Venda are more concerned with remaining loyal to wherever it is that music comes from. Nettle does try to forge us into the future when he says, "A central problem for future research is the degree to which social function, style, and content coincide and correlate, and the degree to which the cultural characteristics of a music community are reflected in the traits of the music it claims as its own. The way in which the world of music is divided into musics, and the criteria for the divisions, are major issues that have perhaps not been given sufficient explicit recognition." Nettle is saying how can we determine what's borrowed from what is culturally distinctive. It is recognizable that as our society becomes more technologically advanced and corrupt, it becomes visible within popular music. In the same way as the sounds of the rainforests are incorporated in the vocal acrobats of the Mbuti. Which music is more musical in nature? I have recently discovered that it isn't safe to assume anything, especially when concerning yourself with music, something more complex than nature itself. Geologists are capable of determining climate fluctuations that occurred well more than one million years ago, but it's a struggle to understand music that we can hear and watch as it is being performed. We haven't really talked about the human need that drives us toward something greater. The accumulation of different sounds combining to make something larger than the individual components of itself, is this how music is relative to society? If we ask where music comes from, we can answer it comes from humans. Some people who play music may tell you that music comes from our brains or our hearts, and still some may say it comes from the cosmos. Are we conditioned to believe that music comes from only one of these? A safe and logical response would be that music comes from a blending of all the things mentioned above. If something is considered as prim...
