Critical Review - Titon & Slobin (2002)

Music, like language, is a dynamic entity whose boundaries of expression and meaning may shift. New genres and styles may emerge over the years (while the old continue to shapeshift), just as new words are added to the dictionary and the old are redefined. Yet just as different cultures have their own separate dictionaries (written, oral, or perhaps no dictionary at all), different cultures also have different conceptions of music within which such changes occur. As Titon and Slobin (2002) suggest, a general definition of music is nearly impossible to devise. Yet they seem to concede that music, at the very least, is something either intended or perceived to have human meaning. Titon and Slobin defend this argument with an example of how different cultures may perceive bird songs to have human meaning or not. In Europe, on the one hand, bird song is generally not considered to be music, though it may possess some of the same technical structures (melody, rhythm, etc.) as other accepted music. But for the Kaluli people of Papua New Guinea, bird songs are the voices of human ancestors, and thus do possess that aspect of human expression that Europeans believe that bird songs lack. Music, though culturally defined, tends to be a conscious human act--either by creating or perceiving something to be musical.

Music, then, is more than just sound that has melody or rhythm--it is a learned, culturally-transmitted entity, like language. As Titon and Slobin point out, "Music is like a game or conversation: without rules we could not have a game, and without agreement about what words are, what they mean, and how they are used, we could not hold a meaningful conversation." (p. 17-18). This explains why it is so important to them that we try to understand a culture's music on its own terms. There are so many factors that shape and define a particular culture's musical decisions, that it is imperative that ethnomusicologists look past mere differences in musical structure to the why and how a music is the way it is.

Some interesting questions that came up in the reading:

• What are the different roles that music plays in different cultures and how are these roles defined?

• Why do many music-cultures assign such low social status to musicians, although they still acknowledge the importance and power of music?

• What does a true appreciation of a culture's music entail? As Titon and Slobin write, "If a listener does not understand the rules, he or she can understand neither the composer's or musician's intention nor the music's structure." (p.18) How important is knowledge of a musician's intentions or cultural background to the listener's understanding and appreciation of a piece?