Question

In the early twentieth century, the nascent field of comparative musicology was dominated by scholars who viewed the phonograph not merely as a recording device, but as a tool for empirical translation. These early "transcriptionists" systematically rendered indigenous oral musical traditions into standard Western musical notation. For the transcriptionists, the fundamental goal of comparative musicology was structural classification; they maintained that translating diverse musical traditions into a universal graphical language was a necessary prerequisite for objective cross-cultural analysis. By reducing complex acoustic phenomena to discrete notes on a staff, they believed they were establishing a rigorous, scientific baseline for the discipline.

However, this methodological optimism was fundamentally flawed. Standard Western notation is not a neutral mathematical grid, but a culturally specific framework built upon twelve equal-tempered pitches and rigid metrical divisions. Consequently, the transcriptionists did not merely record indigenous music; they actively distorted it. Microtonal inflections, fluid rhythmic timing, and timbral nuances—elements often carrying profound semantic weight in their native contexts—were stripped away or forced into the closest Western equivalent. By equating the visual representation with the musical reality, early comparative musicologists inadvertently erased the very acoustic diversity they sought to preserve.

The passage suggests that the early comparative musicologists discussed in the first paragraph would be most likely to agree with which one of the following claims concerning standard Western musical notation?