The interpretation
of words is inevitably subjective, for meanings are constantly evolving, negotiated through discourse across each sector of society. Still, it has now
been over six years since I decided to start this blog called SOCIOMUSICOLOGY,
which at this point has over 72,000 page views, so it now seems a good idea to explain my understanding of what this word can mean.
Sociomusicology
has been discussed in various ways by music scholars. Some view sociomusicology
as a specialized subfield of sociology - essentially the “sociology of music” -
while others view it as a particular form of ethnomusicology. Comparing the
sociology of music with ethnomusicology, Keller observed a “difference in
expertise and competence between the two disciplines” that “derives from their
different historical roots” (Keller, 1986, p.179). Personally, I am equally happy
with both understandings of this term, which is why I use sociomusicology here,
but I also include a subtitle “musical arts – education – social sciences” on
this website to suggest some more specific interests. My main fields of
academic study are music teacher education and ethnomusicology, so I examine
music teaching and learning (and the institutionalization of music) from a
global perspective, and I am also very interested in developing new approaches
to research that are informed by recent developments in philosophy and new
technologies.
In my view,
sociomusicology can generally be seen as a form of musicology that proceeds
with the intention of producing outcomes that have a social impact, or findings
of relevance to practitioners, such as musicians and music teachers (from
studies of music ensembles, music learning strategies, and performance
techniques, for example). Sociomusicology can also be understood as a specific
form of applied ethnomusicology, marked by an openness to research
methodologies that may sometimes be distinct from ethnographic fieldwork, such
as historiography, computational analysis, practice-based research, and arts
policy studies.
I agree with
Norman Stanfield that it is a bit regrettable ethnomusicology was not called “sociomusicology”
all along, for ethnicity is merely one dimension of the array of social themes commonly
explored in the field usually called “ethnomusicology”. Interestingly, it is
really “musicology” - with its traditional focus on composers of “common
practice” European art music - that tends to be a specific kind of
ethnic-musicology, while “ethnomusicology” tends to be the more holistic field,
embracing all kinds of music everywhere in the world. When viewed from the
perspective of other fields – such as linguistics or drama – this situation in
the academic disciplines of music surely must seem counterintuitive. Still,
this is all changing nowadays, as the division between musicology and
ethnomusicology now seems to be diminishing.
Here are some
examples of how scholars in the past have discussed sociomusicology:
According to
Barbara Lundquist (1982), “Sociomusicology focuses
on the study of music in its social context. Therefore sociomusicology is
closely related to ethnomusicology as well as psychomusicology and historical
musicology. Its perspective affects aesthetics and criticism. It deals with
concerns that often overlap one or another of these areas of study.”
Lundquist also
writes the following:
“In general terms the bibliographical research revealed
that since the early 1900s there has been a marked increase in
sociomusicological research all over the world. The variety is quite
overwhelming, the focus broad. Procedures range from descriptive, ethnographic
studies to empirical ones; from the application of mathematical techniques to
entirely speculative language. Everything from the role of song texts or
particular genres in revolutions to economic manipulation in the music industry
is examined. Studies analyze the social interaction between conductors and
musicians in orchestras, at times using such studies to stand for similar
status-bound, product-oriented relationships in society. They examine the
social interaction in recording studios which affects music as business, as
well as the role of music in changing the social behavior of children and
adults. The use of music to control attention during television programs is
studied, as is the use of music alone or with drugs in cross-cultural
comparisons of ritual. The socialization of musicians has been analyzed along
with elements in the acculturation and enculturation in music of groups of all
sizes, from all over the world. Some studies examine aspects of music which
appear to assist in creating and preserving social orders, and inspect the
extent to which music is made to play a manipulative role in society.”
Regarding the
term “sociomusicology”, Charles Keil (1996) writes that it is “Not
‘ethnomusicology’ because the ‘ethno-’ means ‘other’ in the minds of most
people and also fosters the misconception of a style or styles tied to one
culture at a time, an equation no longer true if it ever was. ‘Sociomusicology’
because musicking only has definable feelings and meanings in social contexts.”
Keil notes in one of his other publications that “The most basic
sociomusicological idea is that interacting sounds constitute the abstraction
‘music’ in the same way that interacting people constitute the abstraction
‘society’” (Keil, 1998).
Kizinska’s
discussion of sociomusicology emphasizes the role of capitalism and the “transformation
of social practices into objects of economic exchange” (Kizinzka, n.d.).
Related Articles:
Steven Feld,
“Symposium on Comparative Sociomusicology: Sound Structure as Social Structure”
Ethnomusicology, 28/3 (1984). Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/851232?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103165991331
Charles Keil,
“MUSE Incorporating and Applied Sociomusicology,” MUSE (1996). Retrieved from: http://www.musekids.org/berlin.html
Charles Keil,
“Ethnomusicology in Education-Skills for Children’s Liberation: An Applied
Sociomusicology for Echologists,” Folklore Forum, 34: 17-27. Retrieved from: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/2352/34%281-2%29%2017-27.pdf?sequence=1
Charles Keil,
“Applied Sociomusicology and Performance Studies,” Ethnomusicology, 42/2
(1998). Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3113893?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103165991331
Marcello Sorce
Keller, “Sociology of Music and Ethnomusicology: Two Disciplines in
Competition,” Journal of General Education, 38/3 (1986): 167-181.
Karolina
Kizinska, “Elements of Sociology of Music in Today’s Historical Musicology and
Music Analysis,” Ad Alta: Journal of
Interdisciplinary Research
Barbara R. Lundquist,
“Sociomusicology: A Status Report,” College Music Symposium, 22 (1982).
Retrieved from: http://symposium.music.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1932:sociomusicology-a-status-report
Barbara R. Lundquist, “A Sociomusical
Research Agenda for Music in Higher Education,” Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education, 86 (1986): 53-70. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40317968?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103165991331
John
Shepherd, “A theoretical model for sociomusicological analysis of popular
music,” Popular Music, 2 (1982), pp. 145-77.
Material from a recent Wikipedia entry on
the topic:
Among
the most notable of earlier sociologists to examine social aspects of music
were Georg Simmel (1858-1918), Alfred
Schutz (1899-1959), Max Weber (1864-1920) and Theodor
Adorno (1903-1969). Others have included Alphons Silbermann, Ivo
Supicic, Max Kaplan, K. Peter Etzkorn, Charles
Seeger (1886-1979), Howard Saul Becker, Eli
Siegmeister, Jacques Attali, John Mueller (1895-1965), Kurt
Blaukopf and Charles Keil.
More recently, notable sociomusicologists have included
§ Peter J. Martin
§ Tia DeNora
§ John Shepherd
§ Hildegard Froehlich
§ Christopher Small
§ Steven Brown
§ Timothy Dowd
§ Andy Bennett
§ Steve Waksman, and
§ Robert Faulkner.
Younger scholars whose work contributes to the field of
sociomusicology include:
§ Shyon Baumann
§ David Hebert
§ David Grazian
§ Eric Hung, and
§ Joseph Schloss.
