sign in sign up
<<
Home , Amusia, Cognitive musicology, Ethnolinguistic group, Evolutionary musicology, Joseph Jordania, Musicology

Analytical Approaches To World 2.2 (2013) 148-197 Toward a New Comparative

Patrick E. Savage1 and Steven Brown2

1Department of Musicology, Tokyo of the 2Department of , & Behaviour, McMaster University

We propose a return to the forgotten agenda of comparative musicology, one that is updated with the paradigms of modern evolutionary theory and scientific methodology. Ever since the field of comparative musicology became redefined as in the mid-20th century, its original agenda has been all but abandoned by musicologists, not least the overarching goal of cross-cultural musical comparison. We outline here five major themes that underlie the re-establishment of comparative musicology: (1) classification, (2) cultural , (3) , (4) universals, and (5) biological evolution. Throughout the article, we clarify key ideological, methodological and terminological objections that have been levied against musical comparison. Ultimately, we argue for an inclusive, constructive, and multidisciplinary field that analyzes the world’s musical diversity, from the broadest of generalities to the most culture-specific particulars, with the aim of synthesizing the full range of theoretical perspectives and research methodologies available.

Keywords: music, comparative musicology, ethnomusicology, classification, , human history, universals, biological evolution

This is a single-spaced version of the article. The official version with page numbers 148-197 can be viewed at http://aawmjournal.com/articles/2013b/Savage_Brown_AAWM_Vol_2_2.pdf.

omparative musicology is the academic comparative musicology and its modern-day discipline devoted to the comparative study successor, ethnomusicology, is too complex to of music. It looks at music (broadly defined) review here. It has been detailed in a number of key C in all of its forms across all cultures publications—most notably by Merriam (1964, throughout time, including related phenomena in 1977, 1982) and Nettl (2005; Nettl and Bohlman , , and animal . As 1991)—and succinctly summarized by Toner with its sister discipline of comparative , (2007). Comparative musicology flourished during comparative musicology seeks to classify the the first half of the twentieth century, and was of the world into stylistic families, describe predicated on the notion that the cross-cultural the geographic distribution of these styles, elucidate analysis of musics could shed light on fundamental universal trends in musics across cultures, and questions about . But after World understand the causes and mechanisms shaping the War II—and in large part because of it—a new field biological and cultural evolution of music. While called ethnomusicology emerged in the United most definitions of comparative musicology put States based on the paradigms of cultural forward over the years have been limited to the . This field generally eschewed study of folk and/or non-Western musics (Merriam comparative analyses in favor of single-culture 1977), we envision this field as an inclusive based on extensive fieldwork. In discipline devoted to the comparative study of all addition, it focused on the analysis of non-acoustic music, just as the name implies. aspects of music—such as behavior, meaning, The intellectual and political history of pedagogy, gender, and power relations—over the 1 Toward a New Comparative Musicology

acoustic analysis of musical sound, such as scales than to theoretical disagreements. Throughout this and . discussion, we emphasize the importance of We believe that the time has come to re- creating objective, musicologically inspired establish the field of comparative musicology. databases and of quantitatively assessing the Recently, a number of proposals have shown relationship between acoustic and non-acoustic (i.e., promise in reintroducing various types of scientific, behavioral, semiotic) patterns, both within and comparative, evolutionary, and/or acoustic between cultures. methodologies into the study of the world’s musics. In order to help guide the reader through this These include “” (Huron discussion, we provide a graphic flowchart in 1999), “” (Wallin, Merker, Figure 1 that demonstrates these five key areas of and Brown 2000), “empirical musicology” (Clarke comparative musicology and their relationship to and Cook 2004), a revived “” one another: (1) Classification procedures attempt (Schneider 2008), “computational to characterize degrees of similarity between ethnomusicology” (Tzanetakis et al. 2007), and musical works using musically salient features as “analytical studies in ” (Tenzer 2006). the classification parameters. The pie charts in the While such methodological developments are figure represent the relative of three important, what has yet to emerge from these hypothetical musical types (shown as blue, red, and movements is a return to the unanswered questions green) within the repertoires of two cultures. These of comparative musicology, questions that colors might represent different scales, rhythms, motivated such pioneering researchers as Carl performance contexts, or any other features that— Stumpf, Erich von Hornbostel, Curt Sachs, and later either individually or in combination—might be Alan Lomax. musically appropriate for a given research question. Our aim here is not to dwell on comparative (2) The study of cultural evolution attempts to musicology’s troubled past, but instead to point understand how musical systems undergo change toward a bright future by applying new over time, both within and between cultures. The methodologies and paradigms to some of its analysis includes changes that are transmitted across unanswered questions. This field should not be seen generations in a vertical, tree-like fashion (solid as a replacement for ethnomusicology or historical ) and those that are transmitted horizontally musicology but as a specific stream within the within generations by means of contact between overall umbrella of musicology. We see the new cultures (dashed ). It seeks to understand how comparative musicology as a multidisciplinary musical variants arise (blue “mutating” to red in enterprise in which the acoustic and evolutionary culture 2, symbolized by the thunderbolt arrow) and focus of traditional comparative musicology is how they are transmitted (contact between the combined with the humanistic and ethnographic cultures results in diversification by exchanging approaches that have dominated the study of the blue and red variants). (3) Knowledge of music’s world’s music since the 1960s. cultural evolution can be useful in illuminating In order to take a first step towards the re- human history more generally, including such establishment of comparative musicology, we phenomena as migration, colonialism, globalization, outline in this article what we see as five principal and other forms of cultural contact. Music becomes research issues of this field: (1) classification, (2) employed as a “marker” of migrations whereby the cultural evolution, (3) human history, (4) universals, geographic patterns of musical style can be and (5) biological evolution. For each of these compared with patterns derived from historical issues, we focus on presenting key concepts and documents and other migration markers, such as terminology, with the parallel aim of addressing genes, , or . Figure 1 traditional objections that have been raised against illustrates this graphically using two hypothetical these issues in the past. In some cases, resistance islands, with the roots of both cultures in an appears to be due more to terminological confusion ancestral culture occupying the north of the larger 2 Analytical Approaches To World Music 2.2 (2013) 148-197 island, followed by a split as culture 2 comes to evolution. This study analyzes music’s evolutionary occupy the smaller island, but with continued origins and functions (graphically shown by the exchange with culture 1 across the strait separating cartoon of people engaged in musical behavior), the two islands, as described in (2) above. (4) The including Darwinian models of survival and study of musical universals attempts to identify and reproductive success. The flowchart is shown in explain statistical trends that are shared by most or Figure 1 as unidirectional for simplicity, but in all cultures. Figure 1 shows the dominant green type reality all of these features interact with one as a more promising candidate universal than the another, since the type of evolutionary, historical, or more variable blue and red types. (5) One universalistic question being asked will affect the explanation for such universals is shared genes, as choice of musical samples and methodologies to be explored in the study of music’s biological employed, and vice versa.

Figure 1. Five key processes that form the basis of comparative musicological analysis. The pie charts in each panel specify the relative frequencies of hypothetical blue, red, and green musical types for two different cultures (see the text for a detailed explanation).

3 Toward a New Comparative Musicology

PART I: KEY ISSUES morphological classification of biological structures, 1) Classification, Clustering, and Maps of Music such as organs and skeletons (Darwin 1859). Given the relative lack of understanding of the mechanisms How can we characterize similarities between of music evolution, we propose that musical different musics? classification be focused initially on surface How can this information be used to classify musics similarity, although some areas (e.g., “tune family” into groupings and to create musical maps that research; Bayard 1950) show greater promise for represent geographic patterns? phylogenetic classification.

Classification forms the basis of comparative a) Units analysis. There is a vast range of possible classification units, samples, features, and The first question that classification research has quantification methodologies; the choice of the to address is: What is the appropriate unit of appropriate ones depends greatly on the nature of analysis? In many cases, an individual , or other musical work, will serve as the optimal unit of the research question being addressed. Merriam (1964) described three broad domains musical classification, even when the research of music: sound, behavior and concept. To this day, question addresses higher-level relationships, such classification of music has focused almost as between genres, cultures, or geographic regions. exclusively on sound. However, a major objective This allows analyses to work with actual musical of the new comparative musicology is to apply examples rather than abstractions of what a classification procedures to musical behavior and “typical” song of a given genre or culture is like meaning, just as they have been applied to (Tenzer 2006). It also allows for the analysis of numerous other ethnographic and semiotic domains within-culture as as between-culture musical (Murdock 1967; Lewis 2009). In the following diversity (Rzeszutek, Savage, and Brown 2012; descriptions, we will focus largely on examples Savage and Brown forthcoming). In some cases, from our own area of expertise—the acoustic finer-grained units, such as schemata, phrases, or features of traditional vocal —in order to even notes, might be more appropriate. The benefits outline concrete steps by which to proceed. We do of using finer-grained units need to be weighed not mean to imply that these are the best or only against the costs in terms of time and computational ways to proceed with musical classification and intensity. Ultimately, the chosen unit of analysis comparison. We believe that the same general set of should be the one that best addresses the specific classification principles and comparative research questions of interest. methodologies could be applied equally well to Although the song is often the optimal unit of instruments (Hornbostel and Sachs [1914] 1961), analysis for classification, there can be (Middleton 1990), dance (Lomax, complications in working with such a unit. For Bartenieff, and Paulay 1968), musical example, it is not always clear what the boundaries (Nattiez 1990), or (Feld 1984), to of a song are, especially when dealing with large- mention just a few areas that could be subjected to scale forms with multiple movements or sections, comparative analyses. such as occurs in some classical musics or in musics Although the goal of classification is often to accompanying lengthy . But even in situations explore phylogenetic (evolutionary) questions, the where the boundaries of a song are indeed defined, most basic type of classification procedure simply the song might show strong heterogeneity of describes relationships in phenetic terms based on musical features (e.g., subsections that differ in surface similarity. Modern evolutionary biology style). In such situations, “multi-coding” is required often utilizes molecular classification of DNA (Lomax and Grauer 1968; Savage et al. 2012), in sequences to create phylogenies, but such work was which a song is classified as having not a single set only made possible by prior phenetic work on of stylistic features but several (see Issue 1c below). 4 Analytical Approaches To World Music 2.2 (2013) 148-197

This can of course create complications in the and songs showing obvious foreign influence. comparative analysis of songs. Inclusion criteria must be applied consistently to One caveat about performing comparative prevent confirmation bias, in which researchers analyses is the specification of cultural groupings in simply choose those samples that support their such analyses. Lomax’s (1968, 1976) Cantometrics hypotheses and exclude ones that do not. When the project was criticized for using broad culture-areas number of available samples is too large to make a as the basic units of his (e.g., “Old comprehensive analysis feasible, songs should be Europe,” “Arctic Asia”), rather than finer-grained selected randomly from the pool of songs meeting groupings (Driver 1970). We advocate using the inclusion criteria. ethnolinguistically defined cultural groups (Lewis Access to samples. A related consideration is 2009) as the major higher-level grouping above the the availability of samples as well as access to them. song-level. For example, we suggest using Basque Typical sources of samples include commercial or Slovak instead of Lomax’s “Old Europe,” or publications, archives, and one’s own unpublished using Chukchi or Ainu instead of “Arctic Asia.” field recordings. These span a variety of media, This approach is not perfect, but it allows for more such as written transcriptions, audio recordings, and nuanced comparisons than does using broader video recordings. Because ethnomusicological field culture-areas, including proof-of-principle analyses recordings are produced in uncontrolled of whether such cultural groupings are musically environments, it is impossible to compile a broad justified to begin with. Using language as a proxy comparative sample of similar songs that have been for culture has proven quite successful in much recorded under identical conditions. Recordings comparative work in anthropology (Pagel and Mace from well-studied cultures, and the musical genres 2004). It thus provides the additional benefit of therein, may be plentiful and may be accompanied allowing for comparability between music and other by detailed ethnographic documentation while domains, such as language and genetics (see Issue 3 recordings from others may be non-existent, of poor below). However, in some cases using finer-grained quality, have little contextual information, or have and/or different groupings (e.g., geography, age, been carried out at different times under different social status, genre, , gender, etc.) may be recording conditions. The choice of who and what more appropriate. gets recorded has historically depended on the b) Sampling music itself and on the people who perform, record, Once a unit of analysis is established, the next publish and consume it, the latter being dependent step is to define a sample (a corpus). In the case of on factors of , politics, social comparative analyses, the sample will usually relationships, economics, and functionality. include songs from two or more cultures. There are Nevertheless, careful consideration of these factors a number of important methodological issues when selecting samples can mitigate problems of related to sampling that need to be considered, such comparability. as inclusion criteria, access, sample size, and scope. Sample size. Resistance to musical comparison Inclusion criteria. Proper sampling requires a has often been due to comparativists’ reliance on priori decisions about which songs to include in the what Savage and Brown (forthcoming) have termed sample from the pool of available songs from a the “one culture = one music” model, the idea that a culture or region. Exclusion of songs can be based culture’s musical repertoire can be captured by a on a host of criteria, including genre, performers single representative song or style (Lomax 1968). (gender, age, status), recording period, and Such a model assumes that the level of within- recording quality, as well as complex issues related culture diversity is negligible and that a small to authenticity in situations where native styles sampling of songs from a given culture should be might have been influenced by foreign styles (e.g., sufficient to capture its style. This assumption has of missionaries). For example, a project focusing on been strongly criticized by ethnomusicologists indigenous, vocal music would a priori (Henry 1976; Feld 1984), and analyses from our lab exclude popular music, purely instrumental music, have provided quantitative evidence against it 5 Toward a New Comparative Musicology

(Rzeszutek et al. 2012). Sampling has to be done on regional projects, it should be possible to generate a a sufficient scale to encompass the breadth of musical map of the world of the kind envisioned by musical styles that exists both within and between Lomax (1968, 1976). cultures. In general, the greater the within-culture diversity, the greater the sample size needed to c) Features provide a reasonable picture of overall patterns of The musical sample, once defined and validated, musical style. can then be subjected to classification procedures. Regardless of the nature of the sample, larger Classification schemes embody salient features of a sample sizes tend to allow for more robust domain in a multidimensional manner. These conclusions. However, in many cases the most features subdivide broad categories—such as pitch interesting or important samples are also the rarest, and in the case of music—into a series of and thus it is better to choose analytical methods relatively independent characters, such as that are appropriate for the available sample, rather “hemitonicity” (presence of ), “melodic than trying to meet specific sampling quotas. That range,” “meter,” or “durational variability” (Savage said, it is difficult to make generalizations about et al. 2012). Each character is in turn comprised of a musics with sample sizes of less than five songs or series of character-states specifying a possible so. In similar studies from genetic anthropology and range of variation for that character, such as the other natural , sample sizes of character-states “small,” “medium,” and “large” for approximately thirty per group are generally melodic range. Once the classification scheme is sufficient to identify statistically significant patterns specified, it is then used to “code” the songs of the if such patterns are reasonably strong, while sample sample. Such coding involves selecting the sizes exceeding 100 per group tend not to add much character-state(s) that best describes the song for new information to the conclusions. A study each character. examining traditional group songs from indigenous Classification schemes. Musics are complex, in Taiwan and the Philippines found multidimensional phenomena; therefore, that sample sizes of approximately thirty songs per classification schemes for music have to be complex ethnolinguistic group were sufficient to identify and multidimensional. More importantly, highly statistically significant between- classification schemes should aspire to be universal differentiation among these groups (Rzeszutek et al. so as to accommodate features present in any 2012). Whether such sample sizes will be sufficient musical style throughout the world. While this is a for other comparative musicological studies will tall order for any classification scheme, serious need further empirical validation. attempts have been made in this direction. Broad Scope of comparison. One of the weaknesses of classification schemes, such as Hornbostel and early comparative musicological work was a Sachs’s ([1914] 1961) instrument classification reliance on what we will call remote comparison, in scheme, Lomax and Grauer’s (1968) Cantometric which small numbers of songs from very distant song classification scheme, or the related CantoCore regions were compared, often to support arguments scheme of Savage et al. (2012), provide more scope of “monogenesis” about long-distance similarity for cross-cultural comparison than regional between regions. Such projects often involved the classification schemes—such as the classical theory cherry-picking of particular songs that satisfied systems of Western scales, Indian ragas, or Arabic preconceptions of musical similarity. Instead of this, maqamat—that are designed to apply to the music we generally advocate regional comparison, in of specific cultures. However, such culture-specific which large, independent samples from neighboring systems may provide more nuanced and appropriate cultures are submitted for comparative analysis. measures when the scope of comparison is limited Such samples have the benefit of making it easier to to specific regions. The important points are that the explore historical relatedness as a potential factor in types of features used for classification be explaining similarities. From a comprehensive set of 6 Analytical Approaches To World Music 2.2 (2013) 148-197 musicologically appropriate for the research combine subjective and objective measurements, questions being addressed, that the classification such as Perlman and Krumhansl’s (1996) study of schemes be defined as clearly and objectively as interval-category conceptualizations among possible, and that they be applied consistently so as Javanese and Western classical to allow for reliable comparisons and independent musicians. Such studies have demonstrated complex replications when applied by different researchers. differences in representations both within and Characters and character-states. As mentioned between cultures. This complexity emphasizes the above, the characters of a classification scheme need for care in designing and interpreting attempt to embody significant features of form. In classification research in ways that are both reliable the CantoCore classification scheme that we and useful. developed (Savage et al. 2012), we included twenty- In situations of internally heterogeneous songs, six structural characters of music that span the it is sometimes necessary to “multi-code” the song– broad domains of rhythm, pitch, text, texture, and –in other words, to select more than one character- form. Each of the twenty-six categories contains state for a song. Likewise, when songs lack between three and six character-states. In general, particular features altogether, it is necessary to code the more types of features used for classification, them as “null.” For example, if the classification the more detailed, robust, and flexible the resulting scheme specifies features of multipart music and the patterns should be, although there is always a trade- song in question is a solo vocal song, then the song off between the comprehensiveness of the scheme would have to be coded as null for all multipart and the time required to code songs. features related to texture. A fundamental distinction in classification Classifying non-acoustic features of music. theory is that between ordinal features and nominal Objections to comparison have often focused on features (Stevens 1946). Ordinal features can be past reliance on acoustic features—particularly classified in increasing order of size (e.g., small, structural features such as the scales or meters that medium and large for musical intervals) or are prominent in Western —to the (e.g., low to high frequency of vocables exclusion of other features that may be more in a song). Nominal features, by contrast, cannot be relevant for other musical cultures. The latter placed onto a numerical spectrum of size or include non-acoustic features, such as social frequency, and are instead organized as a series of function or symbolic meaning, as well as acoustic unordered states. For example, melodic contours features such as performance style, micro-rhythms, come in a variety of qualitatively distinct types, or micro- (Blacking 1977). To date, such as descending contours, ascending contours, classification schemes have tended to focus on arched contours, and the like. acoustic features related to performance (Lomax Coding. Once the characters and character- and Grauer 1968) and structure (Savage et al. 2012), states of a classification scheme are specified, the although Hornbostel and Sachs’s ([1914] 1961) next step is to code all of the songs of a sample by influential instrumental classification scheme also selecting the character-state of each category that incorporates elements of sound-production best applies to each song. This can be done mechanisms that are not necessarily audible. An subjectively (e.g., by ear) or objectively (e.g., using important goal of the new comparative musicology physical measurements or automated algorithms), or is to establish classification schemes that by some combination of the two. In some cases, etic objectively and reliably classify non-acoustic (objective, outsider) representations may differ from features such as behavior and semiotic meaning emic (insider, subjective) ones (Harris 1976). The (e.g., Feld 1984; Nattiez 2000), so as to permit choice of the appropriate method(s) will depend on comparative analyses of such features. This will be the goals of the researcher and the degree of a crucial step toward mitigating the Eurocentric bias accuracy and reliability of the resulting of earlier comparative musicology, which placed classifications. Some researchers have attempted to excessive emphasis on pitch-related features derived explore this issue using innovative techniques that from Western theory (Toner 2007).

7 Toward a New Comparative Musicology

d) Quantification Figure 1, namely to visualize the relative A principal goal of classification is the frequencies of the cantogroups in the form of a pie establishment of clusters of stylistic similarity, chart for each defined geographic or cultural either within or between cultures. This is analogous grouping. For example, Savage and Brown to the establishment of language families (forthcoming) identified five major cantogroups (Greenberg 1957; Lewis 2009) or other types of among 259 songs from twelve indigenous families of similarity. Taking comparison seriously populations of Taiwan. This was visualized by requires moving beyond simple dichotomies—such showing pie charts over the geographic zone for as same/different or present/absent—and instead each population, where each pie represented the examining the degree of similarity between songs relative frequencies of the five cantogroups for the and the relative frequencies of features between musical repertoire of that group. This can also be cultures, as represented by the pie charts in Figure done for any individual character (e.g., mapping the 1. Such an approach allows us to move beyond the relative frequencies of different meter types). “one culture = one music” model toward more A major critique of comparative work in nuanced geographic maps of musical style (Savage musicology is that it focuses on between-culture and Brown forthcoming), which in turn can be diversity at the expense of within-culture diversity useful in elucidating the history of migrations and in musical style. One solution to this problem has cultural interactions (see Issues 2 and 3 below). been to adapt analytical techniques from fields such As mentioned previously, classification as population genetics (Excoffier, Smouse, and proceeds through the generation of classification Quattro 1992) in musically appropriate ways so as schemes comprised of key characters, each of which to examine this issue in a quantitative manner. For contains multiple character-states. These schemes example, Rzeszutek et al. (2012) found that the are then used to code the songs that make up the level of within-culture musical diversity was sample under study. Using this coding information, strikingly higher than that of between-culture the next step is to apply statistical clustering diversity (98% vs. 2%, respectively), as measured techniques to the data in order to measure musical using twenty-six structural features and a sample of similarity among the songs in the sample and to 421 traditional songs from indigenous populations group those songs into clusters of similarity. It is in Taiwan and the Philippines. In other words, only then possible to look at these clusters a posteriori 2% of the musical variability could be attributed to and infer the classification features that unite the systematic differences between cultures, while 98% songs of a cluster and hence distinguish that cluster was due to within-culture diversity. This provided from others. For example, one cluster might contain empirical support for the claims of theorists the predominantly monophonic songs of the sample defending the importance of within-culture diversity while another cluster might contain the in comparative analyses (Henry, 1976; Feld 1984). predominantly polyphonic songs. However, since However, it also showed that the between-culture classification schemes are multidimensional, component of this diversity was highly statistically clusters tend to differ from one another in a significant (p < .001) and was thus capturing real multidimensional manner. In other words, clusters musical differences between cultures. can be thought of as conglomerations of musical features and hence as stylistic song-types. We have 2) Cultural Evolution of Music coined the term cantogroup in our work to describe What are the mechanisms of musical change and stylistic song-types derived from classification stasis? How and why do musical forms emerge, procedures (Savage and Brown forthcoming). become extinct, or give rise to other forms over time? The next step is to examine geographic patterns of musical style and to create musical maps. The The study of music’s cultural evolution deals with simplest way to do this is the method shown in the basic issue of how musics change over time and

8 Analytical Approaches To World Music 2.2 (2013) 148-197 location. As such, it is nearly synonymous with the and (iii) selection by the community, which conventional concept of “.” While determines the form or forms in which the music classification (Issue 1 above) can proceed by survives. (International Council describing musical relationships in terms of phenetic 1955:23; our emphasis) (surface) similarities, cultural evolution is largely This definition included all three major evolutionary concerned with the phylogenetic (evolutionary) mechanisms of transmission (“continuity”), mechanisms underlying these similarities. This has variation, and selection. Sadly, this evolutionary long been a topic of interest to ethnomusicologists framework has not been widely adopted. Here we intrigued by situations where the same musical detail how it could help in the study of music’s “surface structure” originates from very different cultural evolution. “deep structures” (Blacking 1971). The term “cultural evolution” has long provoked a) Mechanisms of transmission a hostile reaction among ethnomusicologists and Evolutionary transmission can occur in diverse cultural anthropologists, who associate it with manners, the main types being referred to as vertical outdated Spencerian notions of progressive (between generations; e.g., parent-child) and evolution––in other words, with the ladder-like horizontal (within generations; e.g., peer-peer). progression of cultures from simple to complex over Additionally, convergent evolution can cause the historical time (Spencer 1875). The modern-day same to arise independently in the absence field of cultural evolution has long since abandoned of transmission, often due to similar functional such assumptions and has instead capitalized on the constraints or selection pressures. All of these many methodological and theoretical advances from mechanisms occur in both cultural and biological evolutionary biology that have improved our evolution, although their relative importance is understanding of the mechanisms of and constraints subject to debate (Kroeber 1948; Doolittle 1999; on cultural change (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman Tëmkin and Eldredge 2007; Gray, Bryant, and 1981; Boyd and Richerson 1985; Whiten et al. Greenhill 2010). Evolutionary transmission has 2012). For example, linguists have developed traditionally been modelled as a branching tree, sophisticated models of historical diversification emphasizing vertical transmission (as represented and phonological change among language families by the solid arrows in Figure 1). However, scholars such as Indo-European and Austronesian by of both cultural and biological evolution have utilizing detailed historical linguistic databases of recently explored horizontal transmission as well hundreds of existing languages and comparing this (see the dashed arrows in Figure 1) using models linguistic information with reconstructions of such as networks (Bryant and Moulton 2004), ancient texts and artifacts that have been reliably jungles (Tehrani, Collard, and Shennan 2010), and dated (Levinson and Gray 2012). These methods admixture algorithms (Pritchard, Stephens, and could be profitably adapted to music to explore Donnelly 2000). similar questions of cultural evolution that have long interested ethnomusicologists, although it is b) Mechanisms of variation crucial to remember that music evolution does not We will now discuss music’s cultural evolution necessarily the patterns of languages, genes, in terms of the two basic evolutionary processes of or any other system (see Issue 3 below). variation and selection, which are in turn crucial for The official definition of “folk music” adopted in interpreting historical and geographic patterns of 1955 by the International Folk Music Council migration and cultural contact, as outlined in Issue endorsed an explicitly evolutionary framework: Folk music is the product of a musical 3. The first process deals with musical forms that has been evolved through the process of oral themselves, and explores the mechanisms by which transmission. The factors that shape the tradition different musical variants arise. The second topic are: (i) continuity which links the present with (described in Issue 2c) examines the social forces the past; (ii) variation which springs from the that determine which musical variants get creative impulse of the individual or the group; 9 Toward a New Comparative Musicology

transmitted to future generations and which ones die From a geographic perspective, intercultural out. blends can occur as the result of two major The random genetic process of mutation that processes. First, they can occur through the generates genetic variation in human populations movement of people, such as occurs through has clear analogues in musical copy errors. These migration, conquest, or the journeys of itinerant errors can occur in orally transmitted musics to give musicians. In such cases, musical blends occur rise to the well-known diversity of folk song because the bearers of different musical variants (Seeger 1966) or they can occur in notated come into direct social contact and are able to musics, such as when copy errors accrue over time influence one another. However, in recent times, in published scores of Western classical works. In music has shown a striking ability to diffuse in the distinction to this random process are directed absence of musicians, most notably through mass processes of innovation and creativity that are not media distribution routes (Appadurai 1996). Hence, found in biological evolution, such as when one of the major effects of globalization in recent or performers intentionally introduce years has been the spread and admixture of diverse completely new variants that were not present in musical styles from around the globe, often but not previous generations. In most cases, such variants always accompanied by the loss of traditional are not created de novo but instead arise through musical styles (Lomax 1977). This can occur quite modifications of existing material. These readily in the absence of direct social contact with modifications often involve a borrowing or Western musicians. imitation of elements from other works. When such The geographic dispersion of musical styles borrowing occurs on a cross-cultural scale, the through migration was a major topic of study of the result can be the generation of a new blend or fusion early comparative musicologists, and the new (syncretism). Well-known examples of this are comparative musicology is no less committed to this African-American and Latin-American musical issue, not least since the modern study of human blends that include elements of both African and migrations offers a host of new quantitative to European music styles (Herskovits 1945; Merriam date prehistoric population movements (see Issue 3 1964), or the incorporation of Asian musical below). The early work on Kulturkreis (culture features into Western music by composers such as circles) models and diffusionism was criticized for Debussy. placing an undue emphasis on the movement of A fundamental issue for the analysis of musical music independent of people. In addition, notions of variation involves the dependency relationships musical monogenesis led to the dangerous among the musical features. Does a change in one assumption that the appearance of similar features musical feature lead obligatorily to changes in other in different cultures could be considered the result features or can each feature change independently of shared ancestry (Nettl 2005). Contemporary of others? To take one example, tonal features such cultural-evolutionary models acknowledge instead as scales can change independently of rhythms, the importance of convergent evolution such that European scales can be readily combined (polygenesis), the idea that the same innovation can with African rhythms. By contrast, introducing a arise independently in different locations, either by fixed-pitch instrument like a piano into a non- chance or due to similar constraints. The Western ensemble tuned to a microtonal scale complementary phenomenon is also quite prevalent, system will often force the ensemble to conform to namely that neighboring communities that do have Western tuning, such as occurs in a large variety of shared ancestry can develop highly divergent ethno-pop fusion genres. These examples are simple musical styles over time due to factors related to but they highlight the need to understand the geographic isolation or the desire to set themselves dynamics of musical blending and the processes by apart from neighbors (“schismogenesis;” Bateman which musical features can combine across stylistic 1935). These examples highlight the general benefit boundaries to create new musical variants. of performing comparative analyses on a regional 10 Analytical Approaches To World Music 2.2 (2013) 148-197 level, rather than doing remote comparisons (Issue highly regarded individuals, such as celebrities or 1), and of analyzing the movement of music in light political elites), which exert effects above and of the movement of peoples, as discussed in detail beyond the intrinsic features of the music itself in Issue 3 below. (Boyd and Richerson 1985; Mesoudi 2011). Context-dependent biases are particularly notable in c) Mechanisms of selection politically or economically motivated forms of The generation of new variants does not, in and musical selection, such as those associated with of itself, guarantee that these variants will become globalization, colonization, or conquest, including stable components of a culture’s musical repertoire. propaganda, censorship, or even genocide (Brown So, it is important to consider the social forces and and Volgsten 2006). selection mechanisms that allow certain variants to Overall, through the cultural-evolutionary be transmitted to future generations and others to processes of transmission, variation and selection, die out. This is generally conceptualized in cultural the relative frequencies of cultural variants change evolutionary models as a process of “cultural over time and location. Sometimes, completely selection” analogous to but acting novel variants appear out of the blue and show on cultural variants instead of biological species transient spikes in frequency—such as occurs with (Durham 1991; Mesoudi 2011). This process of songs on “viral” YouTube videos—and, in other selection can be analyzed as a change in the relative cases, enduring components of a culture’s musical frequencies of particular musical variants over time. heritage become outlawed overnight due to radical The most ubiquitous and directionless process is acts of political censorship, such as occurred with referred to as drift, by which the frequency of the music of Mendelssohn in Nazi Germany (Levi variants changes due to random sampling effects, 1990; Haas 2013). such as the whims of a performer on a given day. However, most of the time, decisions about 3) Music and Human History transmission are biased such that some variants How can music be used as a for the have a greater probability of being selected than reconstruction of human history? others. In these cases, selection pressures are described by theorists as being either directional The issue of “history” has two complementary (e.g., music becoming more appealing to listeners facets in comparative musicology. The first deals over time; MacCallum et al. 2012), stabilizing (i.e., with music history, i.e., how music itself undergoes reducing variability, as Serrà et al. 2012 argue has changes over time and location. It examines both occurred for chord progressions in Western pop changes occurring within a single location and the music since 1955), or disruptive/diversifying (i.e., geographic dispersion of musical styles, including increasing variability by favoring extreme styles, as the blending of styles that occurs as a result of occurred in twentieth-century modernist music; cultural interaction. The combination of the two Ross 2007). helps explain the geographic patterns in musical These transmission biases can, in some cases, be maps of the world. The second facet deals with content-dependent, such as when music is favored human history and how music can serve as a tool to due to its intrinsic aesthetic properties. The lack of aid in the reconstruction of population history, such intrinsic aesthetic appeal has been proposed as including patterns of migration and interaction that an explanation for the inability of much post-tonal have occurred from recent times all the way back to twentieth-century music to find a wide audience the migration of out of Africa tens of (Ross 2007). In many cases, however, context- thousands of years ago. dependent biases occur, important examples being The first topic was covered in our discussion of “conformist bias” (i.e., the copycat tendency to cultural evolution in Issue 2 above, where we favor cultural variants that are currently widespread discussed the mechanisms of both musical change in the population) and “prestige bias” (i.e., the (e.g., random mutation, directed innovation, drift, tendency to favor cultural variants associated with borrowing, blending) and geographic dispersion of 11 Toward a New Comparative Musicology

musical styles (e.g. migration/diffusion, consequences for interpreting correlations between colonialism, globalization). Therefore, the study of music and other markers. music’s cultural evolution and the study of music Previous work in comparative musicology has history are isomorphic. already begun to examine how the patterns of With this background, the key question for this musical diversity across regions can be used to trace issue becomes: Given an understanding of the human migrations across vast spans of time and mechanisms of musical change and the geographic geography (Lomax 1968; Erickson 1976; Nattiez distribution of musical styles across world regions, 1999; Callaway 2007; Pamjav et al. 2012; Brown et how can we use these historical and geographic al. forthcoming). Most controversially, Grauer (2006, patterns as an analytical tool to shed light on the 2011) proposed that a distinctive form of hocket history of human populations more generally? A polyphony found in modern-day music of Central number of biological and cultural features have African Pygmies and Khoisan “Bushmen” is a been used successfully as markers of human musical marker of the spread of humans out of population history spanning the course of tens of Africa dating back tens of thousands of years, thousands of years. These features include genes although this hypothesis has been disputed (Stock (such as mitochondrial, Y-chromosome, and 2006; Leroi and Swire 2006). On a more recent time autosomal DNA), languages, physical artifacts (e.g., scale, ethnomusicological studies of musical ), and historical documents (Cavalli-Sforza diasporas during the past few hundred years suggest et al. 1994; Bellwood and Renfrew 2002; Diamond that music is deeply integrated into broader cultural and Bellwood 2003). Music has an amazing but migrations, even when native languages are untapped potential to complement these other replaced (Turino and Lea 2004). In some cases, markers. diasporic communities preserve traditional musical Using music to explore population history styles more faithfully than do the homeland cultures requires not only an appropriate sampling procedure, (Sharp 1932; Miller 2009). In contrast, long- classification methodology (Issue 1), and distance diffusion of musical styles through, for understanding of musical change (Issue 2), but also a example, globalization, can result in situations comparative methodology that allows us to examine whereby music is dissociated from actual correlations (or conversely dissociations) between population movement and thus from the people who music and other markers of human history. In other make it. This has occurred particularly following the words, we need methods that can allow us to rise of -states, world religions, global quantify the extent to which geographic patterns of economies, and the “culture ” (Adorno and musical style correlate with geographic patterns of Bernstein 2001; Anderson 1991; Appadurai 1996). genes, languages, and other markers (Mantel 1967; The fact that music can diffuse independently of Pamjav et al. 2012; Brown et al. forthcoming). If population movements (i.e., migration) means that it such correlations can indeed be shown to exist, how is important to analyze musical and non-musical can we account for them? Standard models of markers independently before attempting to in population genetics contrast a compare them, thereby avoiding circular arguments. branching model of shared ancestry and migration In addition, different types of musics or musical (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1988; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, features might reflect different layers of history, as and Piazza 1994) with an isolation-by-distance seen by the joint presence of contemporary pop, model by which genes and other features diffuse Christian , and pre-contact musical styles between geographic neighbors, possibly throughout Oceania (Nettl et al. 1998). independently of one another (Wright 1943). These models differ based on the degree of borrowing between neighboring populations and the time of origin of shared features, with important

12 Analytical Approaches To World Music 2.2 (2013) 148-197

4) Musical Universals universals identified in all of these areas are Which musical features are found most universally statistical and probabilistic. They represent reliable across cultures, and which are more variable and cross-cultural trends, not absolutes. Thus, for culture-specific? example, Brown and Jordania (2013) proposed a “gradient of universality” in their listing of seventy The topic of universals applies not just to putative cross-cultural universals of musical sound musical sound alone but to all aspects of musical and behavior, ranging from what they called behavior and meaning as well (see Issue 1). “conserved universals” (the most prevalent) such as Therefore, it is just as reasonable to examine octave equivalence, to “predominant patterns” such universal trends in performance contexts, gender as religious/ritual contexts for musical performance, roles, and song texts as it is in features such as the to “common patterns” such as the use of aerophones rhythmic patterns and scales that emanate from in a culture’s instrumental ensemble. There are of these behavioral practices (Brown and Jordania course exceptions to all generalization in all fields, 2013). In addition, any approach to musical but the existence of exceptions—and of diversity universals is critically dependent upon how we more generally—should not preclude serious choose to describe and classify music, as outlined discussion of cross-cultural trends. above in Issue 1 about classification features. The study of musical universals includes an The quest for musical universals is one of the analysis of conditional or implicational universals, key objectives of comparative musicology. While where combinations of features are commonly many different types of evidence can be used to associated with one another cross-culturally, bolster arguments about universals, the study of whether or not each feature on its own is unusually musical universals must be based, first and common. It also includes individual features that are foremost, on cross-cultural analyses of music and highly prevalent all on their own, called non- musical behavior. It cannot be based exclusively on implicational universals. For example, the , child development, association of isochronous meters with group neuroimaging findings, evolutionary arguments, or performance mentioned by Brown and Jordania comparisons between human and animal behavior. (2013) would qualify as an implicational universal, All of those findings can provide critical support to whereas the prevalence of isochronous meters arguments about musical universals, but the basic would be a non-implicational universal. evidence must come from synthesizing information from the musics of as many cultures as possible. In b) Causes of universality other words, musical universals are the proper To the extent that reliable cross-cultural trends domain of comparative musicology and are one of can be shown to exist as a result of detailed its most important products. comparative analyses, two types of explanations— cultural and biological—are typically put forward to a) Types of universals account for them. We can think about these factors The strongest objection that has been put forth as reflecting shared history versus shared genes, in opposition to the concept of musical universals is respectively. As expounded in Issue 3 above, many that universals have to be absolute and manifestations of culture, including songs and exceptionless. In reality, there is no feature of instruments, have diffused throughout the world via human behavior or human culture that is absolute, historical processes of migration and contact. Thus, and yet this has not stopped scholars in most the analysis of cross-cultural trends needs to disciplines of the human sciences from discussing account for the degree of relatedness between the cross-cultural trends in these areas. Universals are a cultures, an issue known as “autocorrelation” or common topic of discussion in linguistics “Galton’s problem” (Naroll 1961). When trends (Greenberg 1966; Chomsky 1981; Good 2008) and exist even after controlling for historical anthropology (Brown 1991), among many other relatedness, a common biological explanation of disciplines. The important point is that the universality is that the trait is encoded at the genetic 13 Toward a New Comparative Musicology

level (i.e., it is hardwired into the brain) and that it music’s origins. Condillac (1746/1971) and is a biological feature of our species as a whole, Rousseau (1781/1986) wrote popular essays in the usually due to natural selection processes eighteenth century about the origins of music and (elaborated in Issue 5 below; Barkow, Cosmides, about music’s evolutionary connection with and Tooby 1992). This need not be conceptualized language. Enthusiasm for the topic continued as hard-core determinism, but as a series of unabated into the nineteenth century, first with the “constraints” that have a moderating effect on the writings of Spencer (1857, 1890) and Darwin (1871, form that the behavior can take. 1872) in England, and later with the writings of the As with any nature-nurture dichotomy, these early comparative musicologists in Germany (e.g., biological and historical explanations are not Stumpf 1911/2012). However, after the decline of necessarily mutually exclusive. One important comparative musicology in the mid-twentieth factor that straddles biological and cultural century, the topic of music origins all but constraints relates to convergent evolution due to disappeared from musicological discussion. similar selection pressures arising from similar There has been a resurgence of interest in music environmental or cultural conditions (discussed in evolution in recent years (Wallin, Merker, and Issues 2a and 2b). For example, some evidence Brown 2000), but much of it has come from suggests that male performers tend to outnumber and music , female performers throughout the world, but it rather than from musicology. In addition, much of appears likely that this is due more to the cross- the evidence being presented to validate cultural prevalence of patriarchy than to any evolutionary hypotheses is based solely on Western biological constraints on female music, which is being employed in experiments (Koskoff 1987). examining , brain activation, and child Like the existence of diversity, this complexity development in Western subjects. What is missing does not inherently doom the analysis of musical is a cross-cultural database of musical behavior that universals, but it does necessitate great care in could provide a more balanced testing ground for sample selection, analysis, and interpretation. evolutionary hypotheses of music making. It is here Regarding sample selection, we talked about where our new perspective on comparative regional versus remote comparison in relation to musicology offers great promise in providing the song sampling for comparative projects (Issue 1b). appropriate data for evaluating evolutionary It is interesting to point out how these two types of hypotheses. comparison have been employed to support arguments for universality mechanisms. Regional a) Origins comparisons have generally been used to support Structural (or phylogenetic) approaches consider cultural explanations, whereas remote comparisons the evolutionary history of the human species and have generally been used to bolster arguments about provide proposals for how music might have biological constraints. emerged in anatomically modern humans over the course of perhaps millions of years. Many 5) Biological Evolution of Music phylogenetic models focus on the evolutionary What is music, and how did it evolve? relationship between music and language: Did the What are the fundamental functions of music for the two evolve independently or in tandem? human species? Enlightenment thinkers like Condillac and Rousseau argued strongly that these were Biological approaches to music evolution focus intertwined, and more recent thinkers have adopted on two related issues: origins and functions similar ideas, including the view that song and (discussed in 5a and 5b, respectively). During the sit along a single musilinguistic continuum, Enlightenment, it was commonplace to discuss rather than being completely independent processes

14 Analytical Approaches To World Music 2.2 (2013) 148-197

(Brown 2000a; Mithen 2005; Savage et al. 2012). b) Functions Such an evolutionary hypothesis is in no way Functional or Darwinian approaches to music inconsistent with music and language having evolution consider the functional consequences of domain-specific features (Peretz and Coltheart music for the individuals and groups that make 2003). music, i.e., how music might contribute to our Phylogenetic approaches often look to animal evolutionary fitness and that of our ancestors in models of music-like phenomena. For example, terms of both survival and reproduction. In other primate models of human behavioral evolution words, they look at the adaptive properties of music provide clues regarding social capacities that may making as related to music’s benefits and costs. (As have underlain musical evolution, including mentioned in Issue 2a, our discussion of Darwinism interactive features related to group structure and here has nothing at all to do with the widely social calling. Likewise, acoustic models of animal discredited Social Darwinism of the nineteenth vocalization in more distantly related species— century.) especially the socially learned songs of some birds While the evolution of language provides and whales—provide useful information that allows obvious survival advantages (Christiansen and us to distinguish analogy (independent evolution) Kirby 2003), music’s apparent lack of individual from homology (shared ancestry) in the evolution of survival value led Darwin (1871) to describe music music. Overall, the combination of cross-species as “among the most mysterious” faculties with and cross-cultural work will permit a deep which humans are endowed. This sparked a number understanding of the biological underpinnings of of theories regarding the biological evolution of musicality, such as common genetic/neural music (reviewed in Brown 2000b; Jordania, 2006, constraints on vocal (Jarvis 2004) and 2011; Fitch 2006; Patel 2008, 2010). While some metric entrainment (Patel et al. 2009; Schachner et theories view music as a non-adaptive byproduct of al. 2009), or genetic contributions to individual non-musical functions (Patel 2008)—such as differences in musicality (e.g., “congenital ”; language (Spencer 1890; Pinker 1997)—many see it Peretz et al. 2002). as as an adaptive function that evolved through A major shortcoming in early comparative Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection. musicology was the assumption that contemporary However, controversy has raged over whether tribal cultures, such as hunter-gatherer cultures, music’s adaptive properties operate at the level of represent the ancestral state of human behavior and the individual or the group. While few people thus can serve as models of ancient humans (Nettl support the position that music evolved due to its and Bohlman 1991). The degree to which this is effects on individual survival per se (although see true continues to be a topic of heated debate Jordania 2011 on defense against predation), Miller (Marlowe 2005). However, it has become clear that (2000) called for a revival of Darwin’s (1871) applying detailed knowledge of population history hypothesis of sexual selection for music, which to such matters (Issue 3) allows for much stronger posits that music has its major adaptive effect on conclusions when evaluating hypotheses about individual reproductive success. According to this origins. For example, while there may be truth to view, music functions primarily as an aesthetic Grauer’s (2006) theory that musical similarities display used to attract mates and thereby increase between Pygmies and Bushmen reflect ancient the chances for reproductive encounters. This is in musical origins, testing such a theory requires contrast to the hypothesis of (or the sophisticated phylogenetic models that incorporate related mechanisms of and multilevel detailed cross-disciplinary information about both selection), which argues that music’s adaptive past and present diversity wherever possible. It functions occur primarily at the group level, notably cannot simply be based on assumptions of either through its promotion of cooperation and cohesion biological or cultural “inertia” (Stock 2006; Leroi (Brown 2000b; Cross 2003; Jordania, 2006, 2011), and Swire 2006). including the special case of mother-infant bonding (Trehub 2000; Dissanayake 2000). While the 15 Toward a New Comparative Musicology

anthropology of music has been strongly dominated by notions of group functionality for many decades 1) Classification, clustering, and maps of (Merriam 1964; Nettl 2005), the very idea that music natural selection can operate at a level beyond the - Musical sound, behavior, and concept individual organism is still highly contentious - Phenetic vs. phylogenetic classification within the field of evolutionary biology (Okasha a) Units: Notes; phrases; songs; genres; 2006; Wilson and Wilson 2007; Abbot et al. 2011). (ethnolinguistically defined) cultures; Debates about music’s evolutionary geographic regions adaptiveness raise a host of important questions b) Sampling: Inclusion criteria; sample size; about how music is made—by which individuals, in remote vs. regional comparison what contexts, and to what ends. Music clearly c) Features: Characters; character-states; serves a wide variety of roles within cultures, and so ordinal vs. nominal characters; emic vs. an evaluation of functional hypotheses about music etic approaches requires cross-cultural ethnographic analyses of the d) Quantification: Degrees of similarity; contents, performers (e.g., gender), contexts, and relative frequencies; clustering; audiences of musical performance. As per our “cantogroups” (stylistic song-types); earlier discussion of classification (Issue 1), such musical maps; within-culture vs. analyses have to examine the relative frequencies of between-culture diversity behavioral patterns across cultures, with the aim of 2) Cultural evolution of music testing the predictions of competing selectionist a) Transmission: Vertical vs. horizontal; hypotheses. For example, sexual selection convergent evolution; trees; networks; hypotheses might predict that music is performed jungles; admixture predominantly by men of reproductive age towards b) Variation: Mutation vs. innovation; women of reproductive age in the context of borrowing/imitation; blending; courtship, with , body movements, and monogenesis vs. convergent evolution symbolisms suggestive of suitability for mating, as (polygenesis) related to health, physical/technical prowess, or c) Selection: Drift; directional vs. possession of resources. By contrast, group stabilizing vs. diversifying selection; selection hypotheses might predict that music is content-dependent vs. context-dependent performed predominantly by inclusive groups in transmission biases contexts of collective importance, with texts 3) Music and human history designed to increase group cohesion or to resolve - Genes; languages; artifacts; documents social conflicts, such as related to group identity, - Correlation vs. dissociation; branching religious practice, communal work, or inter-group coevolution vs. isolation-by-distance relations. Such controversies can only be resolved 4) Musical universals by detailed comparative analyses of musical a) Types: Statistical vs. absolute; behavior. Such analyses need to weigh the benefits implicational vs. non-implicational of music making against the costs in terms of time, b) Causes: Cultural vs. biological money, energy, and attracting unwanted attention. 5) Biological evolution of music Ideally, they should also analyze actual fitness a) Origins: Musilinguistic continuum vs. consequences in terms of average numbers of domain-specific modules; homology vs. offspring produced as a function of generating and analogy experiencing music. b) Functions: Natural selection; sexual Figure 2 provides a summary outline of key selection; group/kin/multilevel selection theoretical issues and terms in comparative musicology across the five issues discussed above. Figure 2. Summary outline of key theoretical issues and terms in comparative musicology (see text for details). 16 Analytical Approaches To World Music 2.2 (2013) 148-197

PART II: OBJECTIONS TO COMPARISON above that there is a great need to bring comparative The term “comparative musicology” often methods to the study of musical behavior (Feld evokes a negative knee-jerk reaction from those 1984) and meaning (Nattiez 1990), in exactly the who associate it with a host of methodological and same way that they have been applied to many other ideological problems in the work of the early ethnographic domains outside of music, including comparative musicologists. We hope that this (Murdock 1967) and language article’s description of the key research areas of our (Levinson and Gray 2012). new framework for comparative musicology Politics. Perhaps the strongest objection to addresses many of these problems. However, since comparative musicology comes from those who there is a long history of skepticism regarding associate it with the political and ideological climate musical comparison, we would like to specifically of scientific racism and eugenics that was prevalent address the most common concerns. Many of these in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century concerns have been addressed by others, most Germany, the milieu in which comparative notably Alan Merriam (1982) in his objection to the musicology had its roots (Rehding 2000). Such a anti-comparativist views of his contemporaries criticism cannot be laid exclusively against the Mantle Hood and John Blacking. comparative musicologists, as many of the concepts Complexity. One of the most common that they adopted were prominent in the objections to comparison is that it is difficult to anthropology of their day. Discredited evolutionary carry out. Understanding the music of one culture is notions, such as monogenesis, unilinear progressive challenging, and understanding the music of two evolution, and Social Darwinism, long predated the cultures is even more challenging. In addition, development of comparative musicology. Likewise, understanding the music of two cultures using a terminology such as “primitive” was endemic to common set of categories that can accommodate the scholarship of all kinds during that period. Darwin diverse features of these musics is particularly and others in nineteenth-century England referred to difficult. This problem only becomes magnified as tribal peoples as “savages” and “barbarians,” and more cultures are included in the analysis. While even Bruno Nettl, one of the founding figures of the this objection to comparison is valid, it is not field of ethnomusicology, titled his first book Music constructive. Comparative musicology faces many in Primitive Culture (Nettl 1956). It would be of the same challenges as the comparative study of misguided to reject historical scholarship entirely languages, genes, etc. The good news is that based on concerns about (what are now considered comparative musicology can take full advantage of to be) outdated or racialist concepts without theoretical and methodological advances made in considering how we can productively adapt its aims and methods. those fields and adapt them to music. Sound vs. meaning. A second common Careful reading of the works of figures such as objection to comparison is that it places excessive Hornbostel (Wachmann, Christensen, and Reinecke emphasis on musical “sound” at the expense of the 1975), and Sachs (1962) shows that they were non-acoustic domains of “behavior” and “concept” absolutely fascinated by the music that they were (including meaning) that Merriam (1964) outlined. describing. Their research, despite containing some Historically speaking, this criticism has been a valid outdated evolutionary theorizing, does not come one, as the early comparative musicologists—many across as disguised racism. They provide the first of them psychoacousticians—were particularly scholarly descriptions of non-Western music at interested in acoustic features, such as scales, and exactly the time when the first recordings of such had far better access to sound recordings and music were becoming available. If anything, these musical instruments than to ethnographic resources, works evince the joy of the discovery of new such as field interviews or films. Hence, most of musical worlds. Many of the early comparative their analyses did not address the context or social musicologists were themselves persecuted because meaning of music. However, in thinking about the of their Jewish heritage, including Hornbostel and new comparative musicology, we have argued Sachs, who were both exiled by the Nazi regime in 17 Toward a New Comparative Musicology

1933. Since that time, has number of recordings available to them during the made spectacular strides in understanding the nature time that they were building the first cross-cultural and history of human populations, leading to musical archives from scratch. In contrast to this, profoundly new views of human origins that flatly contemporary ethnomusicologists have accumulated reject biological claims of racial superiority millions of recordings and associated (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza 1994; Marks documentation from all over the world but generally 1995). To avoid the racialist biases of the past, lack theories and methods to synthesize these data ethnomusicologists should embrace these new (Rice 2010). findings of anthropology and incorporate them into Much could be gained if ethnomusicologists their research agenda. reincorporated cross-cultural comparison, scientific Many musicologists who reject comparison methodology, and contemporary evolutionary today because of its negative political connotations theory into their research program and thereby are themselves politically interested in “applied returned to the big-picture questions of comparative ethnomusicology” (Sheehy 1992), including musicology that we have described in this article. activism and pedagogy. However, it is difficult to However, the evolution of academic disciplines, celebrate the world’s musical diversity or argue for like that of organisms, is constrained by historical the need to preserve endangered cultural heritages factors, and ethnomusicology today might be too without placing music cultures in their broader strongly committed to relativism and historical and geographic context. Indeed, this was postmodernism to make a reincorporation of precisely the vision behind Lomax’s Cantometrics comparativism possible anytime soon. We hope project and its application in the Global Jukebox that, in the future, the distinctions between and the Association for Cultural Equity (Lomax comparative musicology, ethnomusicology, 1977; Sheehy 1992; Swed 2010). Avoiding the historical musicology, and other subdisciplines will perceived reductionism of comparative analyses merge into a diverse “musicology” that draws upon may help to avoid an oversimplification of musical a wide variety of theoretical and methodological complexities, but it also makes it harder to convince paradigms, as envisioned by Adler when he first the public that music cultures are worthy of study, established this field (Adler 1885/1981). archiving, funding, or political recognition. Balancing competing ethical dilemmas is a Acknowledgments challenge that needs to be addressed constructively, This is a revised and expanded version of material not by summarily rejecting comparative methods. presented at the Symposium on Comparison at the Second International Conference on Analytical CONCLUSIONS Approaches to World Music at the University of We hope that this review gives a strong sense of British Columbia in May 2012. We are grateful to the ways in which a new comparative musicology the many participants who discussed these issues, could provide invaluable information not just about particularly co-presenters Victor Grauer, Nathalie music but also about humanity in general. However, Fernando, and Jean-Jacques Nattiez, and the formal such insights can only come about through a fresh respondent, Gage Averill, as well as to Tom Currie commitment to cross-cultural musical comparison. for helpful comments on a previous version of the It is important to point out that in many fields of the . Some of the material of this article has human sciences, broad explanatory theories are also been adapted from our Comparative Musicology commonplace even when cross-cultural data are website at http://compmus.org. In addition, we rare and difficult to ascertain (Henrich, Heine, and recently reviewed this material in detail from the Norenzayan 2010). Such was the case for the early perspective of how music can contribute to general comparative musicologists who put forth broad anthropological debates about cultural diversity and theories about the world’s musics from the limited evolution (Savage and Brown in press). That review was addressed to an audience of francophone 18 Analytical Approaches To World Music 2.2 (2013) 148-197 anthropologists, who have historically had fewer Boyd, Robert, and Peter J. Richerson. 1985. Culture ideological objections to comparison, and should be and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: referred to for a more thorough review of the University of Chicago Press. anthropological . This work was supported Brown, Donald E. 1991. Human Universals. by a grant to S.B. from the Social Sciences and Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Research Council of Canada, and by a Brown, Steven. 2000a. “The ‘Musilanguage’ Model Japanese Ministry of , Culture, Sports, of Musical Evolution.” In The Origins of , and Scholarship to P.E.S. Music, edited by Nils L. Wallin, Bjorn Merker, and Steven Brown, 271–300. Cambridge: MIT REFERENCES Press. ———. 2000b. “Evolutionary Models of Music: Abbot, Patrick, Jun Abe, John Alcock, Samuel From Sexual Selection to Group Selection.” In Alizon, Joao A. C. Alpedrinha, Malte Perspectives in Ethology. 13: Evolution, Andersson, Jean-Baptiste Andre, et al. 2011. Culture, and Behavior, edited by F. Tonneau “Inclusive Fitness Theory and Eusociality.” and N.S. Thompson, 13:231–81. New York: Nature 471: E1–4. doi:10.1038/nature09831. Plenum Publisher. Adler, Guido. 1885/1981. “The Scope, Method, and Brown, Steven, and . 2013. Aim of Musicology.” Translated by Erica “Universals in the World’s Musics.” Mugglestone. Yearbook for Traditional of Music 41(2): 229–48. 13: 1–21. Adorno, Theodor W., and J. M. Brown, Steven, Patrick E. Savage, Albert Min-Shan Bernstein. 2001. The Culture Industry: Ko, Mark Stoneking, Ying-Chin Ko, Jun-Hun Selected Essays on Mass Culture. New York: Loo, and Jean A. Trejaut. Forthcoming. Routledge. “Correlations in the Population Structure of Anderson, Benedict R. O’G. 1991. Imagined Music, Genes, and Languages.” Proceedings of Communities: Reflections on the Origin and the Royal B: Biological Sciences. Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso. Brown, Steven, and Ulrik Volgsten. 2006. Music Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large. and Manipulation: On the Social Uses and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Social Control of Music. New York: Berghahn Barkow, Jerome H., , and John Books. Tooby. 1992. : Evolutionary Bryant, David, and Vincent Moulton. 2004. Psychology and the Generation of Culture. “Neighbor-Net: An Agglomerative Method for New York: Oxford University Press. the Construction of Phylogenetic Networks.” Bateman, Gregory. 1935. “Culture Contact and Molecular Biology and Evolution 21(2): 255– Schismogenesis.” Man 35: 178–83. 65. Bayard, Samuel P. 1950. “Prolegomena to a Study Callaway, Ewen. 2007. “Music Is in Our Genes.” of the Principal Melodic Families of British- Nature News. doi:10.1038/news.2007.359. American Folk Song.” The Journal of Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca, and Marcus W. Feldman. American Folklore 63(247): 1–44. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Bellwood, Peter, and Colin Renfrew, ed. 2002. Quantitative Approach. Princeton: Princeton Examining the Farming/language Dispersal University Press. Hypothesis. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca, Paolo Menozzi, and for Archaeological Research. Alberto Piazza. 1994. The History and Blacking, John. 1971. “Deep and Surface Structures Geography of Human Genes. Princeton: in Venda Music.” Yearbook of the Press. International Folk Music Council 3: 91–108. Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca, Alberto Piazza, Paolo ———. 1977. “Some Problems of Theory and Menozzi, and Joanna Mountain. 1988. Method in the Study of Musical Change.” “Reconstruction of Human Evolution: Yearbook of the International Folk Music Bringing Together Genetic, Archaeological, Council 9: 1–26. 19 Toward a New Comparative Musicology

and Linguistic Data.” Proceedings of the Data.” Cross-Cultural Research 11(4): 277– National Academy of Sciences 85(16): 6002–6. 308. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government Feld, Steven. 1984. “Sound Structure as Social and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Structure.” Ethnomusicology 28(3): 383–409. Christiansen, Morten H., and Simon Kirby. 2003. Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2006. “The Biology and “Language Evolution: Consensus and Evolution of Music: A Comparative Controversies.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences Perspective.” Cognition 100: 173–215. 7(7): 300–307. Good, Jeff. 2008. Linguistic Universals and Clarke, Eric F., and Nicholas Cook, eds. 2004. Language Change. New York: Oxford Empirical Musicology: Aims, Methods, University Press. Prospects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grauer, Victor A. 2006. “Echoes of Our Forgotten Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de. 1746/1971. An Essay Ancestors.” The World of Music 48(2): 5–59. on the Origin of Human Knowledge. ———. 2011. Sounding the Depths: Tradition and Translated by R. G. Weyant. Gainesville: the Voices of History. CreateSpace. Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints. Gray, Russell D., David Bryant, and Simon J. Cross, Ian. 2003. “Music, Cognition, Culture, and Greenhill. 2010. “On the Shape and Fabric of Evolution.” In The of Human History.” Philosophical Transactions Music, edited by Isabelle Peretz and Robert J. of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences Zatorre, 930:42–56. Oxford: Oxford University 365: 3923–33. Press. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1957. Essays in Linguistics. Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Means of Natural Selection, or the ———. 1966. Language Universals, with Special Preservation of Favoured Races in the Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Struggle for Life. London: John Murray. Mouton. ———. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Haas, Michael. 2013. Forbidden Music: The Jewish Relation to Sex. London: John Murray. Composers Banned by the Nazis. New Haven: ———. 1872. The Expression of the Emotions in Yale University Press. Man and Animals. London: John Murray. Harris, Marvin. 1976. “History and Significance of Diamond, Jared, and Peter Bellwood. 2003. the Emic/Etic Distinction.” Annual Review of “Farmers and Their Languages: The First Anthropology 5(1): 329–50. Expansions.” Science 300(5619): 597–603. Henrich, Joseph, Steven J. Heine, and Ara Dissanayake, Ellen. 2000. “Antecedents of the Norenzayan. 2010. “The Weirdest People in Temporal Arts in Early Mother–infant the World?” The Behavioral and Brain Interaction.” In The Origins of Music, edited Sciences 33: 61–135. by Nils L. Wallin, Bjorn Merker, and Steven Henry, Edward O. 1976. “The Variety of Music in a Brown, 389–410. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. North Indian Village: Reassessing Doolittle, W. Ford. 1999. “Phylogenetic Cantometrics.” Ethnomusicology 20(1): 49–66. Classification and the Universal Tree.” Science Herskovits, Melville J. 1945. “Problem, Method, 284(5423): 2124–28. and Theory in Afroamerican Studies.” Driver, Harold E. 1970. “Review of A. Lomax, Folk Afroamerica 1: 5–24. Song Style and Culture.” Ethnomusicology Hornbostel, Erich M. von, and Curt Sachs. (1914) 14(1): 57–62. 1961. “Classification of Musical Instruments.” Durham, William H. 1991. Coevolution: Genes, Trans. Anthony Baines and Klaus P. Culture, and Human Diversity. Stanford, CA: Wachmann. Galpin Society Journal 14: 3–29. University of California Press. Huron, David. 1999. “Music and Mind: Erickson, Edwin E. 1976. “Tradition and Evolution Foundations of Cognitive Musicology (The in Song Style: A Reanalysis of Cantometric 20 Analytical Approaches To World Music 2.2 (2013) 148-197

1999 Ernest Bloch Lectures).” Berkeley, CA: MacCallum, Robert M., Matthias Mauch, Austin University of California. Burt, and Armand M. Leroi. 2012. “Evolution International Folk Music Council. 1955. of Music by Public Choice.” Proceedings of “Resolutions.” Journal of the International the National Academy of Sciences 109(30): Folk Music Council 7: 23. 12081–86. Jarvis, Erich D. 2004. “Learned Birdsong and the Mantel, Nathan. 1967. “The Detection of Disease Neurobiology of Human Language.” Annals of Clustering and a Generalized Regression the New York Academy of Sciences 1016: 749– Approach.” Cancer Research 27(2 Part 1): 77. 209–20. Jordania, Joseph. 2006. Who Asked the First Marks, Jonathan. 1995. Human Biodiversity: Genes, Question? The Origins of Human Choral Race, and History. New York: Aldine de , Intelligence, Language and Speech. Gruyter. Tblisi: Logos. Marlowe, Frank W. 2005. “Hunter-gatherers and ———. 2011. Why do People Sing? Music in Human Evolution.” Evolutionary Human Evolution. Tblisi: Logos. Anthropology 14 (2): 54–67. Koskoff, Ellen, ed. 1987. Women and Music in Merriam, Alan P. 1964. The Anthropology of Music. Cross-cultural Perspective. New York: Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Greenwood Press ———. 1977. “Definitions of ‘Comparative Kroeber, Alfred L. 1948. Anthropology. New York: Musicology’ and ‘Ethnomusicology’: An Harcourt. Historical-theoretical Perspective.” Leroi, Armand M., and Jonathan Swire. 2006. “The Ethnomusicology 21(2): 189–204. Recovery of the Past.” The World of Music ———. 1982. “On Objections to Comparison in 48(3): 43–54. Ethnomusicology.” In Cross-cultural Levi, Erik. 1990. “The Aryanization of Music in Perspectives on Music, edited by Robert Falck Nazi Germany.” The Musical Times and Timothy Rice, 175–89. Toronto: 131(1763): 19–23. University of Toronto Press. Levinson, Stephen C., and Russell D. Gray. 2012. Mesoudi, Alex. 2011. Cultural Evolution: How “Tools from Evolutionary Biology Shed New Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Light on the Diversification of Languages.” Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16(3): 167–73. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lewis, M. Paul, ed. 2009. Ethnologue: Languages Middleton, Richard. 1990. Studying Popular Music. of the World. Dallas: SIL International. 16th Milton Keynes, England: Open University ed. Dallas: SIL International. Press. Lomax, Alan, ed. 1968. Folk Song Style and Miller, Geoffrey F. 2000. “Evolution of Human Culture. Washington, DC: American Music Through Sexual Selection.” In The Association for the Advancement of Science. Origins of Music, edited by Nils L. Wallin, Lomax, Alan. 1976. Cantometrics: An Approach to Bjorn Merker, and Steven Brown, 329–60. the Anthropology of Music. Berkeley: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. University of California Extension Media Miller, Ivor. 2009. Voice of the Leopard: African Center. Secret and Cuba. Jackson: University ———. 1977. “Appeal for Cultural Equity.” Press of Mississippi. Journal of Communication. Mithen, Steven J. 2005. The Singing : Lomax, Alan, Irmgard Bartenieff, and Forrestine The Origins of Music, Language, Mind, and Paulay. 1968. “The Choreometric Coding Body. London: Weldenfeld & Nicholson. Book.” In Folk Song Style and Culture, edited Murdock, George P. 1967. “Ethnographic Atlas: A by Alan Lomax, 262–73. Washington, DC: Summary.” 6(2): 109–236. American Association for the Advancement of Naroll, Raoul. 1961. “Two Solutions to Galton’s Science. Problem.” of Science 28(1): 15–39.

21 Toward a New Comparative Musicology

Nattiez, Jean-Jacques. 1990. Music and Discourse: Peretz, Isabelle, and Max Coltheart. 2003. Toward a Semiology of Music. Trans. Carolyn “Modularity of Music Processing.” Nature Abbate. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Neuroscience 6(7): 688–91. ———. 1999. “Inuit Throat-games and Siberian Perlman, Marc, and Carol L. Krumhansl. 1996. “An Throat Singing: A Comparative, Historical, Experimental Study of Internal Interval and Semiological Approach.” Standards in Javanese and Western Ethnomusicology 43(3): 399–418. Musicians.” 14(2): 95–116. Nettl, Bruno. 1956. Music in Primitive Culture. Pinker, Steven. 1997. . New Cambridge: Harvard University Press. York: Norton. ———. 2005. The Study of Ethnomusicology: Pritchard, Jonathan K., Matthew Stephens, and Thirty-one Issues and Concepts. 2nd ed. Peter Donnelly. 2000. “Inference of Population Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Structure Using Multilocus Genotype Data.” Nettl, Bruno, and Philip Vilas Bohlman, eds. 1991. Genetics 155: 945–59. Comparative Musicology and Anthropology of Rehding, Alexander. 2000. “The Quest for the Music: Essays on the History of Origins of Music in Germany Circa 1900.” Ethnomusicology. Chicago: University of Journal of the American Musicological Society Chicago Press. 53(2): 345–85. Nettl, Bruno, Ruth Stone, James Porter, and Rice, Timothy. 2010. “Disciplining Timothy Rice, eds. 1998. The Garland Ethnomusicology: A Call for a New Encyclopedia of World Music [10 Volumes; 9 Approach.” Ethnomusicology 54(2): 318–25. CDs]. New York: Routledge. Ross, Alex. 2007. The Rest Is Noise: Listening to Okasha, Samir. 2006. Evolution and the Levels of the Twentieth Century. New York: Farrar, Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Straus and Giroux. Pagel, Mark, and . 2004. “The Cultural Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1781/1986. Essay on the Wealth of .” Nature 428(6980): 275– Origin of Languages. Trans. J. H. Moran and 78. A. Gode. Chicago: University of Chicago Pamjav, Horolma, Zoltán Juhász, Andrea Zalán, Press. Endre Németh, and Bayarlkhagva Damdin. Rzeszutek, Tom, Patrick E. Savage, and Steven 2012. “A Comparative Phylogenetic Study of Brown. 2012. “The Structure of Cross-cultural Genetics and Folk Music.” Molecular Genetics Musical Diversity.” Proceedings of the Royal and Genomics 287(4): 337–49. Society B: Biological Sciences 279: 1606–12. Patel, Aniruddh D. 2008. Music, Language and the Sachs, Curt. 1962. The Wellsprings of Music. Edited Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. by Jaap Kunst. The Hague: M. Nijhoff. ———. 2010. “Music, Biological Evolution, and Savage, Patrick E., and Steven Brown. the Brain.” In Emerging Disciplines, edited by Forthcoming. “Mapping Music: Cluster M. Bailar, 91–144. Houston: Rice University Analysis of Song-type Frequencies Within and Press. Between Cultures.” Ethnomusicology 58(1). Patel, Aniruddh D., John R. Iversen, Micah R. ———. In press. “Vers une nouvelle musicologie Bregman, and Irena Schulz. 2009. comparative: Cinq domaines et débats clés.” “Experimental Evidence for Synchronization Anthropologie et Sociétés 37(3). to a Musical in a Nonhuman Animal.” Savage, Patrick E., Emily Merritt, Tom Rzeszutek, Current Biology 19: 827–830. and Steven Brown. 2012. “CantoCore: A New Peretz, Isabelle, Julie Ayotte, Robert J. Zatorre, Cross-cultural Song Classification Scheme.” Jacques Mehler, Pierre Ahad, Virginia B. Analytical Approaches to World Music 2(1): Penhune, and Benoît Jutras. 2002. “Congenital 87–137. Amusia: A Disorder of Fine-grained Pitch Schachner, Adena, Timothy F. Brady, Irene M. Discrimination.” Neuron 33(2): 185–91. Pepperberg, and Marc D. Hauser. 2009. 22 Analytical Approaches To World Music 2.2 (2013) 148-197

“Spontaneous Motor Entrainment to Music in Evolution of Iranian Tribal Craft Traditions Multiple Vocal Mimicking Species.” Current Using Trees and Jungles.” Philosophical Biology 19: 831–36. Transactions of the Royal Society B: Schneider, Albrecht, ed. 2008. Systematic and Biological Sciences 365(1559): 3865–74. Comparative Musicology: Concepts, Methods, Tëmkin, Ilya, and Niles Eldredge. 2007. Findings. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. “Phylogenetics and Material Cultural Seeger, Charles, ed. 1966. Versions and Variants of Evolution.” Current Anthropology 48(1): 146– the Tunes of Barbara Allen [1 Casette]. 54. Washington, DC: Archive of American Folk Tenzer, Michael, ed. 2006. Analytical Studies in Song, Library of Congress. AFS L 54. World Music. New York: Oxford University Serrà, Joan, Álvaro Corral, Marián Boguñá, Martín Press. Haro, and Josep Ll. Arcos. 2012. “Measuring Toner, P.G. 2007. “The Gestation of Cross-cultural the Evolution of Contemporary Western Music Research and the Birth of Popular Music.” Scientific Reports 2 (521): 1– Ethnomusicology.” Humanities Research 6. doi:10.1038/srep00521. 14(1): 85–110. Sharp, Cecil J. 1932. English Folk Songs from the Trehub, Sandra. 2000. “Human Processing Southern Appalachians. London: Oxford Predispositions and Musical Universals.” In University Press. The Origins of Music, edited by Nils L. Wallin, Sheehy, Daniel. 1992. “A Few Notions About Bjorn Merker, and Steven Brown, 427–48. Philosophy and Strategy in Applied Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Ethnomusicology.” Ethnomusicology 36(3): Turino, Thomas, and James Lea. 2004. Identity and 323–36. the Arts in Diaspora Communities. Warren, Spencer, Herbert. 1857. “The Origin and Function MI: Harmonie Park Press. of Music.” Fraser’s Magazine 56: 396–408. Tzanetakis, George, Ajay Kapur, W. Andrew ———. 1875. “Progress: Its Law and Cause.” In Schloss, and Matthew Wright. 2007. Illustrations of Universal Progress: A Series of “Computational Ethnomusicology.” Journal of Discussions, edited by , 1–60. Interdisciplinary Music Studies 1(2): 1–24. New York: D. Appleton & Company. Wachmann, Klaus P., Dieter Christensen, and Hans- ———. 1890. “The Origin of Music.” Mind 15: Pieter Reinecke, eds. 1975. Hornbostel Opera 449–68. Omnia. The Hague: Marinus Nijhoff. Stevens, S. S. 1946. “On the Theory of Scales of Wallin, Nils L., Bjorn Merker, and Steven Brown. Measurement.” Science 103: 677–80. 2000. The Origins of Music. Edited by Nils L. Stock, Jonathan P.J. 2006. “Clues from Our Present Wallin, Bjorn Merker, and Steven Brown. Peers? A Response to Victor Grauer.” The Cambridge: MIT Press. World of Music 48(2): 73–91. Whiten, Andrew, Robert A. Hinde, Christopher B. Stumpf, Carl. 1911/2012. The Origins of Music. Stringer, and Kevin N. Laland. 2012. Culture Translated by D. Trippett. Oxford: Oxford Evolves. Oxford: Oxford University Press. University Press. Wilson, David S., and Edward O. Wilson. 2007. Swed, John. 2010. Alan Lomax: The Man Who “Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Recorded the World. New York: Viking. .” The Quarterly Review of Tehrani, Jamshid J, Mark Collard, and Stephen J Biology 82(4): 1–57. Shennan. 2010. “The Cophylogeny of Wright, Sewall. 1943. “Isolation by Distance.” Populations and Cultures: Reconstructing the Genetics 28: 114–38.

23