Is Western Art Music Superior? Author(S): Judith Becker Source: the Musical Quarterly, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Is Western Art Music Superior? Author(s): Judith Becker Source: The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 72, No. 3 (1986), pp. 341-359 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/948146 . Accessed: 25/03/2014 21:22 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Musical Quarterly. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:22:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Is WesternArt Music Superior? JUDITH BECKER AMONG musicologists,music educators,and evensome ethnomusicologists, the doctrinethat Western European art musicis superiorto all othermusics of the world remainsa given,a truism.Otherwise intelligent and sophisti- cated scholars continue to use the word "primitive"when referringto the music of Africa, American Indians, aboriginal Australians,and Melanesians,among others. A moresubtle form of thisdogma is the concept that Westernart musicis intrinsicallyinteresting and complex,while other musicalsystems need theirsocial contextto commandour seriousattention. According to this version of the theory of Westernsuperiority, some exceptionsare allowed, and music systemssuch as Persianclassical music, Hindustaniand Carnatic music, or Javanesegamelan music are classified among those musics which can stand on theirown, be usefullyextracted from context, are susceptible to intricatelycomplex analyses, and are aestheticallysatisfying in theirown right.This, the most liberaledge of the theoryof Westernmusic superiority,has adherentsof greatpersuasiveness among scholars who are deservedlyrespected within the disciplinesof musicology and ethnomusicology.The following quotations illustrate thispoint of view: "All humanlanguages are apparentlyof the same orderof complexity,but that is notthe case forall musicalsystems" [Powers' quote from Ruwet]. If thisbe true-andI cannotimagine anyone would think otherwise once it is called to his attention-ithighlights a fundamental deficiency in thegeneral analogy of musical structuringwith the structuringof languages.... To Ruwet'stelling observation I would add not only thatmusical systems are muchmore varied than languages not only as to orderof complexity but also as to kindof complexity.l The conceptualfoundations for this belief in the superiorityof Western art music seems to consistof threemain axioms: (1) that Westernmusic 1 Harold S. Powers, "Language Models and Musical Analysis," Ethnomusicology,XXIV/1 (January, 1980). Powers is a fine musicologistand ethnomusicologist.My quarrel with this small aspect of his writingsin no way detractsfrom my greatadmiration for his workas a whole. 341 This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:22:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 342 The MusicalQuarterly generally,and art music in particular,is based upon naturalacoustic laws, the naturalovertone series providing a link betweenman and nature,that is betweenculture and the phenomenalworld; thisintrinsic bond providesa physicaland metaphysicalbase (withits Pythagoreantranscendental orienta- tion) whichinforms all music so created;(2) thatWestern art music is struc- turallymore complex than other music; its architecturalhierarchies, involved tonal relationships,and elaboratedharmonic syntax not onlydefy complete analysisbut have no parallelin the world;and (3) thatWestern art music is more expressive,conveys a greaterrange of humancognition and emotion, and is thusmore profoundand moremeaningful than other musical systems in theworld. No one, I think,denies that Westernart music has a foundationin the naturalworld, is verycomplex, and is deeplymeaningful to its musicians and audiences.The problemlies in denyingthese attributes to otherpeoples' music. Because we often cannot perceiveit, we deny naturalness,great complexity,and meaningfulnessto other musical systems.Despite all pro- testationsto the contrary,to deny equivalencesin all threepillars of belief -that is, naturalness,complexity and meaningfulness,to the musicalsystems of others-is ultimatelyto implythat theyare not as developedas we are. The doctrineof the superiorityof Westernmusic is themusicological version of colonialism.Thus the issue is not only an intellectualproblem, it is also a moral one. Since moral issues are notoriouslydifficult to argue,I will base what I have to say on what I perceiveto be the faultythinking whichunderlies this widespread belief. 1. Naturalness The idea that one's own musical systemhas a naturalfoundation, is rooted in the realmof nature,and is not merelyan artificeof men'sminds is a concept which is maintainedby many peoples of the world. There are many ways to be "natural" musically.One concept commonlyfound in many parts of the world (India, the Middle East, parts of sub-Saharan Africa,Western Europe) is thatone s musicalsystem is based upon acoustics, a phenomenonof thephysical world.2 The quotation below is representativeof writingson music history, aesthetics,or theoryby Westernscholars: As is wellknown, when a noteis soundedby vibratinga string, not onlydoes the whole stringvibrate, producing the fundamentalnote whichis all thatthe untrainedear can 2 For a recent publication which representsthis approach to Westernmusic, see Leonard Bernstein,The UnansweredQuestion (Cambridge,Mass., 1976), pp. 35-37. However,the correspond- ence between intervallicstructures in Westerntonal music and the overtone systemhas not gone unchallenged.For an illuminatingdiscussion of the issues and furtherbibliography, see Norman Cazden, "The Systemic Referenceof Musical Consonance Response," InternationalReview of the Aestheticsand Sociology of Music, 111/2(1972), 217-43. This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:22:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions WesternArt Music 343 hear,but the two halvesof the stringvibrate in theirown rightat the sametime; and so do the thirds,the quarters,the fifths,and so on, producingthe risingsuccession of notescalled the harmonic series. Taking the note C belowthe bass clef as fundamental, thefirst twenty-four notes of theseries are as follows: ** * * * * * 24 9 20 21 22 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I2 o t. lo "o ? o 2 . .This meansthat in natureitself, a singlenote sets up a harmonyof its own; and this harmonicseries has been the (unconscious)basis of WesternEuropean harmony, and thetonal system.3 Among those who share with us the overtone series as the natural physical basis for the construction of a complex musical edifice are several musical systems in Southern Africa. Players of the musical bow, an instru- ment which looks exactly like a huntingbow but with a resonator attached, sing songs whose melodies at some points coincide with and at other points veer away from the tones of the harmonic series. Simultaneously, the fundamental, or two differentfundamentals (plus overtones) are reiterated by the rhythmicstriking of the bow string: Thestring gives forth its fundamental note, usually a deepsound, with great clarity, and one hears,in addition,several of theharmonics generated by thatfundamental, even, at times, up to the eighthharmonic, the resultbeing to the ear of theperformer a clear chord.4 Ex. 1 - i 0) A ^T B A. Detailof ugubhu musical bow, showing playing technique: (i) 'Stopped'note, with string pinched between forefinger and thumbnail; (ii) 'Open' note,with free string. B. Umakhweyanamusical bow with centrallymounted resonator and dividedstring, 'stopped'with back of forefinger. 3 DeryckCooke, The Language of Music (London, 1959), p. 41. 4 P. R. Kirby,The Musical Instruments of theNative Races of South Africa (London, 1934-53), p. 198. This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:22:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 344 The MusicalQuarterly Ex. 2. Instrumentaland vocalnotes used in ugubhubow-songs: a. Openand stoppedfundamentals and secondpartials b. Selectivelyresonated harmonics c. Vocal notes,shown in relationto ugubhufundamentals a. b. Resonator c. Vocal scale open < , closed Resonated (*3f1 Pait ial Open / Stopped 5 2nd Partials ' /*?/ 1 () ( ) (W) ( ) (~) () Fundamentals Ex. 3. Example of an ostinatomelody on the ugubhu,produced by selectiveresonation of harmonicpartials 3 to 5 (recordedon Rycroft,1969, side A, band 1)5 J.=66 J 1=1 II1Rf^ fj ^ l^~'~^::: ^ f The South Africanmusical bow is not the only sub-Saharaninstrument with which musiciansmanipulate overtone structures in the composition of instrumentaland vocal pieces. This techniqueis documentedby both indigenousmusicians and Westernscholars for the mbira of Zimbabwe: The presenceor absence of tuned overtonesis an additionalfactor in distinguishing the (tunings)of differentmbira. John Kunaka, for example, reported that the instru- mentshe buildsare differentfrom those constructed by otherlocal blacksmiths because he "givestwo voices" to the lowestpitch (B1) on his instruments.To achievethis he forgeskeys which produce an overtoneof approximatelya fifth or a third,two octaves