notion that all of the world’s musics had anything in common.But by the
1970s all this had changed.A new student arrived in my department and
declared that she understood that the purpose of studying ethnomusicol-
ogy was to study universals.And two journals,at least,undertook special
issues on the subject:Ethnomusicologyin 1971 (vol.15,no.3),with con-
tributions by some of the most venerable figures in North America—
David McAllester,Klaus Wachsmann,Charles Seeger,and George
List—and in 1977,The World of Music(vol.19,no.1/2) in a special issue
with contributions by John Blacking,Frank Harrison,Gertrude Kurath,
Mantle Hood,Tran Van Khe,Jean-Jacques Nattiez,Alan Lomax,and
myself.It may be no surprise that virtually all of these authors looked with
considerable skepticism at the possibility that universals can be defined,
identified,and described.Modern classic books about ethnomusicology,
by Merriam (1964) and Hood (1971),for example,do not deal with the
subject.More recently again,following,I think,trends in linguistics and
social anthropology,the interest among ethnomusicologists has warmed.
If ethnomusicological involvement has some justification,it concerns
the interface among three areas of concern:cultural universals,musical
universals specifically,and the origins of music.I think that if we are to
discover the origins of music,with all the problems of definition that
this entails,some understanding of universals may be helpful.But also I
need to be the devil’s advocate or dog in the manger and suggest why
universals should be drawn in as a guide only with the greatest care.Universals of Music and Universals among Musics
A brief definition of what I mean by universals is in order.This depends
in turn,of course,on the definition of music,something I ought not to
attempt,but also on a general conceptualization of the world’s music.We
might consider music as a single vast body of sound and thought,a kind
of universal language of humankind,and accepting this would lead us to
a particular way of constructing universals.This would not be my choice,
nor would it seem to have been,may I say,the choice of my teacher,
George Herzog (1939),one of whose little-known but insightful articles
was entitled “Music’s Dialects:a Non-Universal Language.”A more typ-
ically ethnomusicological view would provide for a world of music that
consists of a large group of discrete musics,somewhat analogous to lan-
guages,with stylistic,geographical,and social boundaries.We used to think
that the boundaries were clear and that each music had a style or grammar,
a repertory or vocabulary,logic,and consistency.Where these boundaries
lay would differ depending on analytical approach and historical depth.
Thus,there might be Blackfoot music,South Indian music,and
Western music;or Czech folk music,Carnatic Indian classical music,and464 Bruno Nettl