Music, Global History and Postcoloniality Johann Kroier Schwedter Str.

250 D-10119 Berlin Music, Global History, and Postcoloniality

Curiosity is a vice that has been stigmatized in turn by Christianity, philosophy, and even by a certain conception of science. . . However, I like the word; it suggests something quite different; it evokes "care"; it evokes the care one takes of what exists and what might exist; a sharpened sense of reality, but one that is never immobilized before it; a readiness to find what surrounds us strange and odd; a certain determination to throw off familiar ways of thought and to look at the same things in a different way; a passion for seizing what is happening now and what is disappearing; a lack of respect for the traditional hierarchies of what is important and fundamental. ---Michel Foucault ("The masked philosopher") The history of American popular music in the 20th century can yield a distinctive understanding of the great transformation we have recently become obliged to call globalization It can complicate the economic logics that have been employed to define those complex processes. It can disrupt the over-simple historical periodization that has been provided for them so far, and it can suggest useful if unorthodox ideas as to what the cultural and indeed the political forms of that globalization may be and become in the future. ---Paul Gilroy

1. "Globalization and world music": a dead end? From a historical point of view so-called world music is a rather recent phenomenon. When musicologists started in the 20th century to explore the musics1 of non-European people, it seemed almost impossible that these could become an everyday-commodity. Their apparent strangeness made them largely indigestible for the distributing media and institutions of music. Still during the seventies most critics of the dominance and expansion of western culture industries implicitly assumed that its power would automatically be based on the stylistic hegemony of Western popular music. The ruling counter-discourse of culture critics and ethnomusicologists was focused on the possible disappearance of global diversity in music. This was not only a scientific problem: the loss of sources necessary for writing of a worldwide music history; at the same time it was also an ethical problem: the loss of arguments against Eurocentrism. It was part of a humanist mission to spread the insight into the relativity of cultural values. Music as a learned system of cultural practices was an outstanding example for the incomparability of tastes. Learning to appreciate some sort of non-European music was seen as a key experience that could trigger the process of intercultural understanding. Meanwhile the situation has changed drastically, at least in part.2 The digital media revolution seems to have shrunk the scale of strangeness to the same extent as the distances in global communication. The easy and fast accessibility of any kind of music in the Internet has deep consequences for the general parameters of cultural perception. You can call this phenomenon the "play-list syndrome": the forced comparability of incomparable styles, the complete de-contextualization of music and its perceptual reshaping in a standardized media format. The postmodern listener of the 21st century jumps through the global landscape of music

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality

in the same way he is zapping between television channels (Fabbri 57-60). His identification with specific styles and tastes is in dissolution while he incorporates the most weird and exotic examples of music into his play-list. He enjoys the full freedom of cultural relativity and develops an ever-changing cosmopolitan pattern of musical preferences. Esthetic tolerance with respect to the strange and unusual has become a matter of audio mastering--or of the mood of the listener. The anarchic fun of border jumping has become the antidote to the dictate of the canons as well as to that of cultural imperialism. It leads into the global mash up as the musical gesamtkunstwerk of international network society. Nevertheless, not only the culture critic may feel uneasy with this "play-list syndrome." Everyone who has the privilege to know more about the historical, cultural and political circumstances of music can be baffled when he sees and hears an experienced internet user combine the seemingly incompatible: the most "authentic" with the most "inauthentic"3, the daringly artistic with the excessively commercialist, the politically engaged with the bluntly conformist. The ignorance with regard to the respective contexts of music may result in bizarre revaluations and creative misinterpretations. The play-list listener may have his pleasure in understanding tragic things as funny, or parodies as serious. His unit of reference is the audio file as a surprise bag that fell out of time and space. His cosmopolitan taste manifests an esthetic tolerance without exactly knowing what it is that he tolerates. In this way he exercises a power that doesn't hurt anybody but the heart of the musical connoisseur. This power seems innocent, but it deeply affects the esthetic dignity of music.4 Apparently this power cannot be criticized in the same way as the power of the global music industry. The plea for a "historically informed listening"5 is here as valuable as elsewhere. But my aim here is not to give advice to the listener; instead I want to look for the consequences that the aforementioned shift of perception has for the scholarly reflection on music. We can argue that paradigmatic shifts on the material level are producing paradigmatic shifts on the scientific level. It was, for example, the factual process of neo-liberal globalization that had a heavy impact on the development of a global approach in history (Cooper 31). The widening of horizons migrated through the subsystems of society and made it possible to reformulate the geographic range of research. In this sense we can look for a starting point from which it is possible to formulate an adequate concept of music that counters the arbitrary structure of "playlist listening." But first of all I want to use this starting point to recapitulate the debate on globalization and world music that has been going on since the end of the eighties. Remarkable is the neat historic parallelism in the ascent of both terms to public discourse. "Globalization" entered as catchword that covers different notions: in its descriptive sense it is related to the widening of international exchange of people, goods and knowledge. This process, mainly a consequence of changes in the technologies of transport and communication, concerns all levels of society and raises questions of cultural change and identity. On the other hand the term was linked from the beginning to the normative concept of neo-liberalism: put simply, the idea that the best thing for the world's future would be the unlimited expansion and deregulation of capitalist markets. This neo-liberal attitude gained its credibility not least from the fact that it distanced itself from the older normative model of modernization with its cultural Eurocentrism. Following its assumptions, "development" happens more or less spontaneously if only the forces of the market are set free.6 The term "world music," which was coined in 1987 for promotional use,7 certainly shares the historical circumstances behind the first notion of globalization. Its premise was the accelerated communication between metropolis and peripheries in the context of decolonization and media revolution. "World music" was a movement in a rather abstract sense. I am inclined to

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality

see it as a sort of deal: the promise for third world artists to get a worldwide audience was paid by their adaptation to the customs of international music business. The ideology that each party would get its "fair share" from this deal was accompanied by the philanthropic propagation of cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism. The good conscience of this artificial movement was based on the assumption, that its positive effects would in the end overcome its concessions to the capitalist music industry (see Hutnyk 19-49; Murphy). It is not surprising that this world music "movement" became a provocation and challenge for ethnomusicology, a discipline up to then oriented towards the terms "folklore" and "traditional music." Martin Stokes in 2003 published a revealing summary of the debate. Following his line of thought there can be identified two opposed two approaches:8 the one includes world music in its critique of globalization; it sees it in the vein to differentiation of target groups typical of post-fordist economies and interprets it as some sort of a new form of cultural imperialism. The other approach stresses the innovative aspects of cultural globalization. It highlights hybridity as a new form of authenticity and stresses the local as a field of reactive adaptation to globalization. Diasporic musics as the outcome of international migration, following their own dynamics of syncretism and particularism, are replacing the older models of more or less closed cultures as units of reference. While the first approach focuses on the unequal distribution of power, the second discovers productive forces in the dissolution of national cultures. As Stokes writes, an "opposition between global and local, system and agency, pessimism and optimism, top-down and bottom-up approaches to globalization, and Marxian and liberal has thus been inscribed firmly in the ethnomusicological approach to globalization from the beginning" (Stokes 50). At least in part this schism can be related to shifts within the critical theories of global development (see Kapoor). It reflects the shift from older theories of dependency to a bundle of newer approaches usually labeled as "postcolonial." The Marxist top-down approach was challenged by voices from the periphery, which protested against their passive role in the then dominating dependency model. With the focus on asymmetrical power relations important aspects of agency are put aside; the cultural changes on the global periphery are unequivocally qualified as losses, while attempts to overcome the limits of isolated (sub-)cultures are seen only as corrupting influences. So the model of dependency seems to be too coarse to seize realities, which are very concrete for a perspective radically centered on the standpoint of the global periphery. This strain of thought will be elaborated later in this text. For the moment it shows that there is no easy conciliation of postcolonial arguments with the hyper-sociological critique of globalization. As a result of this, "world music" must be seen as based on a bundle of complex interactions which include mechanics of adaptation as well as strategies of resistance, hegemonic forces as well as subversive influences, the dissolution of cultural meanings as well as the creation of new ones. Musical globalization comprises not only effects of the economic power of Western music industries; it includes at the same time cultural exchanges between the powerless themselves, and the possibility to articulate counter-hegemonic means of expression beyond the level of local cultures. With the assertion that global relations are determined by Western domination, there comes too often an attitude of alternativelessness. Nevertheless, this underestimates that reality might yet be the alternative: not the un-reflected product of submission under the rule of global culture industries, but the only historically possible deflection from it. So the unidirectional pattern of international exploitation is complemented and countered by a rather complicated pattern of communication.9 The debate on world music may be seen today as partly obsolete. It was formulated with

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality

regard to the expansive phase of the world music phenomenon, which seems to be over now. This period was characterized by the marketing of compact discs as its basic commodity and the promotion of live-performances within the international concert circuit.10 By now the general strategy of the music industry has changed in a significant way as a consequence of the ongoing "digital revolution." With the Internet, not only the conditions for the global distribution of music have changed drastically. The economic interests involved are increasingly operating in ways different from the "classical" model of capitalist entrepreneurship. Meanwhile the industrial strategies comprise the far-reaching acquisition of copyrights, the promotional freezing of the succession of fashions, and the sellout at dumping prices of unprofitable sectors. In particular, the general juridification of the music business has created new frontlines in economic power relations, which follow the factual limits of transnational corporations to execute their acquired rights on "intellectual property" (Laing 315-319). In this context, world music may become a minor field of interest and can be subject to a regime of market stratification. Culture industries are profit-sensitive but culture-blind, so that their primal target groups will remain the new aspiring classes of metropolitan consumer societies, independently of their cultural affinities. In the course of this world music may appear as replaceable and fall back into sub-markets offscreen of a broader public inteRest. Apparently the critical analysis of the global culture industry has to be redone at least every ten years. Nevertheless, the world music phenomenon has established itself within the music history of the last century. The possibility to think about music globally is an achievement that has its effects not only on the practice of music and on the ways of its marketing but also on our concepts for scientific reflection. The world music debate can be seen as a step in the process of what Ulrich Beck has called "reflexive modernity." Yet, in 2003 Martin Stokes stated a massive trend to mediate the opposing positions (Stokes 50). The seemingly incompatible approaches which are both critical of the "culture imperialism" underlying recent globalization lead only to a dead end if we suppose an unchanging principle at work. However, this misses the dynamic character of globalization. With the flexibilization of market mechanisms the critics are also challenged to think in time. The "play-list syndrome," the commercial sellout of certain genres of world music and the persistence of regional bootleg markets indicate the imponderability of cultural and economic developments in a globalized world. What I want to suggest here is that we must comprehend the contrasting views as part of a wider dialectic that itself is in constant change. It would be naive to forget that all transnational corporations are acting in strategic ways, and it would be naive also to consider their power as unlimited. Although globalization is working on the gradient of global economic inequality, it leaves inequality of cultural prestige untouched as a field that can be influenced much more easily. With the emergence of non-profit movements in the Internet, not only the mechanics of public success have changed considerably. The dissolution of the borders between advertising and content has created a vast array of tactical options far from the conventional mode of commodity marketing. The task will be ongoing to analyze the current trends and fluctuations of musical creativity and power relations in the globalized world; but the speed of change makes it to easy to forget that the cultural material involved is embedded into history.11 Music gets its cultural meaning from its past, even if the listener does not know it. The short term calculations of the versatile global players and the short term memory of the internet user are the signs of a time that deracinates music in a way that might lead to its cultural de-valorization. It is not about replacing an old pessimistic attitude with a new one. It is about the acknowledgement of the semiotic level of global power relations. Understanding music's message correctly is the only practical alternative to the lament about inequality: if we cannot help the poor artist, we can help the

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality

misunderstood one. This is no excuse for exploitation but a plea against one-sided epistemological materialism. Only the streams of music can eventually flow faster than the streams of global capital, and the power of music is based not only on its saleability but also on its capacity to include or to exclude. We have to consider the ever-changing habits of musical perception, as we have to remind of their relation to knowledge. It is also the ruling concept of history that associates European modernity with dynamic change and assumes for the rest of the world more or less an ahistorical existence, unless proven otherwise. In this way, it joins the timelessness of the postmodern mode of perception and reproduces the stereotype of the "unconscious culturedness" of the cultural other. History in this sense is inseparable from the idea of a master narrative that allows alternative histories only in a locally limited range. So the methodological turn into a global history is not only a consequence of recent globalization, and neither only a reaction to postcolonial critique. It is also a result of historical self-reflexivity in deconstructing the assumptions of Western superiority and Eurocentrism in history (Conrad, 2002; Conrad, 2007). To apply this shift on the history of music12 is a task that transcends the discussion of globalization and world music by far. It comprises the social context as well as the music itself. In the same way as the real extent of global exchanges in culture has to be revealed, the histories of peripheral musics have to be taken into consideration. The discussion of globalization and world music will not be a dead end if it leads into a two-sided history of musical globalization. To this end it is necessary to re-evaluate the conceptual parameters of tradition and creativity, custom and art, text and sub-text, exclusivity and inclusivity. Music in its global dimension maintains a tight relationship to dialectic processes of change and reactive adaptation. These processes have formed the prehistory of world music, which can now become our topic of interest. 2. The postcolonial13 challenge The world music "movement" certainly did not come out of nowhere. If we follow its stream upwards we may encounter pioneers like Indian film music, American exotica music, SouthAfrican jazz, Afro-Cuban Jazz, Hawaiian steel guitar music or the global charisma of artists like Harry Belafonte, Carmen Miranda and Don Azpiaz. We meet a grey zone between curious exoticism and modernist departure, between naive imitations and clever crossovers, between ambassadorial self-consciousness and trans-cultural entertainment. If we focus on the culture industrial aspects, we might detect half-bred fakes, dull stereotypes or even involuntary parodies; but if we concentrate on the innovative side of the phenomenon, we can see its historical rootedness in a postcolonial context. In all cases, it is in some way a by-product of postcolonial search for identity. The impulse to create hybrid means of expression or to step towards new audiences originates in a historical situation of change. It is the dismissal of the colonial past and the vision of new possibilities, the commonness of migration and the search for mediation between local affiliation and a culture of cosmopolitanism, which drives the development of cultural border crossings. When after the Second World War the process of decolonization reached its final phase, the question of postcolonial identities became urgent. Yet since the twenties metropolises like Paris had become centers of critical reflection and cultural inventiveness that attracted the upcoming intellectual elites of the former colonies.14 Then, in the progressive climate of the sixties, the impetus of the American civil rights and black power movements, political dreams of a "third way" and the emergence of nonconformist youth cultures formed the background for the creation

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality

of new styles like funk, Chicano-rock, Afro-beat, reggae or tropicalismo15, that played a catalytic role in the evolution of "world music." Their wide reaching circulation and resonance met the worldwide sensibilities of the time for cultural liberation and rejuvenation. The slogan "do your own thing" was the common denominator that linked the various cultural movements in an anticolonial vein. Meanwhile it was the institutional surrounding of rock music with its partly practiced programmatic openness to global trends that determined the perception of these musical movements.16 The proud assertions of new identities and the subtle transformations of "ethnic" materials were drowned by the ubiquitous symbolism of the electric guitar and the technical appeal of amplifiers. The project of hybrid autonomies in a postcolonial world was increasingly hidden behind a rock-centered concept of popular music. To understand the world music complex just as an appendix to international pop business is misleading insofar as its political context is pushed aside. It was a sort of "globalization" that concerned the idea of independence that preceded the globalization fostered by the music industry. The global network of postcolonial buds had served as a mutual reference of respect and inspiration in an era that experienced history positively as movement in the spirit of internationalism. It should not be forgotten that what later transformed into world music got the label "popular" not least because it distanced itself from the strongly nationalist affinities inherent in the concept of folklore.17 So behind the globalizing strategies as well as behind the surface of "ethnic" otherness appears a different reality. Its entry into academic discourses is an achievement associated with the advent of postcolonial thinking. This thinking is not only about the deconstruction of Eurocentric narratives but revaluates experiences until then excluded from history. Its political project is to "decolonize" theories about society and culture and to correct the habitual biases of perception stabilized during the period of incontestable dependency. Its critique goes beyond the one of power relations and concerns the impact of these relations on the structure of Western knowledge. To this end, it must consider the blank pages of history neglected by colonialist historiography. It has to reconstruct the mutilated voices of the subaltern, missing in the dominant picture of global society. Their difference has become radical since it was long enough dismissed as moribund and thus to be neglected by the ruling gaze. Nevertheless, the submission of the colonial subject was never a total one, although this was assumed as normative in colonial thinking. The formal liberation of this subject changed the role of its difference and revealed the subtext of resistance silenced by the colonial discourse. The challenge of postcolonial theory forces a rethink of the parameters of human equality as well as difference. It leads to the destruction of essantialist assumptions, which have created their own realities that remained for a long time unreflected within the academic system.18 The postcolonial challenge contains not only an ethical issue; its epistemological consequence will be the reworking of concepts and the readjusting of significances. For the cultural study of music it demands a threefold task: first, to reconsider the sociological presumptions that have become commonplace in the scientific treatment of music beyond the territory of Western art music; what was usually taught as basic knowledge about "folk" and "popular" merits a re-examination in the light of postcolonial critique.19 Secondly, it should become a scientific rule to mistrust the completeness of historical sources; it affords some courage to dismiss the idea of secured knowledge until the dimension of the omissions is clear. And thirdly, the existence of a postcolonial music must be taken into consideration; the concepts of modernization and Westernization are not sufficient to understand the meaning of a music that was created in the spirit of postcolonial liberation and identitary transformation. Paul Gilroy with his groundbreaking work The Black Atlantic (1993), conceived for the

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality

first time a postcolonial theory that gave music its place. It dismembers the general concept of black music into a complex diasporic system characterized by hidden resistance, strategic adaptation, paradoxical identity formation, mutual encouragement and fluid cultural transfers. Gilroy not only sketches the geographic frame of history to the breadth of transatlantic relations which cover the range of Europe, Africa and the Americas; he sets the historic scratch at the point of slave emancipation to evaluate the post-slavery situation of re-enforced racial imagination and its identitary consequences, characterized by W. E. B. Du Bois as "double consciousness." It is important to note the shift from the older schools of Afro-American studies to the deconstructivist theory suggested by Gilroy. In avoiding any essentialism of culture he describes "blackness" and "African-ness" in their ambivalence of myth and authenticity, or of racist ascription and cultural resource. His theory is not about cultures and their contact or spontaneous creolization but about uncertain identities, far-reaching misunderstandings and self-fulfilling prophecies. So the "black Atlantic" is at the same time an overlooked cultural unit as well as a set of avoidable and unavoidable projections and expectations. "Black" music in its postcolonial, post-emancipation context is intrinsically political since it cannot abstain from articulating a significant attitude towards its social role in a racist society.20 Gilroy's theory of afro-modernity has freed the study of African-American music from a dual trap: from the wrong alternative between a folklorist search for African retentions and the integrationist subsumption under an emergent national culture. His eccentric standpoint affiliated with the Caribbean diasporic culture of Great Britain gives way to a wider understanding of solidarities and differences, sources and identifications that interact in the process of cultural change. It has far reaching consequences for the conceptual treatment of African derived music under the conditions of modernization or diaspora. The path opened up by Gilroy was followed by several scholars in the United States who started to question the well-established narratives on Afro-American music.21 It has influenced the critical semiotic study of the history of blackface minstrelsy as well as elaborate analyses of the construction of "race" in black music. It made it possible to rewrite the early history of jazz in way that revaluates its artistic contribution with reference to its social creativity in a situation of delicate transformation of racialized patterns; thereby it shifts the range of perception towards musical practices and traditions up to then neglected and deconstructs the discourses of purity and authenticity established by white jazz critics. And finally, the fence that had been erected between the study of African-American music in the United States and the field of its Latin American and Caribbean relatives has been broken up (e.g. Brennan). This fence had existed for a long time to further what was called "the assimilation of the negro" in a national frame, since the struggle for civil rights was bonded to historic arguments that made it a struggle of black citizens of the United States. This political context had been a serious obstacle for recognizing the analogies, differences and interactions of North American jazz with its Afro-Latin counterparts. It is especially interesting to re-conceptualize the understanding of jazz under a postcolonial signature. This allows a differentiated view of jazz as a dual phenomenon that was not necessarily understood in the same way by black and by white audiences. It is involved in a process of construction and diffusion of identity that plays on different levels. There is its significance for blacks in the US; there is the issue of its recognition as "American music"; and there is its international radiation as an abstract model for a liberated, modern and selfdetermined practice of music. This differentiation is not only obscured by the usual treatment within the framework of American national history; it is equally hampered by national sensibilities of other countries that are reluctant to admit the influence of jazz. What the global view reveals here is not so much culture imperialism but a neo-African internationalism that

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality

worked even beyond the borders of racial lines. In the same way jazz had assimilated in its original phase inspirations from outside the US, it later became an inspirational force for autonomous musical developments in the Caribbean, Latin America and Africa. The "black Atlantic" clearly is a product of racial imagination, but at the same time it gave way to clandestine exchange of ideas and local movements for cultural emancipation. Meanwhile even the doctrine of African music's fundamental otherness came under attack.22 Kofi Agawu in his startling book Representing African Music has shown how ethnomusicology was from its beginnings fixed on difference. The expectation to find in Africa a kind of music completely strange to European ears has automatically created its outcome. The self-attributed role of the researcher who claims to understand this "strange" music and to be able to reveal its true value has become an epistemological pitfall that results in selective perception. Agawu's criticism, which follows partly the spirit of Edward Said's Orientalism, deconstructs "African music" as a concept that has more to do with European projections than with empirism. It is based on generalizations that fit the differential bias inherent in the researchers philanthropic attitude. This bias was also responsible for the until recently prevailing neglect of popular music in the scholarly literature on African music (Agawu 117-150), which was based on the axiomatic juxtaposition of traditional and popular music. As long as the professional ethos of the ethnomusicologist implied the protection of traditional music from Westernizing influences, it seemed impossible to give credit to genres apparently linked to Western modernity. In the meantime, the delayed paradigmatic turn has brought ethnomusicology into an absurd exigency: the difficulty to explain to disciplinary outsiders why the scientific interest has shifted from traditional to popular music. How is it that research funds are spent to study the most trivial and ephemeral musical expressions instead of helping to save the disappearing testimonies of dying-out cultures? The established discourse on "traditional" music had delivered comfortable justifications, as long as it specialized in "precious artifacts" that fit the concepts of culture favored by Western museums. It is this seemingly infallible "purist" approach that strikes back now and brings ethnomusicology into trouble of legitimation. In this way, the obsession with difference has created a conceptual vacuum that leaves scientific interest on a shrinking ice floe where no arguments are available concerning the apparently less traditional. Instead of deploring this situation I'd suggest to carry on Agawu's critique to connect it with the critique of globalization. For a long time the scientific weakness of the concept of "popular music" has been commonplace. It is in use for merely practical reasons which are nurtured by a bundle of dubious evidences: the impact of electronic media, the existence of historically young national styles, the obvious distance with regard to tradition and the connection with globalization. The idea of "popular music" seems so overwhelmingly self-explanatory that it is easy to miss its crucial defect of construction: the uncontrolled mingling of sociological and historical arguments. There is no scientific need to evoke the term "popular music" for things that can be qualified as postcolonial, post-traditional, trans-ethnic, urban, modern, contemporary, neoAfrican, recreational, or the like. Globalization also pertains to words and ideas, and the notion of the "popular" has brought about the globalization of a wrong evidence that was molded after the model of Western mass culture. So the concept of popular music is involuntarily tied to an outdated theory of modernization and seems to confirm the unavoidable triumph of the Western type of cultural stratification. The "people" implied in "popular" is inherited from the European national state of the nineteenth century and its destiny is assumed to follow the usual way of globalization. But the postcolonial realities suggest a completely different sociology: one of multiple identities, ethnic restructuring, unstable class formation, imagined communities and transnational networks. The "people" of non-Western popular music is a people in transition; the

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality

power of the Western discourses lies in their presumption to know where this transition has to go. These discourses are not only patronizing the postcolonial subject; at the same time they miss the point that in a postcolonial situation the notion of popularity may acquire a depth of political symbolism and charismatic empathy unimaginable in an industrialized Western context. The postcolonial challenge may seem incidental as long as matters of the global are delegated to a minoritary group of specialists within the academic system. But the factual wave caused by globalization won't stop at the doors of university. Its not only in the United States where students and scholars with non-white or non-European background are reclaiming a serious discussion of postcolonial positions that is apt to shake the conceptual fundaments of academic music departments. Even in Germany postcolonial theory enjoys a lively interest among the younger generation, which promises to have long-term consequences also for musicology.23 It is not arbitrary that until now there has existed hardly any point of contact: the traditional target group of musicological reasoning not only is imbued with the values of Western music; it intuitively identifies with them in the confidence of having privileged access to knowledge about "music." So the ethnomusicologists are trapped easily on a one-sided frontline of arguing and are unprepared if a partner from a peripheral standpoint enters into dialogue. The politics of disciplinary allotment follow their own logic, especially when the category of "art" is involved. Therefore, the first task is to rewind the whole story of the Western interest in the musics of the world. 3. From comparative musicology to ethnomusicology The potential knowledge about music tends towards the infinite. On the other hand the main application of such knowledge is the making of music--but this is something different than scientific proof of that knowledge. What remains is just the work of interpretation, which historically was a passion of the educated music amateur. These are not good conditions for the development of a serious scientific discourse. The field of music is determined by its irreducible plurality: it seems like a cosmos of different languages, which are more or less untranslatable into each other. In contrast to this, the language of science refers to universal meanings. It is generally considered that science is "objective" while music is "subjective." Music involves matters of taste and differences in the human capacity for analytic hearing. Musical notation is the only tool for objectivation, but is only of limited scientific value. The above generalizations are less general than they may seem. They are subject to a major factor of relativity: historicity. We have to keep in mind that music is profoundly embedded into history, and so is musicology. To speak about musical knowledge in such a liberal and distanced way is clearly an achievement of Western postmodernity. Musical discourses are linked to their place in time and space in a way that exceeds the methodological limitations of perspective usually discussed in the social sciences. This problem has seduced some scholars into evoking an apocalyptical scenario of complete relativism. I don't think that such a pessimistic attitude is an unavoidable consequence of the present state of knowledge for a thinking centered on history, enlightenment and critique. Such thinking might detect within music history a playground of fruitful misconceptions, of pseudo-scientific ideas that pushed creativity forward. Great music doesn't need to be scientifically correct. Errors can crate respectable results, but nevertheless they can be identified as errors. This is all the more important if there are outdated ethnocentric prejudices involved--beyond the reflex of quick exculpation by means of discourses of Western self-accusation.

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 10 Here is not the place to reconstruct the contradictory history of Enlightenment as far as it concerns music.24 It is sufficient to presuppose that as it progressed the paradigms of rationality and human equality underwent a unique entanglement that became crucial for the history of European music. The historical association of music with the mathematical sciences had left behind a problematic heritage of self-conscious dogmatism. So older pleas for global tolerance and a cosmopolitism of respect remained without effect until the ruling discourses of cultural supremacy were challenged by the "hard" sciences. It was Hermann von Helmholtz who tried to develop a new understanding of music's basic materials in accordance with modern physics. His achievement, called "the objectivation of music" by Matthias Rieger, was to abstract from the culturally shaped categories solidified in musical terminology. Starting with acoustics he deconstructed the myth of a special human sensory organ for European music and equated musical sounds with sounds of different origin as objects of perception. Broadly speaking, he reduced musical esthetics to the relationship between vibrations and their decoding by the human ear. Helmholtz's efforts to give musicology a renewed foundation in the natural sciences can be seen as a delayed impulse of Enlightenment: the effort to discover the "real" rationality behind the apparent functioning of musical perception. Therefore he tried to expand his mechanistic approach as far as possible into the sphere of psychology and labeled it "Ton-Physiologie." With Helmholtz the historically first attempt was undertaken to treat music apart of normative esthetics. The deductive inclination of traditional music theory was replaced by an inductive method of experiment. Up to then the empirical resolution of musical research was tied to the elementary units of practical music like tones and notes. Only in the second half of the 19th century did it become imaginable to replace this coarse grid with a finer one represented by the concept of sound. This approach was a prerequisite for a kind of objectivation that could result in a more general idea of music: theoretically it was suitable for any kind of music, independent of its origin. It is worth noting that it was the "exact" sciences that served here the goals of cultural relativism. This happened again when Alexander Ellis introduced his cent-scale for microtonal measurement to be able to quantify the differences between the tonal systems of different cultures. Far from any empathic crossing of cultural borders it was the refinement of quantitative analysis that gave way for a broadening of the horizon of perception concerning the global realities of music. It was the temporary suspension of matters of cultural value and the radicalization of the mathematical bias of European music that historically preceded the understanding of music as culture. The Eurocentric fiction of an "objective" music accessible to scientific measurement seems to have been a necessary stage in the development towards a dismissal of Eurocentrism. Helmholtz's scientific achievements were not really welcomed by the musicological establishment of his time (Rieger 142-144). Instead they should form the basis for the foundation of comparative musicology by his disciples Curt Sachs und Erich Moritz von Hornbostel, together with the advent of the phonograph as a new tool for research. The phonograph was the definitive materialization of the idea of an "objective ear": it didn't care at all about musicality. In fact its technological evolution was related much more to phonetics than to musicology. At that time the revolutionary potential of sound recording for the study of music was far from being evident and rewarded an extra effort of discovery. In Berlin it was the phonographic collection of spoken word recordings for linguistic use that inspired the project of a first recorded survey of the musics of the world: the legendary Berlin Phonogram Archive established by Hornbostel and Carl Stumpf in 1899. This collection was the cornerstone for an evolution that finally resulted in Ethnomusicology as well as in world music. But in the beginning the curiosity for global music was the privilege of a few dedicated specialists, because of the poor quality of sound

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 11 reproduction alone. To analyze the noisy and narrow sound of a phonograph roll was a job that required an amount of sonic imagination that was likely to counteract the objectivizing effects of the medium. The technology of sound recording opened up a completely new range of empirical data; but the question was, to which kind of knowledge these data could attribute. The young discipline of comparative musicology suffered from the lack of an adequate culture theory that could transcend the European scope. So almost inevitably it fell under the influence of the paradigm of evolutionism. It seemed obvious to interpret differences in the construction and style of music as stages of a universal history--an idea which existed yet long before the 19th century. Together with the success of the evolutionary model in biology and its adaptation for anthropology, it furnished a model of thought that could process the widening of the global horizon in accordance with the idea of European superiority. The quest for the origins of music got a new signification under the conditions of evolution theory. This theory was understood as a promise to look into the past of European music by studying the musics of the world. So, the music of the "primitives", which was considered up to then as negligible for a history of the arts, became at least an object of scientific interest. It would be unfair to attribute to early comparative musicology an overwhelming desire to prove European superiority.25 Considering its objects ranged from European folk music to the music of Oriental and Asian "high cultures", the data were much too diverse to suggest a unilinear evolution from the archaic to the elaborate. It was more an attitude of showing that "primitives are not so stupid as they may seem" that emerged from these comparative studies. Their music was understood as a key to the soul of humanity and as a sign of the universal inventiveness of mankind. The issue of real comparison was not so urgent as long as the available data were so scarce that scientific conclusions could hardly be justified on a solid methodological basis. The project of comparative research was more or less delegated to the future, where it has remained until today. For the moment the problem of understanding such disparate modes of expressions that were not predicted by Western musicology offered enough occupation. The problem with the evolutionist approach was not so much one of racist hubris, but situated on a different level. First, this approach was only possible under the assumption that the studied musics were part of ahistorical cultures. It would have been useless to speculate about the beginnings of music without the presumption that "primitive" cultures were survivals of earlier stages of the evolution of mankind. Secondly, this direction of research implied a preference for the remote past as well as for " pure" cultures. The idea of a global history understood in a retrospective way backwards from the present was far off the ruling currents of thinking. So it happened that a good deal of musical phenomena that would seem today invaluable for understanding the recent past could completely escape the interest of early comparative musicology and remained undocumented. Historians of the "black Atlantic" for example will there hardly find much valuable information there, since comparative musicology lacked any paradigm to qualify the musical outcome of this cultural complex as testimonies of scientific importance. Comparative musicology's connection with colonialism was rather loose in comparison to the beginnings of anthropology and the museological collection of artifacts, since at that time non-European music involved hardly any material interests. The global view of the discipline was more positivist than imperialistic. It had to manage a field full of unusual discoveries and surprises, and had difficulties coming up with appropriate questions that could be scientifically answered. Unlike biology--and unlike musical instruments--music itself resisted any classificatory approach. So the only promising strategy of research was to start with empirically

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 12 observable similarities: to compare isolated traits and to identify their distribution within geographic space. This methodological stance temporarily synchronized comparative musicology with the diffusionist school of Ethnology. It was mainly the German branch known as "Kulturkreislehre" that stimulated this direction of inquiry (see Schneider): to reconstruct largescale movements of cultural diffusion, which could reveal processes of migration and contact. But the paradigm of the "Kulturkreis" remained a short-lived enterprise. It suffered from several speculative flaws. Not only did it imply a sociologically unspecified idea of "folk culture", which was assumed as the human basis of cultural transfers; it also referred to a rather vague historical frame that couldn't easily be brought into accordance with the results of historiography. But most important, the idea of the "Kulturkreis" was speculatively presupposing the existence of identifiable centers of invention and was thus committed exclusively to a monogenetic theory of cultural creativity. Nonetheless the shift from evolutionism to diffusionism rescued comparative musicology from biologist analogies and redirected it temporarily towards history. The comparative approach was detached from hierarchical models of cultural progress and fitted into an analytical framework of time and space. With this early "spatial turn" the discipline undertook a sidestep that kept it away for a while from the gravitation towards racism. An important question was opened up again: how could a comparative approach deal with difference? Was there any correlation between differences concerning music and the differences of the humans that made the music? Could "archaic" music be interpreted as an expression of a "primitive" mind? Such questions, albeit not being theorized, were underlying the exploration of music on a global level. The Idea of a musical history of progress was a suggestive temptation that was questioned only by examples of factual incomparability, which led to the conclusion that music is different per se. It shouldn't be forgotten that at this time the parallel development of atonality in contemporary art music was challenging the traditional concept of European music from within. Simultaneously the current of primitivism was notorious in the visual arts and accidentally leaping over into composed music. So for example the composer Carl Orff had consulted the comparative musicologist Curt Sachs for his pedagogical project of a reformed elementary music education (Elste 15-16). This project which resulted in the use of pentatonics as a means to introduce children into music, may be seen as rather ambiguous today: On the one hand it adopted principles of non-Western music as suitable for the education of European children; on the other hand it was based on the idea of an analogy between phylogenetic and ontogenetic evolution, an idea that not only may seem too speculative nowadays but also involves a good deal of evolutionist thinking. The actual success of Orff's pedagogical project may be seen as a confirmation of the underlying theory; but equally it can be interpreted as a sign of the universal human capacity to empathically apprehend whatever system of music. In any case, the historical dimension was pushed aside in favor of an esthetic of timeless archaism that could, in its monumental version, easily join the mythological preoccupation of German Nazism. There were several factors that kept early comparative musicology away from history: it was its methodical foundation on the very new technology of sound recording which enforced a synchronic perspective as the only serious alternative to risky speculations about the past; it was the strong institutional monopoly of Western musicology on the concept of history; and it was the impulse towards an objectivation of music advanced by Hermann von Helmholtz, which favored empirical methods to distance itself scientifically from the esthetic presumptions of European musicology. What remained for a global history of music, tended to be imagined in a remote and diffuse past, while the idea of the historical significance of the present for the future was reduced to the gesture of conserving the last testimonies of dying-out cultures. Finally, it was also the

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 13 affiliation of the remaining part of German comparative musicology to theories of race during Nazism, which contributed to the discrediting of the diachronic approach. Meanwhile the scholars who had emigrated from Germany to the US fell under the influence of American Cultural Anthropology. At the same time they had to adapt to the new scientific context, which was influenced by the surrounding of a multi-ethnic society. Their involvement as teachers with a younger generation of researchers resulted finally in the foundation of Ethnomusicology. It was specially the anthropological concept of culture which offered now a much more appropriate frame for the study of non-European musics. It enabled the complete discarding evolutionism and offered a model to interpret such musics in their own terms and with reference to a system of cultural meanings empirically accessible through ethnography. This concept of "culture" was not only largely detached from associations with high culture but also much more individualized than the macro-theories of large-scale cultural regions or the highly generalizing "Kulturkreislehre." It implied a rather "exemplary" approach, which, far from postulating the complete autonomy of cultural systems, tried to study the context of music in its whole depth within a locally limited range. The method of Ethnomusicology as outlined by Alan P. Merriam, Mantle Hood, Bruno Nettl and others, was a interdisciplinary one that should integrate disciplines like sociology, linguistics, dance research, the study of religion and oral literature. It was centered on the uniqueness, functionality, and immanent plausibility of music; to understand music in this way its many relations to the whole complex of a particular "culture" had to be considered in order to empathically grasp its own esthetics.26 By and large Ethnomusicology is dedicated to an ethos of cultural pluralism. It appreciates difference as richness and continuously recalls the mutuality of cultural strangeness. Incidentally, the interest in comparison is in decline since it lacks a comparative method that could fit the pluralistic stance. The paradigm of "music and culture" seems to exclude any "music and music" paradigm. With the liberation from Eurocentric preoccupations there remains apparently no meaningful question that could be answered by a comparative approach. In a world consisting of a multiplicity of ethnocentric views in need of mutual respect and cultural negotiation, it is worthless to insist on similarities and differences except perhaps for a pre-scientific kind of intercultural communication. It is the ambition of scientific self-reflexivity that results in a preference for a dichotomic model of Western versus non-Western culture; this is not at least due to a critical aim. It counters attitudes of cultural imperialism and confronts European selfindulgence with its other. To this end it can also be a revealing experience trying to learn to play the music from another culture. The practical experience of bloody practicing and amateurish mischief can be a remedy to Eurocentric hubris and a means for the education of future cosmopolites.27 4. Historical turn? Of course this is a rather one-sided portrait of ethnomusicology that ignores important trends of the last decades. Musical phenomena associated with diasporic cultures28, urban subcultures, migration, acculturation/ transculturation, hybridity, cultural change and transfer, are current topics of research within the recent past that all take into account the historical context of globalization. They bring the factor of time back into ethnomusicology by expanding the occupation with the ethnographic present into a processual understanding of culture. In a similar way for about twenty years the habit of thinking in terms of closed and timeless cultures has given way to a critical concept of ethnicity. This concept follows a constructivist strain in two

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 14 ways: it offers a sociological model for the explanation of the maintenance of cultural borders; and it considers the past not only as a source of cultural traditions but also as a temporal screen for retrospective projections that serve to stabilize present claims of identity. Thus, the anthropological idea of "culture" has transformed in a way that features its self-generating and dynamic aspects. With respect to music this conceptual shift in anthropology questions some familiar patterns of legitimacy. For ethnomusicologists the habitual use of the term "musical culture" had been a professional trademark that defined their place within scientific discourses and served as a protective shield against the rival concept of "high culture" with its Eurocentric implications. Now, that "musical culture" has become an unstable unit of reference, the issue of value arises again in confrontation with an enduring pretension for eternally valid works of art. As long as ethnomusicologists could identify themselves as defenders of cultural purity against a global wave of Westernization and blunt global leveling, their methodological preference for static models was backed by an ethical mission. Now they have to reorganize their arguments to validate the changeable and syncretistic without losing the claim for "culture" that warranted the meaningfulness of the musical phenomena under examination. The uncontestable value of tradition was founded on admiration and respect for the stability and functionality of oral cultures; their assumed oldness was the symbolic counterweight to the historicity of European literate culture. But if we accept that our accessible knowledge of the global past is incisively crossed by modernity, the criteria for judging the old and the new are in need of re-evaluation. At the same time, the authority of the specialist loses ground, as the object of his competence appears more and more as an arbitrary curiosity without connection to the proceeding of cultural globalization. It was particularly in the United States where ethnomusicology was welcomed by "liberal" forces as a promising freshening-up of academic structures that could be apt for reforming encrusted music departments and to reconcile political claims for multiculturalism. Meanwhile the discipline seems to have undergone some sort of crisis. Its standing has become precarious with regard to its mediating position between artistic and critical discourses within the humanities. It is in danger of getting lost in an increasing cleavage between a factual pluralism of accessibility and growing desires for a restoration of cultural standards and liabilities. The more it opens up for contemporary discourses of cultural studies and the social sciences the more it risks being pushed aside as a peripheral sub-branch of sociology. This situation was problematized exemplarily by scholars like Ellen Koskoff (1999) and Deborah Wong (2006) who had experienced the difficulty of introducing ethnomusicology into institutional practice. They complained their exposure to systemic contradictions and their enforced role as a buffer in the "culture wars" (Wong 259-263) of American society, squeezed between movements of identity politics and powerless with regard to the anti-pluralistic propaganda of a restorative "highculture-ism." So their "idealistic" identification with allegedly marginal cultures seems to result in a marginalization of the discipline itself. Apparently ethnomusicology has a shortage of the convincing arguments needed in order to not be reduced to a mere movement among others. Its humanistic and multicultural ambitions suffer from a lack of theoretical support and its efforts to reach out and conceptually bridge the gap to the "critical discourses within the humanities" are hard work. The engagement with difference leads it easily into the offside of political controversies and undermines its academic stand as a serious field of research. Incidentally the reflection of the whole context under discussion seems to drift irresistibly towards a subjective rhetoric of concern since it is hardly covered by the disciplinary framework. We may ask what is left from the project of an

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 15 objectivation of music proposed by von Helmholtz one and a half centuries ago. Is it just the defensive "self-pluralization" of a scientific department of minority specialists? Has ethnomusicology no other truth to reveal than to continuously remember of the existence of difference? Or does it need some sort of "turn" in the way other disciplines had to rethink their theoretical foundations? I want to suggest here that there are historical reasons for that bumpy road from a science with ambitions for exactness through a collecting discipline under the influence of transitory anthropological macro-theories up to a branch of the humanities that has to represent the clear consciousness of the cultural sciences. These reasons have not only to become a matter of selfreflection; the required way of self-reflection has to follow a constructivist path in order to understand how the objects of research are formed by historically grown assumptions and sociological oddities of the academic world. European music as an outstanding example of cultural "Western-ness" may appear as an opaque power that heavily determines the direction of the discourses; but this Western-ness can theoretically be analyzed as a sub-intentional construction designed by social forces as well as the immanent logics of music. Therefore, the frame of reflection has to be stretched historically to include a virtual standpoint from which the notorious dichotomy in its modern sense isn't yet obvious. The call for objectivity may seem outdated but it cannot be dismissed easily; it has to be repositioned in its historical frame in order to be able to qualify the reach of the concepts of music involved. To properly define the borders between objectivity and subjectivity seems to be a task in constant conflict with the amount of artistic subjectivity, which in real life is the inevitable foundation of any kind of interest in music. A musicologist may be passionately engaged for "his" music; but nonetheless his job is to abstract his knowledge in a way that is accessible to a more general scientific public not necessarily sharing his special engagement. Therefore, he has to objectivize not only music on its different levels: the composition, the audio recording, esthetic values, musical terminologies, social functions, or artistic aims, all having their own kind of reality. Likewise musicology itself has to be objectivized by articulating its conceptual interfaces within a larger context of cultural sciences. However, for this context the only imaginable reference of objectivity is history. The concept of history necessary here is not exactly the one of traditional historiography; it is a concept that is large enough to include the opposition of Western and non-Western music itself. This means the systematic deconstruction of an outdated model of thinking that opposes people "with history" to people "without history." The fact that European music historiography has accumulated a solid stock of literature while ethnomusicologists often completely lack any sources that may reveal to them more than the immediate past must not be confounded with the actual historicity of any music. The inequality of knowledge reflects relations of power, and the study of this inequality within a historical frame has to complement the study of differences in music itself. A serious analysis of the claim for supremacy of European music will reveal the effects of power relations on the level of linguistics as well as in the field of cultural hegemony and the inequality of social conditions determining the practice of music. From here the way is open to join the endeavors for a new global history. This will effect the tentative replacement of the ethnographic bias for untouched cultures by the general suspicion of some sort of globalization. It means also the discarding of the familiar concept of "Western contamination", which reproduces methodologically exactly the imbalance of power it pretends to criticize. Instead we have to assume a multiplicity of actors, each of them equipped with their historically acquired (or denied) amount of power and cultural resources. Recent theories about multiple, alternative, global or entangled modernities can offer here very useful approaches and

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 16 terminologies.29 They have been taken up for the study of culture in different fields, but rarely for music. They are suitable to show that in this field the kind of Western modernity which, is experienced by its former outsiders represents a significantly different reality than the one which can be extrapolated from the bulk of literature on European music. The analysis of this difference can disclose the cultural embedded-ness of music on both sides including misunderstandings, ethnocentrisms, shifts of signification, ignorances, popular myths, and theoretical preoccupations. So the old project of Ethnomusicology to understand "music in culture" should be transformed by expanding it in a self-reflexive way to the European as well as to the global field. In this way, ethnomusicology could escape the "trap of synchronism" and develop historically founded and critical arguments for whatever "culture wars." This kind of global history doesn't refer to the indifferent globe of geography but to a socially constructed one. It is not dedicated to the search for general laws that "rule the world", nor does it pretend to advance a global theory of music. It just follows the historical traces of a globalization the beginnings of which may fade into the speculative dawn of the remote past. It considers the narrowness of music histories, which traditionally were obliged to a strongly national orientation and tries to sketch out the scope of the gaps between them. It is specially the history of transcontinental trade, colonialism and slavery within the history of the last centuries that merits attention as a two-sided story whose blank side contains the accounts of resistance, flight, camouflage, syncretism, or creative adaptation. In this way global history can fit postcolonial theory, which is its necessary supplement. So the meandering direction of research, which at last passed the paradigm of ethnomusicology, seems to reach a point of turn into history. Once again it is anthropology that initiates the turn, not musicology. There is a huge detour from European music history that always has been rather removed from general history, through an anthropology discovering the history of globalization up to an updated ethnomusicology stripped off its obsession for the ethnographic present and the difference of the local. We have to trace this way in order to effect the paradigmatic turn first to the cultural context and then, in another step to music. 5. Reconstructing the colonial context Of course the colonial context under discussion here can't embrace the whole world; it will focus on the Atlantic cadre which is not only the author's main field of study but also of special interest because of its impact on the evolution of international pop music in the 20th century.30 This case is exemplary because it can reveal the dialectic character of global power relations. Historically it was the ambition for white supremacy that dominated the narratives in a way that corresponded the imagined story of success of European imperialism. But in the run of time cultural and political resistance to this pattern of domination has left a completely different reality that is not only manifest in a massive trend for musical re-Africanization and the global success of AfroEuropean hybrids in music; finally it has also freed the counter-narrative of a "black Atlantic" that had historically ripened in the shadow of European hegemony. Besides, this dialectic has infiltrated the concept of Western music itself with its contradictions: the idea of a cultural Western-ness of pure European origin cultivated in academic ivory towers is increasingly swept away by a new conceptual regime of globalization that considers--geographically correct-rock'n'roll and hip-hop as Western. Long before Paul Gilroy's it was the pioneering work of the anthropologist Sidney Mintz that prepared the ground for a reconstruction of the colonial context (1985). In the meantime

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 17 Mintz, who worked methodically along the interface of anthropology and history, has acquired a reputation as godfather of the new global history. It is noteworthy that it was not theory but his radical empirism that confronted him with the facts of globalization (Palmi 6, 12). Doing research in the Caribbean, Mintz couldn't avoid registering the multiple connected-ness in space of daily life within the colonial context. This was true not only for the white elites but also for the slaves on the sugar plantations. They were not only linked to the wide array of culturally and linguistically diverse people of Africa that underwent enslavement. They were economically integrated in the whole Western hemisphere by the products of their work as well as by their patterns of consumption. The whole complex of the sugar economy was based on a far-reaching system of economic specialization that condemned suitable regions to the production of luxury goods. Taking the European greed for sugar as a starting point Mintz was able to show how Western modernity had penetrated colonial reality in the Caribbean at a time when it was still dawning for a good part of the European people. The complex of colonial sugar economy that was established in the 18th century and deeply industrialized in the 19th had brought along a hierarchical society that included human work forces from a variety of origins. The European concept of race is certainly the fundamental idea behind this hierarchy, but not exclusively. The existence of a multi-ethnic slave population as well as a multi-ethnic class of free labor determined a kind of pseudo-urbanization that created a complex system of attribution and domination. It made an average worker of color well aware of his particular role in a differentiated hierarchy of racial, legal, and economic status, a consciousness that eventually could inspire him to join movements of revolt. The extent of slave rebellion, maroonage and escape by suicide was for a long time underestimated by historiography and merits placing in its historical context. For at the latest when the news of the French Revolution was spreading in the colonies the asserted power relations came into danger. The following turmoil that had seized the political climate of the whole region has been portrayed in a vivid way in the novels of the Cuban author and musicologist Alejo Carpentier. Carpentier describes a historical scenery full of hope, violence, terror and absurdity, which appears like a demonic underside of the European narrative of progress (1980, 2004). Well-informed historical novels may suggest virtual perspectives of subjectivity that can complete the picture of a contradictory epoch.31 But to understand these contradictions synchronically and diachronically within a framework of policies, institutions, ideologies, and ethnicities, requires an analytical approach to history which puts "culture" in the right place. Beyond his research devoted to the social effects of sugar as a key produce of colonial economy Sidney Mintz together with Richard Price has tried to give a closer outline of social structures and the conditions and circumstances of cultural communication in the Caribbean of colonial times. Their meanwhile "classic" book An Anthropological Approach to the Afro-American Past: A Caribbean Perspective32 seems to be until now the most prolific attempt to reconstruct the colonial context with reference to African-American cultures in a systematic way. They start with questioning the usual anthropological concept of culture which "cannot applied without some distortion to the manifold endowments of those masses of enslaved individuals, separated from their tribal and familial settings, who were transported, in more or less heterogeneous cargoes, to the New World" (4). So the question is, which kind of work anthropologists can do in the Caribbean. Mintz and Price insist, "that the present can [not] be 'understood'--in the sense of explaining the relationships among different contemporary institutional forms--without reference to the past. We suppose this to be the case, whether our interest be in the European peoples who conquered the world they called 'new', the Indian peoples they destroyed and subjugated with it, or the African--and, later, Asian--peoples they dragged into it" (45).

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 18 The sociological model put forward by Mintz and Price which considered cultural contact, creolization and the institutionalization of traditions was not necessarily welcomed positively.33 It was criticized by American Anthropologists adhering an "Afro-centric" strain of thinking for allegedly playing down the link to Africa and overemphasizing the creative adaptation to the new environment. This controversy, which is influenced by identity politics specific to the United States, cannot be put easily aside as long there are powerful discourses of national integration-not only in the US but for example in Cuba too (compare Moore)--that count African-Americans primarily as contributors to emerging national cultures of the New World. However, contradictory circumstances can create contradictory arguments, and so it would be equally plausible to criticize an attitude of tutelage in the depicting of African-Americans as traditionbound and immature for modernity. This discussion, which partly results from differing regional angles of sight and exaggerated generalizations, has to be pursued by feeding it back into empirical research. What seems more important here is to uncover another problem tacitly underlying that discussion: How can we handle the fundamental asymmetry of power involved in the colonial encounter? How can we handle the fact that the word "culture" carries different associations when used with respect to Europeans than it has in the context of Africanist anthropology? The idea of a "black Atlantic" suggests the existence of a "White Atlantic" as its logical complement. Certainly emigrants from Europe were also threatened by deracination, exposed to the centrifugal forces of colonial society and confronted with the irritating effects of early globalization. They were involved in differing solidarities and in the historic struggle for independence from the colonizing motherland. The white part of colonial society was itself differentiated in multiple ways and culturally far from homogenous. Nevertheless the colonial system was based on inequality, and distributed chances and opportunities along a stable hierarchical pattern along the lines of race and property. The social "game" of success and suppression followed rigid rules without ever predetermining the fate of the individual in an absolute manner. The systemic imbalance of power between the strata of a colonial society becomes most apparent in the access to the field of written knowledge. As far as research is dependent on written sources, it is inevitably in danger of replicating this imbalance, which is mirrored in the structure of the available documents. We have always to consider that the typical colonial observer was unconsciously tied to a socially sanctioned top-down scale of relevance. Because of this, "Afro-centric" attempts to systematically invert the dominant perspective can hardly be discredited even if they might fill gaps of proven knowledge with speculations. Unwritten knowledge is the last frontier for the writing of colonial history. This is all the more true for the history of music which additionally suffers for the most part from the lack of any reliable sound recordings. But if--as Mintz and Price are claiming--an anthropological approach is useless without history, there is no easy alternative available to the hypothetical reconstruction of the colonial context, since it grounds not only ethnographic results but also reflections on globalization and neo- or post-colonial conditions. This allows the readjustment of the basic dichotomy of Western versus non-Western: on an epistemological level it transforms into the difference between a hegemonic metropolitan worldview centered on European tradition and an unquestioned belief in Western modernity, and the critical consciousness of a contradictory reality that reveals itself to the observer in a very uneven and ideologically distorted way. On a sociological level it signifies the cleavage between a habitual top-down view positively identifying with colonial attitudes and hierarchies on one side, and the "double consciousness" of the colonial subject which defends its dignity while facing a complex system of structural devaluation and exclusion, on the other. The idea of a superior Western-ness was

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 19 certainly a prerequisite for the colonial project; but at the same time, the colonial enterprise has detached the geography of Western-ness itself from notions of space and implemented it into a globalized cultural regime that determinates access to power and historic visibility. As a consequence, also the methodical problem of comparability shifts from one of seemingly incompatible cultures to one of opposed worldviews within an ideological framework created by colonialism. So far, we have summarized a scientific approach that unites anthropology with history and interprets the local in its relation to a global system of exploitation and exchange, enforced migration, cultural hegemony, and the formation of ambiguous identities. Now we have to determine in a non-reductionist way the place of music in this context, which has left a multiplicity of music histories. Music isn't just like any part of culture because it can be seen as working like a system of communication without fixed referent. This variability of meanings must be taken into consideration to define the possible options of musical practice available in a colonial system. At the same time music's immateriality is a factor that determines its mobility in the global context. Music doesn't have to become a commodity to be spread, and the transmission of musical knowledge is not restricted to institutions of formal instruction. Indeed, its role in a world of global exchange and communication is mediated by capitalist interests and educational programs, but it goes beyond that. Music can be seen as part of a system of mobilities: spatial mobilities of people, of commodities, and of ideas; social mobilities that can be achieved through music; and the cultural mobility to learn new repertoires or to selectively borrow from them. This system is best understood as driven by an economy of hopes, desires and pleasures that act as mobilizing forces and possibly counteract the rigidity of ethnic traditions and social hierarchies. Starting from this background even the issue of identity can be addressed anew: now detached from notions of authenticity, assertions of identity can appear as options among other options that may include strategies of appropriation, masquerade, parody, or intentional border crossing. Music doesn't remain the same in this process of general mobilization also named modernity. The question arises, on which level music can be considered as an objective entity. It would be shortsighted to take musical notation as a marker of objectivity. In the colonial context the notated text of music gives no information about its intentions concerning the abovementioned options. Revealing is the problem advanced by Geoff Baker apropos the revival of Latin American Baroque music. He argues that a performance practice that is only historically correct, can be insufficient in consideration of a potentially tendentious use of folk material. More than that, an interpretation would be completely misleading that takes allusions to indigenous or "negro" music as a kind of world music in advance of the term. He dismisses any naive positivism with respect to these sources and calls for their critical reading: a historically informed performance of colonial Baroque music has to take into account that "[a]dhesion to lite European cultural norms, whether directly or through the mockery of alternatives , was an instrument of power, distinction and identity formation, a self-defense mechanism in the hands of a colonial lite which sought to reinforce the social hierarchy" (443-444). In this way colonial elite music either tries to literally copy European music or it makes use of non-European music in a way that is able to prove the pattern of European superiority.34 The secondhand status of the latter within the written sources has to be unmasked with all its ideological implications, which are not simply neutralized by the dignity of the composition as a work of art. Bakers suggestion is to perform colonial Baroque music "as a post-colonial act" by giving it what Edward Said has called a "contrapuntal reading" (Baker 446). This ethical and epistemological problem is inherent to every interpretation of colonial music, be it from the elite or from the subaltern strata of society. The documents always give an

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 20 incomplete picture of the unbalanced context that produced them--be it written sources, sound recordings or ethnographic accounts. My own research on Cuban rumba, a music, which's origins can be located historically around the colonial-postcolonial watershed, was an ambiguous experience that revealed the potential as well as the limitations of an historical approach. It showed that the musical environment of rumba offers a vast field for fruitful comparisons that allow the formulation of plausible hypotheses on the cross-fertilization of musical traditions and genres. Nevertheless, the usual hermeneutic circle of mutual elucidation of text and context was disturbed by the intervention of several biases that played on all levels and rendered the adequate assessment of sources and information rather difficult. Concerning rumba itself, these biases can be reduced to a row of key discourses--a row of shocking incoherence--that deal with African lasciviousness, national integration, and colonial subalternity. What rumba means through the lenses of these discourses is alternatively depicted as an archaic dance of fertility, a creolized folklore of the young Cuban nation, or an informal entertainment of the lowest strata of society. Their historical order follows roughly the consecutive paradigms of colonial exotism, postcolonial nation building, and socialist culture politics "from below." But in the Cuban context these discourses mingle in an unsystematic way, and it is even hard to believe that they all refer to the same thing (indeed, what rumba "really" is, is an equally complicated question35). This makes it hard to determine in what way power relations are involved. They can be found encrypted in contradictions between practices of exclusion and ideologies of inclusion, between purposeful misrepresentation and corporate self-stylization, or between paternalistic folklorism and highly advanced artistic practices. Cuban rumba itself contains elements of clandestine resistance to colonial power as well as of social advancement through appropriation of European values; it is charged as a symbol of unity but at the same time culturally remote from the mainstream, since it follows a rigorous esthetic of African polyrhythm, too complex to be easily co-opted by commercial popular music. The peculiar position rumba maintains within the field of musical expressions of colonial/postcolonial Cuba becomes clear with contrast to the discourses that are missing here. An ethnomusicologist coming from abroad may expect for example discourses of White cultural disdain, of Afro-centric identity, global success or of artistic value, all of them topics that appeared regularly in discussions on North American jazz. But, interestingly enough, none of these topics played a major role for the discussion of rumba in Cuba. To the contrary, rumba was ignored or clandestinely admired by white elites, it was based on trans-ethnic openness, never cared about the global success of its commercial namesake "rhumba," and its breathtaking rhythmic artistry was apparently never acknowledged by music critics as a new art form. The comparison brings forward significant differences between two musical phenomena with amazing historical parallels within the wider postcolonial field. They point to rather different colonial backgrounds and racial regimes as well as to distinct histories of emancipation and neocolonial dependence. In the Cuban case rumba was finally absorbed by anti-capitalist culture politics that referred positively to a pluralistic idea of the "people" and refused polarization along racial lines. Nevertheless a postcolonial reading of rumba can reveal its place within a crypto-colonial context of fluid class formation and cultural exchange; it can locate it within a partial public sphere of subaltern self-consciousness that escaped the ruling cultural hierarchies and was subject to its silencing by the general public of colonial society. The myth of a domestic folklore of exotic sensuality that surrounded rumba may be seen as the compensatory flipside of a profound irritation with the colonial self-image. Even the postcolonial intellectuals that appreciated rumba for its Cuban-ness referred to it on a symbolic level that was closer to its (benevolent) parodies in colonial theatre performances than it was to the esoteric rules of rumba

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 21 as a kind of multi-ethnic backyard artistry. So its implicit African esthetic was ideologically neutralized by a normative concept of creolization. At the same time rumba was categorically excluded from any association with the concept of "art"--an exclusion that seems rather questionable in the light of postmodern esthetics--and instead stylized as its "spontaneous" opposite emerging from the cultural depths of a creolizing folk. So the place of Cuban rumba within discourses of difference remains ambiguous. On the one hand its uniqueness as an Afro-European hybrid is symbolically integrated into an emerging model of a postcolonial identity of nation. On the other hand the real difference of rumba is kept out of sight and left untouched and unexplained in the foggy realms of lower class culture. What can be presumed beyond as a potentially objective reality is a complex musical practice without theory that implicitly articulates an un-verbalized ethos of cultural openness and counter-cultural dignity. Rumba may be seen as a musical art that is based on an attitude of proud understatement; an art determined by a minimalist use of instruments, that made it apt for vagrancy and immune to persecution; an art that cultivates a style of advanced rhythmic sophistication and virtuosity that is hardly accessible to the musical capacities of members of European middle and upper class; an art that celebrates its autonomy by imposing its own rules and conventions that grant the tacit power to exclude and to include. In that way difference is here the absolute and purposeful difference of a secret language. But at the same time, difference is denied demonstratively by a musical technique of collage that brings together material from the most diverse traditions in a way that converts diversity creatively into charming esthetic tensions. The distance with respect to musical values of European origin is an intentional but a controlled one: not as a sign of separatism but as a means to develop mastery in rumba as a field of silent superiority of the subaltern. Moreover, rumba's latent appeal to the exotisticist and erotic curiosity of white audiences is part of the equation of power in which the practitioners of rumba were defending their dignity. This sketchy interpretation of Cuban rumba as seen from a radical postcolonial perspective shows that the usual opposition of integration versus resistance is not sufficient as a scale of measurement. To give rumba a "contrapuntal reading" means here to decipher its cumulative history of specialization and borrowing as a catalogue of creative adaptations to a mobilized social environment--a history that had started with the re-creation of communal dances in the slave barracks of colonial society. It includes the establishing of regulating stylistic conventions as a platform for individual competition, the strategic appropriation of certain vocal techniques of European origin, and the selective exploitation of the available techniques and traditions of African music. In a contrapuntal reading, white ignorance of a largely unintelligible artistic practice of low social status is confronted with an attitude of stoic wisdom and self-control that balances on the edge between submission and revolt; the attributed image of a mild compromise formula is confronted with the reality of a radically idiosyncratic practice. The historical "message" of rumba seems to be concentrated in this special attitude, an attitude that was articulated in face of a colonial context. This context was not only responsible for the social distribution of possibilities for musical activity; at the same time it provided an environment of acoustic transparency that allowed some passive knowledge of the music to pass over between different groups of society. We can assume that the historic founders and promoters of rumba were well aware of a wide range of styles and genres of Spanish colonial music as well as of African traditions that were locally conserved. They profited from cultural movements for Black advancement and from African based family networks of musicians--institutions that were characteristic of Cuban colonial/postcolonial society. Beyond this, it is not certain if they were not aware of musical phenomena on a global scale like North American jazz or the multi-ethnic

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 22 folklore groups that were established by many postcolonial states. We have to mistrust the suggestions of ignorance, naivety and spontaneous creation that were associated with the image of the illiterate and black musician. A historically informed understanding of Cuban rumba has to dismiss its one-dimensional comparison with good-natured folk music or archaic tribal music; instead, it has to take into consideration the existence of actors who, albeit mostly illiterate, were capable of articulating themselves through cultural alliances and a self-conscious policy of difference. 6. Contextualizing music theory So far the impression might arise that I want to replace ethnomusicology with postcolonial music studies. But this would be a short circuit. Rather, I wanted to show that a historical perspective in ethnomusicology leads straight to postcolonial theory, a theory that on its part is bringing back the global view. The postulate of an disconnectedness of separate cultures has to be differentiated into its role as an epistemological model and its empirical content, which can appear in the form of exclusion, ethnicity or style. Such border drawing attitudes--or their contrary--refer to a set of historical, cultural and political knowledge that must be hypothetically assumed for each actor. The colonial context has inscribed vast discrepancies and inequalities in the structure of this knowledge, dependent on the respective position within the hierarchy of power. The task of a science worthy of the heritage of comparative musicology is not only to reconstruct this knowledge, but also to make sense of it within a broader horizon of understanding. The question may legitimately be asked if there is a general concept of music available that is valid for Latin American Baroque as well as for Cuban rumba. The project of postcolonial critique as put forward by Said, Chakrabarty and others was not intended as a new specialization but as a method for the revision of Eurocentric narratives. So not only ethnomusicology but also musicology is concerned by the invitation to de-center or "provincialize" Europe (Chakrabarty). What this means has still largely to be explored. In any case it seems not as easy as in the social sciences to establish critical counter discourses. European music is not just an instrument of domination, neither is it an ideology that simply needs to be enlightened. Its composers were far from being concerned with questions of European superiority, but rather involved in the historically unique development of an art that stands apart from practical necessity and interests, and creates its own realm of expression and meaning. European music was historically developed out of a theory of harmony, not one of race, although it remains an interesting point to reflect about structural analogies of both.36 The European achievements of counterpoint and elaborate formal structuring are hard to deny, and even the existence of a colonial music of European origin proves little, since its role in the proper "history of music" is only marginal (Carpentier 1980: 102). The relationship between European dominance in an imperial sense and the dominance of European music is not a causal one, nor one of direct mirroring. On the European side it is mediated by scientific, technological and political dominance, while music itself is justified by theoretical, historical and esthetic discourses. Nevertheless, on the part of the colonial subject European dominance is experienced in a holistic way: in the form of institutions, prohibitions, coercion, education, moral admonition and racist disdain. The colonial subject encounters European music as a practice detached from its discursive founding and integrated in the structure of power through the institutions of military and church and the exclusion from spaces of culture and entertainment of the elite. On the other hand the music of powerless European

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 23 emigrants might escape connotations with European dominance and can become the starting point for processes of creolization or "transculturation." So the object of postcolonial critique is a double-faceted and composite one. If the perceptions of difference seen from both sides appear as incompatible, this hardla follows a law of music. It is the combination of sociological and ideological factors, of social biases and esthetic sensibilities, of institutional power structures and narratives of identity, that form together what in the end reads as claim for the superiority of European music. It is common practice to criticize social inequalities and discriminating concepts of man; but the potential hubris implicit in the cultural complex of Western music is not easy to detect. Faced with a massive bulk of musicological literature yet untouched by any postcolonial temptations, the first task of a critical approach will be to deconstruct this cultural complex into its parts: to decartelize the interwoven discourses of musical practice, history, esthetics, psychology, and music theory, that ground the legitimation of European music. European musicology is itself part of a European culture of music--a fact that is innocent in a moral, but crucial in an epistemological sense. It cannot easily be detached from its special place within this culture, which is located between science and art, or between sound and language. But ultimately it doesn't escape the expectation to produce statements of scientific validity. Therefore, the call to qualify the existing pretensions of validity within a cosmopolitan frame is not only a political matter of satisfying the claims of postcolonial intellectuals and "ethnic minorities." The project of a global history of music seen through a postcolonial lens-which is our main topic here--is taking place in the footsteps of a respective revision of history, and struggles with practical problems that will be discussed subsequently in this article. Concerning the esthetics of music, the de-centering is prepared by ethnomusicology, which has produced valuable results that are waiting for further theorizing. If we try now to put history and esthetics aside for a moment, there remain two major fields suspicious of a questionable validity in the global range: music psychology, and music theory. Are there psychological laws for the perception of music that work for any kind of music and independently of the cultural and educational background? Is there a potential music theory that can be applied to all musics of the world? The topic of an intercultural psychology of music seems to be rather precarious, especially in the United States. Regarding some of the latest results of a music psychology claiming to be scientific and yet is still fixed on Mozart as the most representative example of music for experimental use, one might wonder if there has ever been any contact with departments for ethnomusicology or multicultural music education. But this is an issue that should be directed back to intense debate.37 Instead, I want to take up the question of music theory, a point that came recently under discussion in the field of music education. Ironically, matters of theory are appearing here as urgent in a field intimately tied to practice. This provokes arguments on a pragmatic level, which are oriented towards a best practice model of an appropriate balance of disciplines. The attempt to unite Western-based music theory with a global perspective on music may result here in a dilemma between a pluralism of music theories that continues the "othering" of discrete musical cultures, and a synthetic approach that focuses on similarities in order to match the requirements of a musically globalized world. A practice-oriented theory of global music was put forward for example by Bonnie C. Wade (2004); it follows an elementary approach based on the key role of musical instruments and the parameters of time, pitch, and structure, that can serve as a useful framework for the acquisition of a basic understanding of music that is largely independent from a specific cultural bias. Since the circular logic of hermeneutics concerns both, the practical and the scientific attempts to understand music, this can

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 24 be in any case a prerequisite for the development of a cosmopolitan perspective on music. But nevertheless, the issue of music theory merits treatment on a strictly scientific level as well. Mark Hijleh recently pointed to the right direction when he noted that the kind of "music theory, as traditionally taught in most undergraduate curricula today, does not even match the current state of music in the West. . . " (99). It is not only the practice of composed music in the European strain during the twentieth century that has time and again provocatively contradicted all the rules and doctrines of established music theory--not to speak of improvised or sub-cultural music. We should remember the last chapters of Carl Dahlhaus's encyclopedic history of music theory in which he unmistakably follows the constructivist turn in musicology initiated by Hermann von Helmholtz (252-261). According to Helmholtz it is an error to believe that European music theory is the expression of natural laws; instead it results from esthetic principles of historically limited validity. The use of the methods of natural science for musicology is not to legitimate music theory but rather to show where the effect of natural laws ends to give way to human creativity. With this enlightening statement Helmholtz not only broke with an old tradition of thinking but also provoked rigorous reactions of contemporaries like Hugo Riemann. Dahlhaus takes up Helmholtz's arguments to clarify the scientific status of music theory. He calls it a dogmatics and compares it to the juridical sciences, which are justified primarily by their consistency and applicability, not by any reference to nature (256). The dogmatics usually called music theory, are a historical phenomenon restricted to the period from the 17th to the 19th century. So, the concept of music theory, understood as a coherent system of style principles, becomes subject to relativism and virtual pluralization into a multiplicity of possible music theories. In this way Dahlhaus has put the problem of music theory into the right context. European music theory is not an imperialist theory but a theory based on an incorrect self-image, which actually joined the drift to imperialism. It was the explicit or tacit assumption that music theory follows eternal laws that can be proven by natural sciences, that had for a long time grounded the bearing of Western music towards the world. The consequences of this insight can be drawn in two directions: in the direction of history there arises the question how the suggestion of music theory's plausibility can be explained. It will be a task for the historical cultural studies of music to deconstruct the myth of music theory's self-evidence that evolved out of the antique tradition of Pythagorean thinking; to show how the Enlightenment resulted in a kind of creative misenlightening of this myth; and to explain how the factual success of European music theory in musical practice and education has stabilized the suggestion of plausibility by conceptualizing it in analogy to the general success of technologies that are based on natural sciences. The other direction that has to be explored concerns the secondary effects of that suggestion. It can be asked how the inherent contradiction of a supposed "universal dogmatics" has distorted the European encounter with non-European music, as well as the encounter of non-Europeans with European music. In this way the general imbalance of power significant for the colonial context will become discernible from the specific self-righteous attitude of European music being just a "fortunate" result of theoretical misbelief. What remains is the question, of how far music can be investigated by means of the sciences of nature. The discipline of acoustics has gradually revealed a lot of hard facts that meanwhile have become implemented into the latest computerized sound technology. On this level there seem to be few secrets left to be uncovered. With the increase of electronic technologies for the manipulation of the ear the parameter of sound has become an objectifiable entity; at the same time the processes by which sound is translated by the human brain into music has become a concrete miracle. The human capacity for the esthetic appreciation of sounding

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 25 phenomena seems to be potentially unlimited--an observation not easily operationalized into a scientific methodology. In a similar way the apparent contingency involved in the differing musical evolutions that happened in the world remains opaque to scientific explanation. So, the "human interface" becomes a scientific challenge for a psychology of cognition as well as for a history of style; since the reference of an absolute music theory is missing, a scientific approach has to manage with an interplay of psychological and cultural variables, because every possible test person is pre-formed by musical knowledge. Yet Helmholtz referred to a "nature of things" concerning music as a vast field of possibilities that become concrete only through the intervention of principles of style which have to be seen as historically unique inventions of human creativity. They follow their own logic without ever being reducible to a law of necessary evolution (Ibid. 254). It was Helmholtz's achievement to show the historic conditionality of European music in a way that matched equally a future perspective of global pluralism. But, of course, the idea of a plurality of music theories is only a makeshift. The association of musical practice with music theory is no more a universal rule than music theory itself. The transitory existence of more or less closed musical cultures guided by a consistent theory is a historical fact that can be admired but hardly be justified as superior without reference to precisely that theory. There is no higher reason for the disqualification of a music that follows its proper but un-verbalized esthetics without the pretension and support of theoretical dogmatics. Inversely, it could even be argued that a theoretical obligation of musical cultures might be a culde-sac, since it results in one-sided specialization and inhibits intercultural cross-fertilization. The development of European music itself during the 20th century could be cited as an example for the struggle against these limitations. So once more the idea of isolated musical cultures becomes questionable and traceable to its historical context of a temporary symbiosis of theory and practice in European history. Apart from this, the undisputed auxiliary function of music theory has granted the global diffusion of selected items extracted from the Western dogmatics that are used on a habitual basis. So far European music theory has been identified as an ideal construction unjustifiable by the standards of modern natural science. Now it is possible to rethink the right order of the different claims for scientific validity. The physics of vibration and auditory perception clearly represent the hard side of knowledge, while the writing of history must acquire its scientific value through critical reflection of the social forces that might shape it. The psychology of music can also produce scientifically valid results, but hardly in the inter-cultural range since there is no empirical method that could abstract from the cultural context. Music theory, to the contrary, has finally lost its historically evolved status as a hard science and approached musical esthetics in a field where scientific knowledge mingles with cultural invention. It is scientific only in a technical sense and actually belongs to the proper world of artistic creation. As a consequence of this, its appropriate place must be within a virtually imaginable historical theory of musical creativity. Surely, such a theory seems utopian since there is neither a discipline occupied with it nor are the sources easily available that would be necessary to support such an undertaking. It crosses all the borders that dissect the world of music into creations of art and authentic traditions, into narratives of avant-garde and myths of cultural resistance, or into a stable sphere of canonical works and an ever-changing sphere of ephemeral innovation called popular music. Nevertheless, in order to advance the project of Europe's de-centering, it seems extremely fruitful to imagine such an historical theory of musical creativity. It would suspend the established association of creation with a European concept of art and would be able to understand every history of music in terms of order and change; it could offer an conceptual bypass to enclosed discourses of

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 26 identity and difference; and finally it could break up the "double bind of high culture," that alternatively quotes values of tradition and innovation, and thereby uses a contradictory discourse specific to European modernism as a rhetorical trick for the maintenance of cultural hierarchies. If we try to consider music as a result of theoretical as well as a practical creation within specific historical contexts, and the relationship of theory and practice as a mutual and ambiguous one that differs fundamentally from the relation of natural science and technology, we might be able to develop a conceptual framework that carries on the claim for objectivity into a historical science of music as culture. This will also restore the concept of music itself as non-exclusive and make it unnecessary to elude into badly fitting terms of "sound"38 or "(sub-)culture" for any music not corresponding to academic Western music theory. 7. Music of the subaltern and the epistemology of uncertainty To write a history of musical creativity--or, better, creativities--is far from being an attractive job. Apparently the issue of creativity has never been a serious topic beyond the borders of Western art music. It is not easy to escape the tradition of mainstream thinking that divides the realm of music into works that were created by composers and musical artifacts that allegedly emerged from an anonymous folk or an ethnic tradition of a people "without history." The idea of artistic creation that evolved in Europe since the Renaissance is as much historically shaped, as the modern concept of ethnicity, that has accompanied the colonial search for familiar political structures suitable for the implementation of indirect rule. So the discourses concerning music were caught up in a scheme of thinking which associated creation exclusively with Western--or at least Westernized--artists. It is part of the paradoxical merits of "world music" to have discovered the existence of non-European creators and artists other than of the Westernized type. The seemingly sudden emergence of this phenomenon reflects the previous exclusion of nonEuropeans from the concept of creation, even if the label world music "artist" was introduced by the music industry only for the end of better promotion. A consequence that can be drawn from this, is to transpose this new pattern of perception into the past and look for a hidden history of creators--a task only yet sporadically begun. The specific kind of exclusion of the non-European musical artist within the wider colonial context can rather adequately be correlated to the concept of subalternity. "Subalternity is a condition of silence. . . . For this very reason, the silenced subaltern needs a representative. However, from the moment in which he submits himself to being represented by a mediator, he becomes an object in the hands of this spokesperson to be traded in economic and power circuits. Self-definition is no longer under his control. . . . Paradoxically, the subaltern's legitimacy is conferred upon him only by his spokesperson, who then usurps his place in the public imagination and reduces him to a generic other."39 The concept of subalternity that was developed first within the context of South Asian anti-/post-colonial thinking has been taken up until now only peripherally in ethnomusicological discourses. This may be due to the professional entanglement of ethnomusicologists themselves with the role of spokespersons which is a double one: not only the subaltern "can't speak" (Spivak), also their music "can't speak" as a medium since it needs interpretation in the language of words (Kramer). It is the structural need for Ethnomusicologists to defend the music of the subaltern in the Western academia that creates their uncomfortable position as interpreters suspect of paternalism. But scientific reason should not let itself be bullied by the legitimate critique of this relation of representation. There are good reasons to appreciate the concept of subalternity for it catches

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 27 the sociological and the epistemological aspect of this relation. For Ethnomusicology it clarifies that there is a silence that goes beyond the non-verbality of music. There is the structural silencing of a music that can't be adequately described by the concepts of a discipline that calls itself musicology. There is the silence of the subaltern musician who has learned to compensate his inferiority in the verbal field by expressing himself through music. There is the silence of the written sources, which have systematically ignored subaltern culture and may reveal its traces only through an "inverted" reading of prohibitions and persecutions documented in writing; and there is possibly the conspirative silence of the subaltern, which once acquired in defense, becomes permanently internalized as a habit. The idea to let the subalterns speak for themselves seems obvious as a spontaneous reaction to this dilemma; but especially for musicians this often means to force them unhappily into the wrong medium of expression. It is music that fills the gap between his condensed experience of subalternity and a remote academic audience that is moved by philanthropic curiosity. So the musician who has been refused any vocabulary for defending his music in the rhetorical arena of hegemonic culture in a literary sense "can't speak." Furthermore the subaltern subject lives a fragmented existence that is alienated from the models of identity propagated by the elites. His experience of time may be incongruent with the concepts of time of a narrative of history that is not his own. The subaltern subject of a globalizing world is not the untouched child of nature accessible through ethnographic immediacy. Confronted with the ethnographer as his hegemonic other (s)he is constantly in danger of simply reproducing the pattern of subordination and speechlessness. On the other hand a historical approach has to abandon all naivety concerning the credibility of its sources. It must develop some fantasia in order to imagine in what ways subaltern reality might have left traces on the surface of documented history, and must formulate concrete hypotheses about the perceptions and intentions of the respective authors. The historian will encounter situations where a single testimony contradicts profoundly the bulk of written references--and might be right. The difficulties met by a historiography of subaltern culture resemble in many ways the problems that were stirred up by feminist historians. Feminist historiography can be seen in a pioneering role for the methodological maneuver of uncovering silenced history. It has the slight advantage that the statistical symmetry of sexes empirically contradicts their unbalanced representation in such an evident way that it proves that there is something to be uncovered. In contrast the writing of the history of subaltern culture has permanently to ward off the constraint to justify the existence of its object of study, and has to overcome a skepticism that argues it might invent problems that do not exist. For the academic mainstream in the field of history the need for research into subaltern culture seems to be still far from obvious. It is only in a "specialized" domain like the study of European folk culture of early modern times, where similar problems arise. In this context Peter Burke has, already in the Seventies, articulated important reflections on the methodological problems of research into these "dark clouds" of historical matter.40 I have encountered these problems during a recent study (2010) on the dynamics of urban culture of the period around 1900. As one example I had chosen New Orleans as the alleged birthplace of early jazz, not being aware at fisrst of the methodological delicacy of this issue. There is a vast literature on the topic, which gives the superficial impression of completeness. But, fortunately, there is also a new generation currently working to rewrite jazz history according to contemporary standards in postcolonial studies, the study of Afro-modernity, and critical approaches in history. It is an enlightening experience to study the difference between the old and the new "school" in its contrast of position, method and genre. The stock of older

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 28 literature, which was written against the massive background of conservative anti-jazz polemics, had the tendency to follow a model of holistic narration that was by the time gradually dressed up with elements of oral history. Its authors identied with a role that was described by Carvalho as spokespersons in representation of the silenced subaltern; mostly they became conscious of this dilemma and began to evoke the unmediated voice of the "other"--a pattern typical for the attitude of Western intellectuals on behalf the colonial "other" that has been criticized in detail by Gayatri Spivak (2008). The "new school" of writing in jazz history that is spearheaded in the case of New Orleans by the work of Charles Hersch (2007), has given up this tutelizing stance and is concerned with the reconstruction of concrete historical contexts. It is based on the critical deconstruction of racialized discourses on music put forward by Ronald Radano, Guthrie P. Ramsey and others, and uses a constructivistically reflected terminology. It is sensitive to phenomena of double meaning and to the semiotic complexities induced by colonial and racial power structures. On the whole there is an undeniable progress to be acknowledged concerning the independence from distorting biases that established colonial exclusion of the silenced subaltern or, to the contrary, in a well-intended mis-inclusion, which resulted in a properly canonical jazz history written by sympathetic representatives. In all it can only be welcomed that an old "culture war" that had accompanied jazz from its beginning has become negotiable and given way to a more realistic picture of history and its dialectics. Apart from this, several errors of historical detail could be corrected against the "power of repetition" of a largely incestuous literature of jazz enthusiasts. But this scientific upgrade is, from a strictly epistemological point of view, not without ambiguity. For an scholar not himself deeply involved in the matter it may seem dubious to see well established lines of traditions disappear into oblivion, while others suddenly appear on the scene that apparently escaped the attention of all observers who have left written traces. It is hard to imagine the amount of silencing to which subaltern music was subjected without slight feelings of paranoia. The narrow frame of perception that was set by white jazz enthusiasts for what they thought relevant to be presented to the general American public as authentic AfroAmerican art apparently was paired with an empirical blindness for all the seemingly peripheral musics that today would be highly appreciated as missing links of a history of African-American music.41 Also we shouldn't forget that in the context of the US-American South the evolution of jazz was historically paralleled by a racist backlash that echoed the humiliation of the American Civil War. This created a climate certainly not favorable for a balanced perception of black subaltern culture. There was hardly a social standpoint thinkable that allowed it to picture jazz in a positive way without a distancing from some sort of "inferior" culture that could put blacks in a bad light. So the epistemology of African-American music has been--and still is--also a political one shaped by the dialectics of post-emancipation history. The recent flourishing of Afro-centric counter-discourses suspecting undreamed resources of black tradition and creativity that were silenced by white historiography is not without reason. But the legitimate enthusiasm for the discovering of suppressed cultural expressions sometimes raises the question of how a line of demarcation towards "invention of tradition" can be defined on one side, and fictional literature on the other. Of course, in the United States this is also a political question. Furthermore there is no reason to disqualify a fictional literature, which is associated with many outstanding examples for the pioneering transgression of ruling regimes of social perception.42 However, it seems not unproblematic to mingle an approach that tries to restore musicology's claim for objectivity by means of correct historical contextualizations with purposeful counter-narratives that don't feel obliged to define their position towards speculation. The idea of subaltern history as a history of the silenced subaltern seems to be an attractive

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 29 method for the countering of neo-colonial hegemony in the field of written knowledge. But this not only politicizes epistemology in a potentially unnecessary way. It also complicates the epistemological setup since the category of subalternity itself can easily slip away under the pressure of a silencing regime. In a recent study on the macro-sociology of jazz in the twenties Annette Kulp has worked with the conceptual framework of subalternity. She uses the concepts of subaltern versus dominant culture to describe the process of re-valuation that jazz music underwent during the twenties. She convincingly shows how jazz as a means of black selfassertion met with certain changing cultural desires within American society to provoke the crossover of this music into mainstream mass culture. Nevertheless one could argue that her restricted frame of time implicitly devalues the concept of subalternity. The kind of jazz that succeeded getting broader recognition was no longer silenced, but now competing in the field of American culture and has become a well-documented part of jazz history. Probably we have to assume different degrees of invisibility that are shifting through time and space. The silence of a music that is habitually zapped away in the radio by a majority of "decent citizens" is not the same as the silence of a music that sounds open in the streets but is never recorded or even officially registered, and is not the same as the silence of a music that flourishes in clandestine circles and avoids any confrontation with dominant culture. Furthermore the question arises how jazz could actually fall back into subalternity after ragtime as its historic forerunner had acquired a certain respectability. Perhaps we should better consider a general duality of a socially visible and a silenced part of African-American music, which makes this appear to us only through restricted epistemological "windows" depending on the social and historical standpoint. Apparently, there remains a need to adjust the operationalization of the concept of subaltern culture with respect to the vector of historical time. So why should ethnomusicology adopt the approach of subaltern history if it offers only uncertain knowledge and hardly fixable concepts? Doesn't it lead back to the speculative imponderables of comparative musicology and away from the empirical reliability of ethnography and musical analysis? We have to abandon the positivistic idea of objective knowledge that is usually attributed to the natural sciences--in ignorance of the fact that even in those fields this idea has become questionable under the influence of science studies postulating that all knowledge is more or less socially and culturally shaped. But this doesn't mean that there is no valid knowledge possible. For a historically oriented cultural science it means to return to the critical attitude that once had inspired Friedrich Engels to look beyond the pretty facades of the boulevards of Manchester to discover hidden behind them the miserable huts of the working class. The truth of such a science can't be measured from the accuracy of single results or from the completeness of the representations of knowledge it produces. It can't be blamed for discovering contradictions if these are contradictions of history. In order to see what Engels saw it is sufficient to be a realist. Scientific responsibility demands an inquiry into where and why dominant narratives become false in a wider sense and to question any discoursive exclusion. We can't evade the "task of measuring silences," as Gayatri Spivak has put it (286, quoting Pierre Macherey), if cultural science shall serve the goals of enlightenment but not of cultural hegemony, even if the data brought to light by such an enterprise may appear formally "weak" in comparison to the results of naive empirism. So the category of subalternity must be integrated theoretically into our understanding of culture and history simply for reasons of scientific veracity. The discovering of subaltern histories might be born out of a political impulse within a colonial or neo-colonial context; but their scientific relevance lies in their role as a necessary complement to a history that, stripped of all national biases, wants to understand the interconnectedness of a globalized world. The

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 30 political counter-discourses of subaltern (mis-)representation and identity are the midwives of a correction of scientific horizons. A history of music that is not only conscious of global streams of information and commodities but also of mechanisms of discrimination and exclusion, of voluntary ignorance and defensive camouflage working on a global range is not engaged for particular interests but for historical justice. Against a consumerist cult of oblivion that follows the spirit of neo-liberal globalization as well as against a self-righteous refusal of a cosmopolitan consciousness I plea for a understanding of music that is not only historically informed but able to restore the meaning and value of music that is grounded in its historical circumstances and in its complex relationship within the antagonistic history of European domination. This includes the project of writing an inverted duplicate of the history of Western music: written from the peripheral angle of view it describes Western music as experienced within the frame of the imperialist expansion of Western modernity. This will not only further the self-understanding of a European music in latent crisis of identity; it can also restore the artistic dignity of so-called world-music by giving it back its unwritten history. Notes
1 2

For the plural in musics in contrast to die Musik see Bohlman 25-26. My somehow impressionistic diagnosis is not only based on personal observation, but follows Steven Feld's diagnosis of increasing "sonic virtuality" (159-160) and tries to estimate the possible consequences of a phenomenon labeled "postmusics" by Jody Berland (2008) for the reception of potential "world music." It is aimed here as a counterweight to the prevailing discourses on music and place, and the prevailing criticism of the globalization of music in terms of economics, power, culture imperialism and exoticism, and certainly needs further elaboration. 3 If the concept of authenticity is today generally considered as problematic (see Stauth), this also reflects changed patterns of cultural consumptions associated with post-modernity. Here it is used as metaphor for the particular attitude of postcolonial music in contrast to its commercial-minded imitations. For a discussion of different views on "authenticity" in music see Schippers 41-60. 4 To a certain extent his may be seen simply as a result of commodification. My argument is that in the digital realm due to the lack of material packing, the easy handling of big amounts of data, and the existence of freely accessible repertoires the de-contextualization of music has taken a step further. The corresponding consumer attitude might be called "post-exotism." 5 Corresponding to a practice of "historically informed performance"; see Baker 442. 6 I am polarizing here a differentiation elaborated in detail by Cooper in order to distance myself from the normative implications. See also Friedman. 7 Feld claims, that the term was introduced by academics as early as the 1960s (190). 8 I am including here arguments of a more recent critique of world music by Taylor, and Krims 94-103. 9 See the corresponding contributions in Ziff et al., Palumbo-Luo et al., Featherstone et al. (1999). 10 On pre-Internet strategies of flexible specialization see Shapiro et al. 11 In so far as comparative musicology/ethnomusicology is occupied with recorded music, it can also be seen as responsible for mediating the historical understanding accessible through these sources, and for propagating the cultural values inherent in the recorded history of musics. 12 This task has already been taken up; see Radano et al., Born et al., Scott, Taylor. 13 In the Americas the term "decolonial" is preferred and refers there to a deeper historical range. 14 Wendl et al. (2006) give a rich documentation of artistic movements but this is unfortunately not related to postcolonial discourses from the Anglophonic world. 15 "Tropicalismo was to incorporate two contradictory attitudes: one, our approval of the version of the Western enterprise offered by American pop and mass culture, including our recognition, that even the

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 31

most nave attraction to that version is a healthy impulse; and, two, our rejection of capitulation to the narrow interests of dominant groups, whether at home or internationally. It was also the attempt to face up to the apparent coincidence, in this tropical country, of a countercultural wave emerging at the same time as the vogue in authoritarian regimes." (Veloso 7). 16 During the 1960s Rolling Stone magazine covered various styles that later would be labeled world music, but it changed its policy some years later to become a straight rock/pop magazine. 17 See the contributions of Biddle and Knights, and John O'Flynn in Biddle et al. 18 Edward Said's Orientalism had a deep impact on the de-essentializing of concepts of culture, race, religion etc. and prepared the shift to a kind of a dynamic "border thinking" within world-historical approaches (Samman 279-281). 19 Agawu 124. The power of linguistically fixed categories was demonstrated exemplarily by David Brackett with respect to African-American popular music. 20 "[T]he musics involved in a widely-defined black Atlantic history and the disenchanted political culture that accompanies it; can be appreciated in a variety of ways: not just for their creativity, emotional force and artistic and technical innovations but politically and philosophically. Above all , they can be valuated for their conspicuous power with which they have repeatedly articulated the possibility of better worlds against the existing miseries, raciological terrors and routine wrongs of capitalist exploitation." (Gilroy 2003: 59) 21 See publications by Nicholas M. Evans, W.T. Lhamon Jr., Ingrid Monson, Ronald Radano, Bruce Boyd Raeburn, Guthrie P. Ramsey Jr., John Szwed, Alexander G. Weheliye and others. 22 see also Scherzinger, Kidula. 23 In Germany the first programmatic suggestions were made by Martin Greve (1998: 226-229). 24 This is the subject of project in preparation. 25 In Great Britain the history of early ethnomusicological discourses was somewhat different (see Zon). 26 Recently ethnomusicology's preoccupation with the "social context" was criticized by Martin Scherzinger in favor of a higher consideration of a formal analysis of music (10-20). 27 Appreciation of cultural diversity as a goal of a multicultural education through music was theoretically elaborated by Schippers (15-40). 28 An overview of approaches to diasporic musics was given by Slobin. 29 Featherstone et al. (1995), Bonacker et al., Conrad et al. (2007). 30 An outstanding--albeit controversial--attempt was undertaken by Peter van der Merve yet in 1989 to trace the Afro-European origins of the musical material fusing into twentieth-century popular music in its full historical depth. 31 In Cuba this approach was followed also by the "novelas testimonio" of Miguel Barnet. In the context of South Asian subaltern studies it was even suggested that the historian should turn into a 'creative writer' (Chaudhuri). 32 (1976); it was re-issued in 1992 under the title "The Birth of African-American Culture--An Anthropological Perspective." 33 For a discussion of that critique see Price. 34 For Latin America compare Carpentier (1980): 95-104. 35 Historically there are plenty of uses of the term that apparently do not refer to the contemporary understanding. It is hard to distinguish whether these are based on appropriation, misunderstanding, parody, or simply an unspecified or ignorant use of the name rumba. 36 This idea was put forward tentatively by Christopher Height (2003). 37 The issue of a "cultural turn" for music psychology is discussed in Allesch and Krakauer. 38 In the media and in the art world "sound" is--at least in Germany--often (mis-)used for designating postcolonial music, in order to avoid confrontation with the hegemonic academic concept of "Music." 39 Jos Jorge de Carvalho, "O olhar etnogrfico e a voc subalterna," Srie Antropologia 167: 1-30, quoted in Lima and Anya 84.

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 32

40

Burke treats these problems within the context of restricted literacy and discusses methods for the historian to draw indirect conclusions from his sources. 41 It is hard to explain why New Orleans' Black Indians were never mentioned in literature on AfroAmerican music, even though they claim their origins from the 19th century; see Kroier (2010) 27. 42 In the past it was typically fictional writers coming from a remote social background who were the only ones to describe phenomena of subaltern culture that were systematically overlooked by local authors. Furthermore literary studies had, due to their openness concerning content, temporarily acquired a pioneering role for the study of African-American culture in the USA.

Works Cited Agawu, Kofi. Representing African Music: Postcolonial Notes, Queries, Positions. New York: Routledge, 2003. Allesch, Christian G., and Peter M. Krakauer. "Understanding Our Experience of Music: What Kind of Psychology Do We Need?" Special issue, Musicae Scientiae (2005-2006): 41-63. Baca, George, Aisha Khan, and Stephan Palmie, eds. Empirical Futures: Anthropologists and Historians Engage the Work of Sidney A. Mintz. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2009. Baker, Geoff. "Latin American Baroque: Performance as a Post-Colonial Act?" Early Music 36.3 (2008): 441-448. Berland, Jody: "Postmusics." Sonic Synergies: Music, Technology, Community, Identity. Ed. Gerry Bloustien, et al. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008: 27-37. Biddle, Ian, and Vanessa Knights, eds. Music, National Identity and the Politics of Location: Between the Global and the Local, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Bohlman, Philip V. "Ontologies of Music." In Cook, Nicholas, et al. eds. (1999): 17-34. Bonacker, Thorsten, Andreas Reckwitz, eds. Kulturen der Moderne: Soziologische Perspektiven der Gegenwart. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2007. Born, Georgina and David Hesmondhalg, eds. Western Music and Its Others: Difference, Representation, and Appropriation in Music. Berkeley: U of California P, 2000. Brackett, David. "What a Difference a Name Makes. Two Instances of African-American Popular Music." In Clayton, Martin, et al. eds. (2003): 238-250. Brennan, Timothy. Secular Devotion: Afro-Latin Music and Imperial Jazz. London: Verso, 2008. Burke, Peter. Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe. London: Temple Smith, 1978. Carpentier, Alejo. "Lateinamerika im Schnittpunkt historischer Koordinaten und ihre Auswirkung auf die Musik." In Carpentier, Alejo. Stegreif und Kunstgriffe: Essays zur Literatur, Musik und Architektur in Lateinamerika. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1980. ---. El siglo de las luces. Barcelona: Bruguera, 1980. ---. El reino de este mundo. Barcelona: Seix Barral, 2004. Certeau, Michel de. Culture in the Plural. 1974. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1997. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provivincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2000. Chaudhuri, Rosinka. "Historically in Literature: Subalternist Misrepresentations." Economic and Political Weekly 39.42 (Oct. 16-22, 2004): 4658-4663.

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 33

Clayton, Martin, Trevor Herbert, and Richard Middleton, eds. The Cultural Study of Music: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2003. Conrad, Sebastian, Andreas Eckert, and Ulrike Freitag, eds. Globalgeschichte: Theorien, Anstze, Themen. Frankfurt: Campus, 2007. Conrad, Sebastian, and Shalini Randeria, eds. Jenseits des Eurozentrismus: Postkoloniale Perspektiven in den Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt: Campus, 2002. Cook, Nicholas, and Mark Everist, eds. Rethinking Music. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999. Cooper, Frederick. "The Conceptual Limits of Globalization." In Baca et al. (2009): 31-57. Dahlhaus, Carl. Musiktheorie im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Teil 2: Deutschland. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1989. Vol. 11 of Geschichte der Musiktheorie. Ed. Frieder Zaminer. Elste, Martin. Curt Sachs: Berlin, Paris, New York--Pathways of Musicology. Berlin: Staatliches Institut fr Musikforschung, 2006. Fabbri, Franco. "Browsing Musical Spaces: Categories and the Musical Mind." Critical Essays in Popular Musicology. Ed. Alan Moore. Burlington: Ashgate, 2007: 49-62. Featherstone, Mike, ed. Cultural Theory and Cultural Change. London: Sage, 1992. Featherstone, Mike. Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism, and Identity. London: Sage, 1995. Featherstone, Mike, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson, eds. Global Modernities. London: Sage, 1995. Featherstone, Mike, and Scott Lash, eds. Spaces of Culture: City, Nation, World. London: Sage, 1999. Feld, Steven: "A Sweet Lullaby for World Music." Globalization. Ed. Arjun Appadurai. Durham: Duke UP, 2001: 189-216. Friedman, Jonathan. "Global System, Globalization, and the Parameters of Modernity." In Featherstone et al. (1995): 69-90. Gilroy, Paul. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, 1993. ---. Interview. "Mapping the Black Diaspora." By Christophe Kihm. Art Press 261 (2003): 57-59. Greve, Martin. "Die Auflsung der Grenzen." Musikwissenschaft zwischen Kunst, sthetik und Experiment: Festschrift Helga de la Motte-Haber zum 60. Geburtstag. Ed. Reinhard Kopiez. Wrzburg: Knigshausen und Neumann, 1998: 221-231. Height, Christopher. "Stereo Types: The Operation of Sound in the Production of Racial Identity." Leonardo 36.1 (2003): 23-27. Hersch, Charles. Subversive Sounds: Race and the Birth of Jazz in New Orleans. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2007. Hijleh, Mark. "Reforming Music Theory as the Centerpiece of a Twenty-First-Century Curriculum: A Response to You Young Kang." College Music Symposium 48 (2008): 98-104. Hutnyk, John. Critique of Exotica. Music, Politics and the Culture Industry. London: Pluto, 2000. Kapoor, Ilan. "Capitalism, Culture, Agency: Dependency versus Postcolonial Theory." Third World Quarterly 23.4 (Aug. 2002): 647-664. Kidula, Jean Ngoya. "Ethnomusicology, the Music Canon, and African Music: Positions, Tensions, and Resolutions in the African Academy." Africa Today 52.3 (Spring 2006): 99113. Koskoff, Ellen. "What Do We Want to Teach When We Teach Music? One Apology, Two Short Trips, Three Ethical Dilemmas, and Eighty-two Questions." In Cook et al. (1999): 545-559.

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 34

Kramer, Lawrence: "Subjectivity Rampant! Music, Hermeneutics, and History." In Clayton et al. (2003): 124-135. Krims, Adam. Music and Urban Geography. New York: Routledge, 2007. Kroier, Johann. "Die Rumba in Matanzas (West-Kuba). Tanz, Gesang und Perkussion im Schnittpunkt afro- und hispanoamerikanischer Traditionen." Magister thesis Freie U Berlin, 1992. ---. "Stadt--MusikModernitt." 2009. TS. ---. "Kreativitt oder Konvention. Koordinaten der kulturellen Moderne in New Orleans und Mnchen." MA thesis Center for Metropolitan Studies, Technische U Berlin, 2010. Kulp, Annette. Jazz in der 1920er Jahren. Von subalterner Kultur zum Massenphnomen. Marburg: Tectum 2008. Laing, Dave: "Music and the Market. The Economics of Music in the Modern World." In Clayton et al. (2003): 309-320. Lima, Ari, Obianuju C. Anja. "Blacks as Study Objects and Intellectuals in Brazilian Academia." Latin American Perspectives 33.4 (Jul., 2006): 82-105. Mintz, Sidney. Sweetness and Power. The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: 1985. Mintz, Sidney, and Richard Price. An Athropological Approach to the Afro-American Past: A Carribbean Perspective. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1976. ISHI Occasional Papers in Social Change 2. Moore, Robin Dale. Nationalizing Blackness: "Afrocubanismo" and Artistic Revolution in Havanna, 1920-1940. Pittsburgh PA: U of Pittsburgh P, 1997. Murphy, David. "Where Does World Music Come From? Globalization, Afropop and the Question of Cultural Identity." In Biddle et al. (2007): 39-63. Palmi, Stephan, Aisha Khan, and George Baca. "Introduction." In Baca et al. (2009): 1-30. Palumbo-Luo, David, Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, eds. Streams of Cultural Capital: Transnational Cultural Studies. Stanford CA: Standford UP, 1997. Price, Richard. "On the Miracle of Creolization." Afro-Atlantic Dialogues: Anthropology in the Diaspora, Ed. Kevin A. Yelvington. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 2006: 115-148. Radano, Ronald, and Philip V. Bohlman, eds. Music and the Racial Imagination. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2000. Rieger, Matthias. Helmholtz Musicus: Die Objektivierung der Musik im 19. Jahrhundert durch Helmholtz' Lehre von den Tonempfindungen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006. Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon, 1978. Samman, Khaldoun Subhi. "The Convergence of World-Historical Social Science: 'Border Thinking' as an Alternative to the Classical Comparative Method." The Modern/Colonial/Capitalist World-System in the Twentieth Century: Global Processes, Antisystemic Movements, and the Geopolitics of Knowledge. Ed. Ramn Grosfoguel, and Ana Margerita Cervantes-Rodrguez. Westport: Greenwood, 2002. Scherzinger, Martin. "Negotiating the Music-Theory / African-Music Nexus: A Political Critique of Ethnomusicological Anti-Formalism and a Strategic Analysis of the Harmonic Patterning of the Shona Mbira Song Nyamaropa." Perspectives in New Music 39.1 (Winter 2001): 5117. Schippers, Huib. Facing the Music: Shaping Music Education from a Global Perspective. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010.

Music, Global History and Postcoloniality 35

Schneider, Albrecht. Musikwissenschaft und Kulturkreislehre: Zur Methodik und Geschichte der Vergleichenden Musikwissenschaft. Bonn: Verlag fr Systematische Musikwissenschaft, 1976. Scott, Derk B. "In Search of Genetically Modified Music. Race and Musical Style in the Nineteenth Century." Nineteenth-Century Music Review 3.1 (2006): 3-23. Shapiro, Dan, Nick Abercrombie, Scott Lash, and Celia Lury. "Flexible Specialisation in the Culture Industries." Regional Development and Contemporary Industrial Response: Extending Flexible Specialisation. Ed. Huib Ernste, and Verena Meier. London: Belhaven, 1992: 179-194. Slobin, Mark. "The Destiny of 'Diaspoa' in Ethnomusicology." In Clayton et al. (2003): 284-296. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty: "Can the Subaltern Speak?" Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Ed. Cary Nelson, and Lawrence Grossberg. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1988: 271-313. Stokes, Martin. "Music and the Global Order." Annual Review of Anthropology 33 (2004): 47-72. Stauth, Georg. Authentizitt und kulturelle Globalisierung: Paradoxien kulturbergreifender Gesellschaft. Bielefeld: Transcript, 1999. Taylor, Timothy D. Beyond Exoticism: Western Music and the World. Durham: DukeUP, 2007. Van der Merwe, Peter. Origins of the Popular Style: The Antecedents of Twentieth-Century Popular Music, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1992. Veloso, Caetano. Tropical Truth. A Story of Music and Revolution in Brazil. London: Bloomsbury, 2003. Wade, Bonnie C.: Thinking Musically. Experiencing Music, Expressing Culture, Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Wendl, Tobias, Bettina von Lintig, and Kerstin Pinther, eds. Black Paris: Kunst und Geschichte einer schwarzen Diaspora. Wuppertal: Peter Hammer, 2006. Werner, Michael, and Bnedicte Zimmermann: "Beyond Comparison: Histoire Croise and the Challenge of Reflexivity." History and Theory 45 (Feb. 2006): 30-50. Wong, Deborah. "Ethnomusicology and Difference." Ethomusicology 50.2 (Spring/Summer 2006): 259-279. Yelvington, Kevin A., ed. Afro-Atlantic Dialogues. Anthropology in the Diaspora. Sante Fe: School of American Research Press, 2006. Ziff, Bruce, and Pratima V. Rao, eds. Borrowed Power. Essays on Cultural Appropriation, New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers UP, 1997. Zon, Bennett. "Disorientating Race. Humanizing the Musical Savage and the Rise of British Ethnomusicology." Nineteenth-Century Music Review 3.1 (2006): 25-43.