Bruno Nettl (8)

Chapter 7

INSTRUMENTS

Most of what has been said about ethnomusicological theory and method in the past several chapters applies to all music, vocal and instrumental. Since the majority of the world's music is vocal, the methods of ethnomusicology are most frequently directed toward vocal music, and examples of analysis are songs. Instruments – and perhaps even more so, instrumental music – are frequently neglected. It is indeed true that singing is much more common than instrumental music. There are cultures which have no instruments, and there are others which have only instruments which provide rhythmic accompaniment to singing and are never used without song. While the Western urban man tends to think of music as primarily an instrumental undertaking, the student of folk and non – Western music sometimes forgets that non-Western peoples also play. And curiously, ethnomusicologists have paid much more attention to the structure and distribution of instruments themselves than to instrumental music. Of course it is often easier to collect vocal rather than instrumental music even in those cultures where instruments abound. Most individuals can sing and know some songs, but not everyone can play, and instruments are not always available. In recent decades, the individuals who could make native instruments have decreased in number. And of course it may not be easy to find the required players for an ensemble. Also, once instrumental music is collected it is, as a rule, much more difficult to transcribe than is song. A knowledge of the structure of the instrument and of the technique of the player is required, and this information may not be available from the notes accompanying a recording. This explains why instrumental music is not frequently transcribed or analyzed in the ethnomusicological literature. Instruments themselves, on the other hand, are frequently available for description even if their condition is such that they cannot be played, and even if no player is at hand. Thus descriptions of instruments are found in the ethnomusicological literature as well as in studies of other branches of culture.

Instruments are, indeed, of much more than ethnomusicological interest, and any student of culture should make himself competent to deal with them even if he must neglect other aspects of musical life. In the first place, instruments are one of our few clues to the history of traditional musical cultures. While recordings are almost entirely more or less contemporary, instruments or their pictorial representations are frequently found in archeological sites and may be excellent indications of musical life in bygone days.

In the world's cultures themselves, instruments usually have significance beyond the strictly musical. Thus, as indicated in many publications, especially by Sachs (1962: 94 – 99), they frequently function as sex symbols – especially the flute and the drum for male an?

female respectively. Thus, Sachs states that "masculinity, in unimpaired purity, is the trumpet," and that "the flute seems to be a love charm everywhere." String instruments are considered by him to be feminine, as are drums, while some instruments have "conflicting characteristics of either sex." An example of the latter is a "trumpet made by cutting off the apex of a conch shell," which is masculine because of its "aggressive, frightening sound; but as it derives from a water animal and in its slit and lips reminds of a woman's sex organs, it is feminine as well" (p. 96).The obvious similarities between flutes, drumsticks, and male sex organs may lead the investigator to give more weight than is necessary to the symbolic connection. If we adopt a psychoanalytic view of the symbols, we would be in a position to say that the symbols exist in the minds of the peoples whether they acknowledge them or not. If the investigator confronts an informant with a symbolic interpretation of the instruments, he may find that the informant corroborates his theory. The question which is frequently neglected is whether the sexual symbolism of the instruments plays an important part in musical life, whether it is something to which informants give lip service, or whether it is more substantial. Thus, the fact that drums, played in pairs, may be called "female" and "male" may or may not indicate that these are sexual symbols, e.g., that they make the player or listener think of the appropriate sex or sexual activity when they are played. Terms such as "male" and "female" for two drums may be used simply for the sake of convenience. The way these terms are used, however, may give us insight into some of the values of a culture. Thus, as Sachs points out, Western culture would probably call the larger of two drums "male," and the smaller, "female." Some non – Western cultures reverse this, however, possibly because the higher tone of the smaller drum sounds aggressive, or because a matrilineal culture may consider women, as the carriers of descent more closely associated with the large things in life, or finally, perhaps, because drums – if they have a feminine connotation – should be classified according to the degree of femininity jn them.

Thus a large drum is "more of a woman" than a small one which, being "less of a woman," must be "more of a man." While there may certainly be some justification for assuming that some instrument symbols are world – wide or at least widespread, others are limited to individual culture areas or tribes.

But it is not only the non-literate cultures which participate in this kind of symbolism. In contemporary American culture, for exarr1ple, the possession of a spinet piano indicates a moderate degree of intellectual refinement, while the possession of bongo drums identifies the owner as a nonconformist, and a dulcimer hanging on the wall symbolizes the avantgarde intellectual. Possession of a Hammond organ, on the other hand, identifies the well – to – do business man who wishes to show a slight – but not too great – interest in "culture." Instruments (as well as vocal music) can be used to study cultural value systems and symbolism. In some cases, as perhaps in the example of the Hammond organ, the people who own and play the instruments are not aware of the symbolism. But in some cultures, the instruments are recognized and identified as symbols of things supernatural, natural, or cultural.

Especially in the world's simpler cultures, instruments are among man's most complex achievements of technology. We know that music occupies a position of high value in most cultures, especially in the simpler ones; thus it is not surprising to find that a high degree of  technical and creative energy is lavished on their structure. To a great extent, this complexity does not involve only those features of the instruments which produce sound, for artistic work which has nothing to do with music is frequently included and may play a role in the instrument's symbolism. In Western civilization, of course, instruments as works of art or pieces of furniture have design and ornaments which go far beyond musical function. For this reason, study and description of instruments is important to the student of visual art, of material culture and technology, and again because instruments are sometimes preserved in archeological sites, to the historian of culture at large.

The fact that instruments are relatively so complex makes it possible to use them as indicators of cultural contact between peoples. If identical forms of instruments are found in separated areas, and if these forms are fairly complex, there is a strong possibility that they were brought from one area to the other, or to both from a third area. The simpler the instrument, the greater the chance that it was invented separately in each area. A famous attempt to connect two areas in this way was made by Hornbostel (1910), who found that the tuning of some panpipes in northwest Brazil and in Polynesia was identical, thus strengthening the theory of contact between Polynesia and South America.

In linguistics, too, instruments can play an important role. Since names of instruments are frequently diffused and borrowed along with the instruments themselves, studies of these names may be useful to the researcher in linguistic borrowing. And since the terminology of musical instruments, their parts, and their making is one of the rare instances of technical terminology in non-literate societies, it offers the linguist an opportunity to explore this side of speech behavior. An example of research into musical instrument names and terms in one language is a study by Hause (1948), in which all words relating to instruments in the Haussa language are analyzed and their derivations explored. Curt Sachs, history's greatest expert on instruments, made much use of instrument names as historical evidence; thus the benefits are reciprocal: the student of instruments makes use of linguistic knowledge to learn about the origin and history of instruments; the linguist makes use of instrument names and techniques to study a particular side of language development. But while the instrument of pre-historical times are of tremendous use to scholars in several fields, their importance to ethnomusicologists in finding out about the musical styles of the past should not be overstressed. The sounds – perhaps we should say scales – which can be produced on instruments indicate the limits within which a tonal structure must have been founded, but it is by no means certain that the owners of the instruments actually approached these limits.

Thus, Mead (1924) gives detailed measurements of the pitches which can be produced by a number of flutes and reed pipes of the Inca, and includes several which have chromatic scales, but this, of course, does not prove that the pieces played on them used chromatic progressions. It must be remembered that instruments, since they are in many cultures important as pieces of visual art, may be constructed with visual designs in mind, and not necessarily in order to produce a particular kind of scale. For example, Wead (1902) has indicated that the distances between the finger – holes on flutes is frequently not determined so much by the pitches of the tones which they produced or by the need to accommodate the structure of the human hand, as by the visual effect of the spacing.

Instruments occupy a somewhat special place among the concerns of ethnomusicology. The various theories of the origin of music, and the motivations of musical behavior, such as the logogenic – pathogenic theory of Sachs in which music is the result of either speech or emotion, tend to stress vocal music. Sachs himself (1962:ll0) and also Bose (1953) stated the belief that instrumental music is of a different origin than vocal music, and that the instrumental music of a culture always differs greatly from its vocal music; moreover, that instrumental music throughout the world has certain common features. Instrumental music is believed to originate in magic and in the need for special objects of ritual which emit sounds.

While we need not accept this theory as applying to all cultures, we must agree that the instrumental and vocal styles of a people often differ greatly.

One reason, of course, is the structure of the instruments. The kinds of things which the human hands can do with an instrument, the kinds of things which random play will emit, may shape the style to a large extent. Bose (1953:215), however, considers a further reason, namely, that instruments travel from culture to culture more easily than vocal pieces, and that the instruments tend to carry with them, as it were, their musical styles. Thus, he cites the Tukano Indians of northwest Brazil, who use flutes and panpipes which probably originated with some of the more advanced South American Indian cultures such as the Chibcha; the Polynesians who use mouth organs which originated in East Asia; and the Africans whose presumably typical marimbas and xylophones came to them a few centuries ago from the East. In each case, Bose says, the instrumental styles differ greatly from the vocal styles because the instruments are not native to the cultures mentioned. He believes that these cultures have kept vocal styles of much greater antiquity but that they learned from the bearers of the instruments the music played on these instruments.

The essential unity of the world of instruments is emphasized by Sachs (1929).The similarity of forms, especially of those parts which are not essential to sound production, and the similarity of certain cultic functions of instruments the world over, led Sachs to believe that there were two main centers in which instruments originated and from which they diHused: the ancient Near East (Mesopotamia and Egypt) and China. In turn, these may have received their stimulus from an archaic central Asiatic source.

Related to the theory that instrumental music has a development separate from vocal music throughout the world is another view, stated by Sachs (1962:91 – 99), that instruments fulfill roughly the same functions in all of the world's cultures. The sexual symbolism of instruments is stressed by him and is assigned world – wide significance.

Classification

Among the theoretical preoccupations of ethnomusicologists has been the classification of musical instruments. Putting things in categories is perhaps a vice characteristic of most fields of research, but in the case of instruments there are some practical reasons for classification. Comparative work in organology depends on simple, accurate descriptions of instruments, for each culture has its own terminology, sometimes borrowed from other cultures, and frequently there is confusion in the native terminologies so that a particular name applies to one instrument here and to another one there. Thus, the one – stringed fiddle of the southern Slavs, the gusle, is only remotely related to the Russian gusli, a kind of psaltery. And the African marimba is not too similar to the North American one. Again, in Western culture, the jew's harp is not a harp at all, and the fiddle – like hurdy – gurdy is not like that hurdy – gurdy which is similar to a barrel organ. Moreover, instruments in non – Western and folk cultures do not have the degree of standardization which is found in the machine – made instruments of Western civilization, and indeed, the European instruments before ca. 1850 also exhibit a bewildering degree of variety. Thus it is not uncommon to find in museums instruments which have no proper designation, except perhaps the native name.

A typical instrument of Negro Africa is called, in the literature and on museum labels, mbira, sansa, zanza, kallmba, finger xylophone, thumb piano, kaffir harp, etc. Lutes, mandolins, and guitars are confused, as are drums, log-drums without membranes, rattles, and scrapers.

Classifications of instruments are found in the early literature of China and India (see Kunst 1959:55 – 56). The Chinese classified the instruments according to the material of which they were made. The Indian system distinguished four groups: cymbals and rattles, drums and tambourines, stringed instruments, and wind instruments. Western European classifications are based on the musical style which is produced by an instrument, or on the way in which sound is produced on the instrument. The latter type of classification is like the Indian one, and curiously, the classification system which was finally accepted as standard is remarkably similar to that of ancient India.

Classifying instruments in accordance with their musical style cannot, of course, yield a system of universal validity. Grouping Western instruments as strings, wood – winds, brasses, and percussion reflects only the roles which these instruments played in orchestral music of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But such classifications are of considerable value for understanding the cultural context of music Nor should we disregard classifying instruments according to the way in which they are played. Sachs and Hornbostel (1961: 8) question the propriety of this, saying that a violin remains a violin whether it is plucked, bowed, or struck, and a dulcimer remains one whether it is beaten or plucked. But future classifiers of instruments should consider this aspect of instruments along with the structure and sound – producing mechanisms.

The standard classification which we have mentioned is, course, that devised by Curt Sachs and E. M. von Hornbostel in 1914, based on the catalogue of a large instrument collection compiled by the Belgian, Victor Mahillon (1893) and translated into English (Hornbostel and Sachs 1961).The validity of this system is attested to by the large number of works which have used it, and by the fact that only very few attempts have been made to supplant it or to add to it. It has the advantage of using a decimal system, similar in structure to the Dewey decimal system used by librarians and inspired by Melvil Dewey, so that additional subdivisions can be made without difficulty. Kunst suggests adding a class of "electrophones" to the system.

Basically, the Sachs – Hornbostel classification divides the field into four groups: idiophones, membranophones, chordophones, and aerophones. These should not be considered as groupings which imply genetic relationship. Thus, the so – called earth drum, which consists of a membrane covering a hole in the ground, could, by the addition of a stick and a string, become a musical bow, which is a chordophone (the drum part now functions as resonator).No evolutionist ideas should be superimposed on the system. It is simply a descriptive one, which attempts to place, in logical order, the instruments of the world – along with some other instruments which have never yet been discovered but whose existence can be postulated as earlier forms of instruments which have been found. Museum exhibits now frequently use terms such as "aerophones," and the scholarly literature on the subject makes great use of them. Books on instruments usually proceed in the order used by Sachs and Hornbostel. But curiously, their numbering system has not been generally adopted. It would be of considerable value to have descriptions of instruments give the appropriate numbers from the Sachs – Hornbostel table. Thus, Merriam (1957) could indicate that the Bashi mulizi, an end – blown, open Hute with finger holes, corresponds to number 42l.lll.l2. The tables are detailed and will not be discussed here; a sample from that classifying chordophones is given below.

3 CHORDOPHONES

One or more strings are stretched between fixed points 31 Simple chordophones or zithers The instrument consists solely of a string bearer, or of a string bearer with a resonator which is not integral and can be detached without destroying the sound – producing apparatus 311 Bal zithers The string bearer is bar – shaped; it may be a board placed edgewise 311.1 Musical bows The string bearer is flexible (and curved)

311.11 Idiochord musical bows The string is cut from the bark of the cane, remaining attached at each end

311.111 Mono – idiochord musical bows The bow has one idiochord string only New Guinea (Sepik R.), Togo

311.112 Poly – idiochord musical bows or harp-bows. The bow has several idiochord strings which pass over a toothed stick or bridge W. Africa (Fan)

311.12 Heterochord musical bows The string is of separate material from the bearer

311.121 Mono – heterochord musical bows The bow has one heterochord string only

311.121.1 Without resonator NB If a separate, unattached resonator is used, the specimen belong to 3ll.121.21. The human mouth is not to be taken into account as a resonator

311.121.11 Without tuning noose Africa (ganza, Samuius, to)

311.121.12 With tuning noose A fibre noose is passed round the string, dividing it into two sections South – equatorial Africa (n'kungo, uta)

31U21.2 With resonator

311.121.21 With independent resonator Bomeo (bU8Oi)

311.121.22 With resonator attached

311.121.221 Without tuning noose S. Africa (hade, thomo)

311.121.222 With tuning noose

S. Africa, Madagascar (gubo, hungo, bobre)Bruno Nettl - Theory and Method in Ethnomusicology 125

311.122 Poly – heterochord musical bows The bow has several heterochord strings

311.122.1 Without tuning noose Oceana (kalove)

311.122.2 With tuning noose Oceania (pagolo)

The subdivision of each of the four types is not made on the same basis. Idiophones and membranophones are divided according to the way in which they are played; chordophones, according to external features such as the shape of the body; and aerophones, according to the way in which air is made to act on the instrument. This inconsistency is based on the author’s desire to subdivide the classes in ways which are internally meaningful, but it is nevertheless a minor flaw in the classification. A second criticism could be leveled at the desire to distinguish between instruments which are "pure" and those which have undergone "contamination," i.e., been influenced by unrelated instrument types. If the classification is purely descriptive, the history of an instrument should play no part in determining its position.

In spite of the fact that the Sachs – Hornbostel classification was translated without changes after both authors had died, there is reason to believe that Sachs, especially, began to feel somewhat dissatisfied with it after it had been in use for some decades. I have a letter from Sachs, dated 1952, in which he discourages the idea of translating the classification, saying that a thorough revision was needed before any attempt at republication should be attempted. Complex as the Sachs-Hornbostel tables are, they are insufficient for certain types and areas, and have been expanded on several occasions. Thus, Hugh Tracey, in a handbook accompanying records of the International Library of African Music, provides additional categories for the great variety of African mbiras or finger xylophones. The number of manuals, position of the bass notes, and numbers of intervals in the scale are all indicated.

A system of even greater complexity was devised by Hans-Heinz Draeger (1948).Although it does not have the practical value of the Sachs – Hornbostel system, it provides a thorough examination of the theory of describing musical instruments, approaching them from the viewpoint of structure, manner of playing as it involves the player and the relationship of the parts of the instruments, as well as the rudiments of the musical style (monophony, polyphony, harmony, etc.) and the variety of sound types and tone colors which can be produced on it.

Draeger's system cannot be used to order instruments in a museum or a catalog, but it provides a theoretical basis for ordering thoughts about an instrument, its music, and its cultural context.

Types of Studies of Instruments

A brief description of the most typical kinds of studies of musical instruments follows. Quite common is the study which attempts to describe all of the instruments of a tribe, nation, culture area, or continent. A model of these is Izikowitz (1936), which covers all of South American Indian culture in the order of the Sachs – Hornbostel classification. A detailed description of each instrument and a statement of its distribution (including its existence in North America) are included, and references to the instrument in the ethnographicalliterature are assembled in tabular form. Ways of playing the instruments, techniques of construction and of tuning are described. Occasional discussion of the cultural background is found, but the musical styles themselves are not included. Of special interest is the fact that both archeological and ethnographic materials are used to give a very comprehensive picture. Izikowitz's study has served as a model for other works of the same nature, for example, Sõderberg's (1956), which proceeds essentially along the same lines as Izikowitz's for an area with a much richer corpus of instruments. Again, Fischer (1958) describes the instruments of Oceania in much the same way, but stressing more the geographical distribution and the role of the instruments in the culture. While Izikowitz and Sõderberg use photographs, Fischer uses a large number of drawings to indicate the structure and method of playing.

Of course the study of instruments can – and should – be integrated with descriptions of musical culture and musical style at large. However, since the instruments can more easily be handled by scholars not trained in musicology than can the musical style, we find them appearing in a somewhat separate place in the literature, and the tendency has been to write descriptions of instruments without including their musical style while concentrating, in descriptions of music, on vocal music alone. An important exception to this is Malm's survey of Japanese music (1959) which is more than half devoted to musical instruments and their styles. Thus there are chapters on biwa, shakuhachi, koto, and shamisen music, and sections on instruments in the chapters on Noh and Gagaku. Malm approaches the instruments as producers of musical style, not so much as objects of material culture, and descriptions of the instruments themselves are given only for the purpose of understanding their music.

Of course the bulk of the literature on musical instruments involves individual forms as they are found in single or related groups of cultures. A classic of this sort is Die Afrikanischen Trommeln (1933) by Wieschoff., which describes and gives the distribution of African drums and of related forms in other continents. He is more concerned than Izikowitz with geographical distribution, for he adheres, in his theoretical approach, to the Kulturkrei8 theory, according to which distribution of culture traits indicates not only former cultural contacts but strata of cultural history. Wieschoff includes a number of maps of drum distribution; these indicate only the presence or absence of types in various tribal areas rather than function, musical style, or degree of prominence. Rather than following the Sachs-Hornbostel system, Wieschoff. follows his own, discussing, in order, the material and types of drum heads, the manner of attaching them to the body of the drum, and the shape of that body.

A sample study of one instrument and its musical style is Merriam's description of the Bashi mulizi (1957); here Merriam is actually more concerned with the music performed and with the technique used in playing than with the distribution of the instrument. Another such study, by Camp and Nettl (1955), discusses the musical bow in southern Africa, giving the types, distribution, and manner of playing along with a brief analysis pf the musical style of selected pieces, but the role of the instruments in the culture is not touched on. A useful feature is, however, a glossary of musical bow terms in some of the Languages spoken in southern Africa. Here again we see the importance of understanding native terminologies for studying the inter – tribal and inter – cultural diffusions of instruments. It would be the ideal of organologists to have a complete glossary of musical instrument terms in all languages of the world. Considering that there are several thousand languages spoken by man, and that these are constantly changing, such a glossary will probably never be compiled. But the closest thing to it is Curt Sachs' Real – Lexicon (1913), which does give the names for instruments in many languages, to the degree to which they were available in the literature used by Sachs.

This early work, a tremendous achievement, has never been superseded, and was reprinted almost fifty years after its first publication. Unlike some of the other branches of ethnomusicology, organology has always provided a link between this field and the historical study of Western music. Nowhere is the historic contact between Europe and other continents, also between Western folk and urban music, more evident than in the instruments. And of course, in the major works of Curt Sachs, both areas are treated equally.

A "new approach to organology" is explored by Grame (1962), for here the importance of raw materials – bamboo in this case – for the development of instruments is stressed. The fact that the material of which instruments are made may be of great importance in the thinking of the world's peoples (as in the Chinese classification of instruments) and the symbolism of the various materials is well brought out.

Catalogs and Museums

Among the important publications in organology are the catalogs of musical instrument collections. Such catalogs are basic source material for the comparative study of instruments, for the student of this field cannot visit all collections which contain instruments of the type he is studying. The development of detailed catalogs of collections is, then, an important desideraturn in ethnomusicology. Most of the catalogs now available are only moderately useful, for they tend to be directed to the layman alone and have publicity as their main ralson d'etre. A comprehensive catalog should arrange the instruments according to some classification scheme – that of Hornbostel and Sachs, or geographically – and give, for each instrument, the exact place of collection or origin, the time it was collected, the size of the individual parts, the materials used, the tuning, if possible, and one or more detailed photographs. Notes on the cultural context of the instrument should be included as well.

Mahillon (1893), the work on which Hornbostel and Sachs based theirs, is a detailed catalog which could serve as a model, as could that of the Crosby – Brown collection (Metropolitan Museum of Art 1902 – 14). Among the catalogs devoted to one instrument type, we should mention that of the Dayton C. Miller Collection (Gilliam and Lichtenwanger 1961).Here the arrangement is not classified, but a detailed index of types, trade names, and finger – hole arrangements makes it possible to locate the various kinds of Hutes in the collection. But in recent decades few catalogs of great usefulness have been published. A small booklet published by the Homiman Museum (1958) is interesting in so far as it combines the function of an introductory text on instruments and a catalog of the museum's collection. It does not go into great detail on the individual instruments, but it presents them in Sachs – Hornbostel order, explains their construction and the way they are played, and gives some information, including maps, on their distribution. Booklets of this sort could well be used by museums to direct the lay public; they are not, however, the detailed catalogs which the professional organologist would need. The kind of information which should be included in a catalog should also, of course, be made available to the viewer of a collection of instruments.

The care of instruments in a collection or a museum is a special field which we cannot discuss here. De Borhegyi (1960) gives a useful and moderately comprehensive bibliography of museology, including materials on the care of art objects. The restoration of instruments is also a field of great importance, especially since many instruments in collections are old, reach the museum in poor condition, and were collected by individuals who could not evaluate the condition of the instrument. Restorers of historical European musical instruments are highly paid speciallsts, and some of the more significant instrument collections, such as that in the Museum of Music History in Stockholm or the Musikwissenschaftliches Institut Berlin, employ full – time restorers. Restoring non – Western instruments has its own problems. The structure of the instruments themselves may be less complicated, but the restoring of parts which are to be tuned is most difficult. Adding strings to a Watutsi harp, or moving the tongues of a mbira so that the correct scale appears, is almost impossible. There are no theoretical foundations to guide the restorer, and all he can do is to use his intuition or copy similar instruments in his or other collections. Of course there are collections in which no attempt is made to keep instruments in playable condition.

This is true of some of the ethnographical museums, such as the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Here instruments – especially of the North American Indians – are preserved in large numbers, but they are usually left in whatever condition they are brought. Such collections are, of course, still very useful, and there is no doubt that a collection which contains thousands of instruments would not be able to find the resources to restore all of them. Collections which keep instruments in playable condition are usually small; the Royal Tropical Institute in Amsterdam, which has a beautiful Javanese gamelan orchestra in excellent condition, is of this nature. But for the student of comparative forms, large collections are essential, and if these can be built only at the expense of keeping the instruments in playable condition, so be it.

Of course, the collector of instruments can play an important role in providing specimens which are in good condition and representative. No doubt many collectors have bought inferior or toy instruments from natives, and surely there are cases in which collectors have had their legs pulled. A. M. Veenstra of Johannesburg tells of an instrument in the British Museum which was labeled a flute but which, on closer examination, turned out to be a tobacco pipe. The admonitions given to collectors in Chapter 3 for music in general are applicable, of course, to instruments. The collector should get exhaustive information, he should find out not only what the informants tell him about an instrument, but he should, if possible, observe one being made, and make films of the techniques of playing. Instruments played in groups should, if possible, be acquired in groups. And once an instrument is acquired by a collector, he should play the notes which it produces onto a tape – especially if strings are involved. Then he should take care of the instrument, keep it in cool, dry places, if possible, and refrain from applying any wax, lanolin, or other preservatives unless he is well acquainted with their effects.

In addition to the collections of instruments in ethnographical, art, and musicological museums we should mention a unique way of preserving instruments and their culture, the so-called folk or outdoor museum. Such a museum consists of artifacts which illustrate the folk culture of a nation, and it usually has the structure of a village in which various kinds of buildings – farms, shops, dwellings, etc. – are displayed. In most of the buildings, crafts and methods of work are displayed through exhibits and by individuals who have learned, either through family tradition or from scholars, to do such work as pottery, weaving, basketry, and sometimes also instrument – making and playing, and who demonstrate these skills to the public. Although these museums are not primarily of musical interest, some of them do contain exhibits and demonstrations of instruments. The Scandinavian countries have pioneered in this field, and the museum at Skansen, outside Stockholm, and at Copenhagen are the most representative. In the United States, Greenfield Village and the Edison Institute in Dearbom, Michigan, are worth seeing, among others.

It would hardly be possible to list and evaluate all of the collections which contain instruments of non-Western cultures and of folk music. Lists of such collections can be found in the large German encyclopedia Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, under "Instrument ensammlungen," and in Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 5th edition, under "Instruments, Collections of." Most nations of the world have collections which serve, primarily, to illustrate the native instruments of the region. General collections tend to concentrate on European instruments, and only incidentally to include others.

Among the collections worth seeing, the following are a selection: In the United States, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (world – wide collection including many oriental specimens); American Museum of Natural History, New York (best on North American Indian); Museum of Music, Scarsdale, New York (besides instruments, includes various artifacts relating to music, such as recording devices); National Museum, Washington, D. C. (huge Collection of ethnographical material); University of California Museum, Berkeley; Commercial Museum, Philadelphia; Institute of Ethnomusicology, University of California, Los Angeles (oriental, particularly Indonesian) ; Chicago Museum of Natural History; Steams Collection, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

In other nations: Musikhistoriska museet, Stockholm; Musikwissenschaftliches Institut, Berlin; Musikhistorisk museum, Copenhagen; Musée de l'homme, Paris; Homiman Museum, London; Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. And of course there are dozens of others. In conclusion, we may say that the work of collecting instruments has been well done. One task still before ethnomusicologists is the cataloging, photographing, and description of these instruments, and the publication of reliable information about them. Even more pressing is information on instrumental music and on the methods of playing, learning, and teaching the techniques used in performance.

Bibliography

Bose, Fritz (1953)."Instrumentalstile in primitiver Musik," in Kongress-Bericht Bamberg 1953, pp. 212 – 215. Kassel: Baerenreiter.

Camp, Charles M. and Bruno Nettl (1955)."The musical bow in Southern America," Anthropos 50:65 – 80.

Christensen, Edwin O. (1961). Museums Directory of the United States and Canada. Washington: American Association of Museums.

De Borhegyi, Stephen F. and Elba A. Dodson (1960). A Bibliography of Museums and Museum Work,.1900-1960. Milwaukee: Public Museum (Milwaukee Public Museum Publications in  Museology, no.1).

Draeger, Hans-Heinz (1948). Prinzip einer Systematik der Musikinstrumente. Kassel: Baerenreiter.

Fischer, Hans (1958). Schallgeriite in Ozeanien. Strassbourg: P. Heitz.

Gilliam, Laura E., and William Lichtenwanger (1961).The Dayton C. Miller Flute Collection, a Checklist of the lnstrument8. Washington: Library of Congress Music Division.

Grame, Theodore (1962)."Bamboo and music; a new approach to organology," Ethnomusicology 6:8 – 14.

Hause, Helen E. (1948). "Terms for musical instruments in Sudanic languages," Supplement 7 to the Journal of the American Oriental Society 68, no.1, January – March 1948.

Horbostel, Erich M. von (1910). Über einige Panpfeifen aus nordwest-Brasilien" in Theodor Koch – Gruenberg, Zwei Jahre unter den lndianem, vol. 2. Berlin: Wasmuth.

Hornbostel, Erich M. von and Curt Sachs (1961). "Classification of musical instruments, Bruno Nettl - Theory and Method in Ethnomusicology 130

translated from the original German by Anthony Baines and Klaus P. Wachsmann," Galpin Society Journal 14:3 -29.

Homiman Museum (1958). Musical lnstruments. London: London County Council.

Izikowitz, Karl Gustav (1935).Musical and Other Sound Instruments of the South American lndians. Goteborg: Kungl. Vetenskaps-och Vitterhets – Samhalles Handlingar.

Kirby, Percival R. (1953). The Musical lnstruments of the Native Races of South Africa. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

Kunst, Jaap (1959). Ethnomusicology, 3d edition. The Hague: M. Nijhoff.

Mahillon, Victor (1893). Catalogue descriptif et analytique du Musee instrumental du Conservatoire de Bruxelles. 5 vols. Brussels, 1893-1922.

Malm, William P. (1959). Japanese Music and Musical Instruments. Tokyo and Rutland, Vt. : c. Tuttle.

Mead, Charles W. (1924).The Musical Instruments of the Incas. New York: Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 15, part 3.

Merriam, Alan P. (1957). "The Bashi mulizi and its music: an end-blown flute from the Belgian Congo," Journal of American Folklore 70:143-56.

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (1902-14). Catalogue of the Crosby Brown Collection of Musical Instruments of All Nations, vol. 1-2. New York. (Handbook no.13 of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.)

Sachs, Curt (1913). Real-Lexikon der Musikinstrumente. Berlin: J. Bard. Reprinted by Olms (Hildesheim), 1962.

______. (1929). Geist und Werden der Musikinstrumente.Berlin : J. Bard.

______ .(1940). The History of Musical Instruments. New York: Norton.

______ .(1962).The Wellsprings of Music. The Hague: M. Nijhoff. Recommended reading, pp.

91-110.

Soderberg, Bertil (1956).Les instruments de musique du Bas – Congo et dans les regions avpoisinantes. Stockholm: The Ethnographic Museum of Sweden.

Wead, Charles K. (1902). "Contribution to the history of musical scales," Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1900, pp. 417-423.

Wieschoff, Heinz (1933). Die afrikanischen Trommeln und ihre ausserafrikanischen Beziehungen. Stuttgart: Strecker und Schroder.Bruno Nettl - Theory and Method in Ethnomusicology 131

~0~