need histories, and particularly histories of ideas, in ethnomusicology, but I do not know of any such activity. Far too few of us, for example, know what von Hornbostel really did, and I hope very much that this will become a matter of concern for ethnomusicology in the near future. I suspect that musicologists are more likely to pursue this kind of investigation than are anthropologists. 【对的】
pp. 225 – 226
l Resolution
…I would like to turn now to the possible resolution of these differences. As we stand today we are but two disciplines looking for a joint home….
I wish to suggest once again a theoretical research model which can serve our area of common concern but which has not been clearly understood; this is the model proposed four years ago in The Anthropology of Music (Merriam 1964:32-35)…I propose a model based on three analytic levels: conceptualizations about music, behavior in relation to music, and music sound itself, with the first and third levels connected to provide for the constantly changing, dynamic nature exhibited by all music systems. The sound system has structure, but it must be regarded as the product of the behavior that produces it. Behavior includes physical, social, verbal, and learning aspects, but it, in turn, arises out of the conceptualizations which underlie it…. The product, however, feeds back upon concepts, and it either reinforces or changes them in accordance with what society conceives its values about music to be. 【基本上就是“思想”（conceptualizations about music）（和“行为”（behavior in relation to music, and music sound itself）。注意：国内有人把“music sound itself”翻译成“音声”或“声音”，都不对！Merriam的“music sound”，只是“音乐”。他之所以如此用，只是想表示他概念中的音乐，有狭义（音乐本身）和广义（音乐作为文化）两各含义。他在The Anthropology of Musicology一书的行文中更多用的只是“music”。我在“仪式中音声”的研究所提出的“音声”概念，完全不是Merriam的“music sound”，希望国内学者不要继续制造两者之间的混淆！】
I am well aware of the fact that the model has been criticized by my fellow ethnomusicologists, but the grounds for criticism do not always seem justified for me. Bruno Nettl, for example (1966), 【转换目标，攻击Nettl了！】 feels that I have suggested ethnomusicology must irrevocably be split into two camps, and that the musicologically oriented scholar must concentrate upon music sound while the anthropologically oriented scholar continues on his merry way of studying music as human behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth, for while music is human behavior it is also music, and the model was deliberately constructed to take both into account. I should like to quote a further passage from The Anthropology of Music which I feel has been consistently overlooked:
It should be emphasized that the parts of the model presented above are not conceived as distinct entities separable from one another on any but the theoretical level...They are presented individually here in order to emphasize the parts of the whole…. (Merriam 1964:35)
【说是这么说，但实际上Merriam研究本身的去向显示了他是重两者之其一的。就算他是抱着三合一并重关注的“公平”态度的，但当其他人类学偏向的美国学者在他的框架的影响下，越来越走偏去钻音乐上下文的牛角尖的时候，他并没出来澄清他的所谓“并重”原意。这，他是有责任的。】
p. 227
I do not see how I could state more clearly my belief that ethnomusicology is neither “the anthropology of music,” nor “the music of music” – it is both. Without “the anthropology of music,” ethnomusicology becomes simply musicology with an areal bias; without “the music of music,” ethnomusicology becomes simply the anthropology of a particular aspect of culture. 【注意：这是Merriam自己的表白！但国内仍然有以Merriam的The Anthropology of Music书名为依据，把“the anthropology of music”与“ethnomusicology”混为一谈，译成“音乐人类学”，甚至把它鼓吹为学科！】
A second criticism of the model has been made on the ground that it is anthropological and that it relegates musicology to an inferior position – this view has been taken in a recent article by Kolinski (1967)…. Again nothing could be further from the truth; while the model was suggested by an anthropologist, and while it clearly grows out of anthropological training and interests, it considers fully the work done by what Kolinski chooses to call the “comparative musicologist.” Indeed, Kolinskis insistence on the importance of studying human physiology and its effect as a common base from which music springs for all humanity is, to make a poor joke, “music to my ears.” 【确实是一个馊笑话】My insistence, once again, is that all factors must be considered in ethnomusicology...
My view is that what we are looking for in ethnomusicology is what we are always looking for – that methodology which will give us the most substantial results in the most economical and reliable way. We wish to understand everything we can about our object of study; we know that we must bring to bear upon it every technique and every body of knowledge we can if we are to reach the broad understanding we must seek. 【说一套做一套】
pp. 227 – 228
Perhaps you and I will never reach that understanding; perhaps some of us will always remain musicologists and some of us anthropologists, but we do have one bright hope, and that is our students… see ethnomusicology as ethnomusicology, and not as a presently existing pair of disciplines tossing darts at each other… But until we revise our own thinking we are going to continue to have two camps, each wary of the other, and not, in fact, doing ethnomusicology but musicological ethnomusicology and anthropological ethnomusicology, and this must not be what any of us seeks. 【仍是说一套做一套。整篇文章给读者的感受是以人类学为重的两分。】
顺便对Merriam的理论框架做以下的分析：Merriam的理论框架实际上只是一个哲学界早就论及的“思想～行为”二元。
而Merriam的三元模式基本是人类学的照搬：
Levels in Merriam’s Model Anthropological Correspondence
Music sound itself Material
Behavior about Music Social
(physical, social, verbal)
Conceptualization about Music Cultural or ideational aspects of human
Organization
