Nettl, Brono. 1998. “Arrows and Circles: An Anniversary Talk about Fifty Years of ICTM and the Study of Traditional Music.” Yearbook for Traditional Music 30: 1-11.
“历史的变化与循环：关于ICTM的五十年和音乐研究传统——在ICTM五十周年纪念上的讲话”
主讲：陈晨 专业：传统音乐
一、引言
学术研究者总是反思的两个问题：“What have we learned?”更彻底"Have we really learned anything in all that time?"
本文题目的来源：A book by Stephen Jay Gould, Times Arrow, Times Cycle
详解：历史是一种自我重复的过程，从学科的历史是由一系列范式构成的。
本文的内容与目的是通过回顾历史，解释民族音乐学学科在哪些方面经历历史的循环、重复与重新发现，统一的保持，在哪些方面跟随着历史的改变，从而引发反思。
二、似曾相识
v 今昔不同的社会政治大环境
v 今昔不同的学科大环境
三、作者自我小传
作者的三个亲身经历，揭示 1947年前后民族音乐学学科的现象。
™ Prague-Walter Kaufmann-Indian music
™ Prague-Father-78-rpm records and later discography
™ Bloomington-Herzog-"Folk and Primitive Music."
总结民族音乐学在1947年后的50年，发展的基线 P3/4：
™ study of non-Western and folk music – the study of the exotic which requires special methods
™ the attachment of non - Western music to the Western for suggesting a skewed chronology 年表 of world music
™ the unification of an eclectic methodology
v 提问并引出下文 P3/5 ：
™ 我们在过去的五十年中学到了什么，我们是在循环还是在进步？
™ 引出下文段落a) What is ethnomusicology? b) What is music? c) What is a music - or rather, what is our conception of the world of music? d) What kind of people are we? and finally, e) Have we done anyone any good? Needless to say, I have no answers but want to comment briefly and selectively from the viewpoints of circle and arrow.
四、什么是民族音乐学？
循环一 ：对于学科Ethnomusicology的定义 P3/6-P4/1
™ Merriam: "Ethnomusicology today is an area study caught up in a fascination with itself." 1964
™ ethnomusicologists -- not numerous the number of definition and conceptualization -- very considerable.
™ “ethno” and “compare” – long discussion
循环二：学科内关注问题的一致性 P4/2
™ Peasant societies:
™ Education:
™ Music and ethnicity:
™ Technology:
™ Relationship of music and dance:
™ on folk and art music;
作者对于学科的将来提出问题：P5/1
™ …现在是否已是时间考虑我们的学科联盟是帮助了我们的学科，抑或是阻碍了它？
五、什么是音乐？
由民族音乐学家观念中的两分法，引出Folk Music的定义问题。
Folk music 定义1955：P5/3-5：民间音乐是一种音乐传统的产品，这一产品是在口头传播的过程中演进而来的。民间音乐必须包含的因素有：联系着现在和过去的连续性、因为个人或者群体自发的创造冲动而不断变化、有社群决定他的它的生存的形式。例如，未受艺术音乐或流行音乐影响的社群的原生音乐；或者，由个人创作的音乐，但被社群采纳并通过口传流传。创作的流行音乐不包括在内，因为它在社群中不发生变化，民间音乐的核心特点是在流传的过程中不断地被重置和再创造。
通过举例贝多芬的民歌改编，质疑三种folk music观点，引发反思。
六，什么是一种音乐？
循环：音乐的世界是由一系列不同划分的音乐组成的这一观点没有改变。
矛盾体：保存——变化的民间音乐
问题：对于音乐的划分，我们需要新的理论吗?
七、我们是怎样的一群人？
变化：学术和实践分家
变化：舞蹈方面逐渐削弱
问题：保持纯学术，亦或重返Bloomington当年？（当年歌舞并用的场面）
八、我们是否作出了贡献？
对于世界的好处：使世界对音乐的多样性以及音乐与舞蹈在民族人中扮演的角色更有了解。
对于学界的好处：提高了师生对于世界范围内音乐多样性的认知，而这些多样的音乐是需要多样的适合的方法去理解的
对于局内人的有争议的好处：我们的研究是否真的对于局内人有帮助？但至少我们比前人能够正视这个问题了。
九、小结
本文是发表在ICTM五十周年庆上的主体演讲，正如作者所说，整篇文章并不是要回答问题，而是提出文体引发思考，对于民族音乐学的反思、对于民族音乐学方法论的反思、对于民族音乐学家本身角色的反思、以及对于学科的研究对象、50年来学界贡献的反思。
曹老师的点评：
这篇文章应该与前面课堂上已经讨论过的Christensen、Nettl（1988）的文章互相对照来看。
Structure of the Article
Introduction
The Field: What is ethnomusicology? [Definition of ethnomusicology]
Object of Study: What is music?
Unit of the object under study: What is “a” music?
Us the researchers: What kind of people are we?
Conclusion: Have we done anybody any good?
以下是曹老师希望同学在文章中注意的地方：
Introduction
p. 1
Its an honor for me to have been invited to speak on this occasion of the golden anniversary of the ICTM.
If we are an organization of people devoted to scholarship and research, looking back to the time of our origins, we should be asking, “What have we learned?” or with a bit more bite, “Have we really learned anything in all that time?” A book by Stephen Jay Gould, Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle (1987), suggested my title to me. It juxtaposes the resigned-sounding adage, “history repeats itself”….
So I want to ask to what extent we in ethnomusicology have been following the circle of history, repeating and rediscovering, maintaining consistency, and to what extent we have followed history’s arrow. I’d like to draw you back to the era or period of history about 50 years ago, and more, so that we can see in what ways our organization and our profession have moved forward【“arrow”】, and in what ways our history has been cyclic.
p. 1 – 2
In 1987, our fortieth anniversary, several spoke about the history of ICTM, its relationship to the field of ethnomusicology as a whole, the interface between European and American styles of scholarship, our institutional history (see e.g. Christensen 1988, Nettl 1988, Stockmann 1988)【前两篇文章在课堂上已讨论过】… there are various histories of the field that ascribe its onset to Guido Adlers (1885) seminal article, to the earliest field recordings of 1891, to the publication of the Sammelbande fiir vergleichende Musikwissenschaft in 1922, to Jaap Kunsts first edition (Kunst 1950), to the establishment of the Society for Ethnomusicology in 1955, or even 【注意 “or even” 这个用词（“就算连”）】to the publication of The Anthropology of Music (Merriam 1964).【作者的意思：“‘甚至连’Merriam的The Anthropology of Music也算在历史时刻之内”——给人的感觉似乎有作者与Merriam有旧账未清之感】… origins are always obscure. In any event, when IFMC was founded in 1947, the term “ethnomusicology” wasn’t yet established, and when it was, perhaps a few years later, many of our members really wouldn’t have felt comfortable with such a highfalutin word.
p. 3
For my third incident I mention taking a course in 1949 at Indiana University in Bloomington taught by George Herzog, a man also reared not far from here, in Budapest…Herzog brought into this course the eclectic approach that characterized his work and also that of many in our field: the analytic folk music study of Bartok and Kodaly with their emphasis on authenticity; the analytical paradigms developed by Hornbostel; the holistic view of culture characteristic of the American anthropology of Franz Boas; the folkloristics of the Scandinavian school and its historical-geographic method, and pre-Chomskian linguistics as taught by Leonard Bloomfield and Edward Sapir (see Nett1 1991). 【欧洲比较音乐学传统与当时美国人类学思潮的混合；这也是Herzog之所以能在北美得到接受的原因之一（见我们已讨论过的Nettl的文章（1988）】
These three aspects of the study of non-Western and folk music – the study of the exotic which requires special methods, the attachment of non-Western music to the Western for suggesting a skewed chronology of world music, and the unification【？】of an eclectic methodology – these three seem to me to constitute a baseline for the development of ethnomusicology in the fifty years that followed.
The Field: What is ethnomusicology? [Definition of ethnomusicology]
pp. 3 – 4
In 1964 Alan Merriam began The Anthropology of Music (1964:3) by saying, “Ethnomusicology today is an area study caught up in a fascination with itself.” 【民族音乐学的自我欣赏】…the number of publications that set out to define and conceptualize ethnomusicology【对学科的界定】is very considerable. Compare that with musicology as a whole, or with physics or chemistry, whose practitioners don’t worry much about defining. 【因为其他学科对自己的研究对象、学科定位和理论方法有清晰、实效可行的目标，他们有足够的自信，无须不断的澄清和说明自己是什么，不像北美的民族音乐学。】Merriam’s (1977) article on the subject shows that there has long been discussion of just what the “ethno” means, and what the adjective “comparative” implied. I think we are still at it. One of our circles – in our history we keep on coming back to this matter of self-definition. 【美国学者如果能踏实地在欧洲音乐学的传统之中发展它的民族音乐学，搞清学科的音乐学定位和音乐作为其直接研究对象，就不会有学科认同的危机，也无须直到现在还在寻找和解释民族音乐学是什么】
p. 4 – 5
Comparing the program of today’s meeting with those of the first four volumes of the IFMC Journal (1948-51), I am struck by the congruence of interests: Here are some of the topics of 1947-50 and a sampling of papers... I give you these titles as part of the heraldry of our anniversary celebration, but also to point out the important consistencies in the interests of fifty years ago and today. 【研究领域没太多变化】But we also have the arrow. Our attitudes have changed enormously. 【研究的态度和视野有所变化】For one thing, we worry less about authenticity and about preservation, though the attention paid to media, copyright, and archiving in this meeting and in the 1996 Yearbook suggests that in a new way we are still concerned about them. 【“authenticity”——旧酒，“media, copyright, and archiving”——装新瓶】We have the belief…that each society has some music it considers its own and with which it identifies itself – but to the nature of societies as nations or ethnic groups sharing a language we have added generational, religious, gender-based, and occupational subcultures.【新的关注】More significantly, we have responded to the attitude of Jaap Kunst who in 1959 told us that in ethnomusicology, “Western art- and popular (entertainment-) music do not belong to its field” (Kunst 1959:l). We now pay more attention to popular musics…. …whether it’s time for us to reconsider the disciplinary alignments in the field of music research that have served us well, but that have sometimes also been an obstacle. Just what does the ICTM mean by “traditional” music?
Object of Study: What is music?
p. 5
…to us, music is something different from what it is to others. It’s not Longfellow’s “universal language of mankind,” …. ethnomusicologists have tended to look at it in dichotomies, oral-written, authentic-mixed, and most important, ours-not ours…folk music…contrasted with art music. For the early times of IFMC, the division was between folk music and the rest. But also from the beginning, IFMC members seemed to be uncomfortable with the concept of folk music. In 1955 they tried by resolution to establish a definition; I think it’s time to quote it:
Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has evolved through the process of oral transmission. The factors that shape the tradition are: i) continuity that links the present with the past; ii) variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group; iii) selection by the community which determines the form or forms in which the music survives.
The term can be applied to music that has evolved from rudimentary beginnings by a community uninfluenced by popular and art music and it can likewise be applied to music which has originated with an individual composer and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community.
The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character. (IFMC 1955)
This dichotomy between folk and art music may be our oldest… It goes back to the early 19th century, to Johann Gottfried Herder, Pere Amiot, Sir William Jones, maybe even Beethoven and his arrangements of Scottish, Irish, and English folk songs.
Unit of the object under study: What is “a” music?
p. 6
The notion that one speaks of the world of music as a group of discrete musics is relatively new, and the change in terminology has various implications. But from the beginning of IFMC, and even earlier in the beginnings of ethnomusicology, there is the overwhelming conception that we must speak of Cherokee music, Persian music, Slovak music, and that in making, say, statistical statements about the world’s music, we must use the world’s musics as the units of counting. But what to include in a music? 【“a” music = world’s musics 世界音乐作为一体】
Our colleagues in historical musicology 【这里，Nettl没有犯Merriam的毛病（把“musicology”（母系）和“historical musicology”（音乐学的支系）混为一谈）】 have an easier time; their units of musical creation…is the composer... In folk music studies, from the beginning…one talked about the music of peoples... In the first few volumes of our Journal, there are many papers about the music of this or that nation: folk dances of Ireland, folk songs of Egypt, folk music of East Pakistan, Norwegian folk music and its social significance, the folk dances of Canada. …it’s assumed that the folk songs of Sweden have important things in common. We still talk largely in these terms; the idea of the world of music as a set of musics is a paradigm (or one of our circles), a concept to which we keep returning. But as we do, we see its difficulties and complexities.
p. 7
Today, curiously, we still talk about music largely in terms of cultural and social boundaries, but perhaps we have learned things about the relationship of music, ethnicity, personal and group identity. Our predecessors were concerned with the preservation of unchanging folk music, unchanging among the people who practiced it, but they subscribed to a definition that emphasized the changeability of that music. We have vastly better technologies for preservation, but we also realize that if change is one of the characteristics of folk music, we had better leave it alone to undergo change, concentrating on how this change takes place and what it means. 【请同学考虑Nettl的这句活。本土学者对他们自己文化的研究是否会认同这种隔离心理？这是外国人研究中国音乐和中国人研究中国音乐的不同（用谁的“眼睛”和“耳朵”）。另外，又如何用Nettl的这句话来看近来国内搞得红火的“非物质文化遗产保护”？】
Us the researchers: What kind of people are we?
…the participants in the 1950 meeting in Bloomington…Charles Seeger, Bertrand Bronson, Samuel Bayard, George Herzog, Albert Lord; and the middle-aged look of people now in the realm of legend – Maud Karpeles, Walter Anderson, Otto Andersson, Stith Thompson, Marius Barbeau... Absent at that particular meeting, by the way, were colleagues from eastern Europe, from Asia and Africa…. the ones who were there, what were they like, as a group?
…the IFMC members in Bloomington were not generally people who identified themselves directly with the “folk.” … They saw themselves as experts, not as pupils. …
p. 8
…we don’t have a holistic theory that integrates social and aesthetic factors. 【我们仍然没有一个融合社会和艺术因素的全方位理论。（即，“文化“和“音乐”的融合）】
…we are a rather different kind of crowd from those of 1947 or 1950. …One of the most evident involves the number of nations represented today. In the earliest years the IFMC was largely made up of Europeans, joined by some North Americans and the occasional Asian scholar. Later, participation of East Europeans, residents of the socialist nations, greatly increased – as did that of North Americans who, as Dieter Christensen pointed out (1988), were seen as a threat on account of their very numbers and resources. Today one can identify several schools of researchers, best though only approximately designated by world area…. these groups of scholars differ in their conception of ethnomusicology – for the North Americans…, it’s the study of all music from an anthropological perspective, 【“anthropological perspective”——人类学的视野。注意：这里用的是“perspective”一词，即是民族音乐学中的人类学视野取向】 with emphasis on studying the foreign. In some other parts of the world, it is the study of the music of ethnic groups; elsewhere again it concentrates on uncovering the ancient; and elsewhere again, national minorities are the focus.
Conclusion: Have we done anybody any good?
…The ICTM has grown into a major organization; the field of ethnomusicology has changed from the strange hobby of a few practitioners to a recognized profession. We may say smugly that the world needs us because it has provided jobs for at least a good many of us. But we should also ask, would anyone notice if we all disappeared? 【当然不会，惨！】
p.9
Our influence has been largely in the academy, where we have helped to raise the consciousness of some of the world’s music teachers and professors to the diversity of the world’s music, and the diversity of the approaches that might be followed to understand it.
Whether we have done any good for the musicians of the world whose work we study but whom we have often treated more as exotic objects than as persons, that’s more questionable, but at least we have talked about this obligation more than did our predecessors…In part, we aren’t sure what that role should be, how we would do anyone any good. Should we maintain distance or become agents and advocates? I salute those of you who have made concrete decisions and become active, including, I may say, our new president Anthony Seeger, who became famous for studying why the Suyh sing, as well as for helping them to maintain their culture.
Well, to close, I don know whether the denizens of the field of ethnomusicology and the organizations that represent them can claim to have been wildly successful in changing the world’s attitudes towards music, or in having furthered the interests of the world’s musicians. But …we have certainly gone substantially beyond the modest aims of the IFMC as stated at its beginnings….
