Mexican Music: A True Canon of Music History

Edwin Cordoba

Music is an organic discipline.The study of its history cannot be viewed under a single lense- it must be considered through a kaleidescope of perspectives. After reading Bolgman’s thoughts on the canonization of music and Saavedra’s dissertaion on Mexican music in it’s place against dominant musics- I have been able to formulate a simple conlcusion for the semester: Mexican Music is valid and constititues a true contribution to music canon.

Saavedra’s dissertation, “Of Selves and Others: Histiography, Ideology and the Politics of Modern Music.” suggests that Mexican Music History follows a different sequence to the traditional “German Idealist” music history that we know. She suggests that there exist a series of fractures, ruptures and discontinuities regarding the deveopent of Mexican media, forms and styles. I liken Mexican music history to the study of geology- specifically the study of the relative age of rocks. Taking a vertical drill sample of the ground won’t always reveal rocks that are older the lower you get. Often times, there exist disruptions in the environment (erosion, techtonic movement, volcanicism) that result in a mixing of new and old rocks in a vertical sample.

One of Saavedra’s biggest arguments is that the development of Mexican Music History post 1920’s was a deliberate motion on behalf of the Nationalists (particularly Carlos Chavez). Aboriginal music was “Reincarnated” by the natoinalists- albeit, not always necessarily to its most accurate capacity- and created a feedback effect in scholarship. Composers and musicologists produced new sources that reinforced this view of aboriginal music as the source of inspiration- thus further infroming further scholarship and critical assessments!

When comparing Meixcan music history within “universal” music (“universal” meaning msuic that can be critiqued based on euro-german values), historians found that there is no similarities between styles, works, and instrumental media chosen by Mexicans than from their European counterparts. Critics of Mexican music (critics that want to discredit Mexican music for not following these values), therefore, have no validity- since their values are different than the values of Mexican Music.

To understand the true values from which to critique Mexican music, we must understand a few truths. Musical culture of Mexico exhibits either a resistance/lack of nterest in actively occupying a place in Western culture or (b) a conscious search for a sense of belonging that frequently has been embodied in a desire to “catch up”. Qualities compounded by changing alliegence to dominant musical cultures in Europe/affected by academic discourses on history of music. Mexican Nationalism is (1) an inevitable transition, although late, to a stage of that always appears in the development of the music; and (2) an ideological musical event to which all previous efforts were headed. Thus, Mexican nationalism is the enevitable awakening of a collective essence (with polical revolution 1910-1921).

It occupies a space (although marginally) in the narrative of “universal” music!

Bohlman, with his belief “Musicologies” and the idea of the plural musics ties into this idea of Mexican music having a place within Saavedra’s “universal” music. I believe that Mexican music, with it’s unique history and features- occupies a place in the “universal” music canon.

Mexican Music and its Place in the Canon

When musicians think of the canon we know today, we usually immediately say Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, etc. When we’re sitting in a music history class or an ensemble rehearsal, most of our teachers say, “Oh you should know this, it’s standard repertory”. As a horn player, I must know and have played all the Mozart Concerti and know the standard orchestral excerpts. The one thing all of these examples have in common is that these canons are European-centered. There is no mention of music of other cultures, ethnicities, or even genders. This is very evident as we study the music of others, specifically the music of Mexico. Before this seminar class on 20th-century Mexican music, I had never heard or studied about it because, in a sense, it wasn’t considered part of the canon that we know about- its music other than European.  Although there are multiple canons and they are constantly changing, I still believe that Mexican music and its history has still not gained its rightful place in the canon.


In the introduction to Saavedra’s dissertation, she emphasizes that the focal point of Mexican music history only began nearly a century ago in the late 1920s. The music produced in this era, mostly by Carlos Chavez and Silvestre Revueltas, was seen as “nationalist” music. Saavedra refers to this period as the Aztec Renaissance, where Chavez’s Sinfonia India and Revueltas’s Sensemaya are the pieces that have come to represent Mexican music. I like to think, what about all the music that was written before this “Renaissance”? Mexico has such a rich and interesting history that I’m sure it would be beneficial to understand the kinds of music they were producing before Chavez and Revueltas revolutionized the Mexican musical canon. The Mexican Revolution impacted not only the everyday lifestyles of the people, but also the country’s place in the musical world. After finding its musical self, which included non-traditional styles, works, and instrumental media (completely opposite that of the European canon), Mexican music finally became more accepted by the Western world. I think the world was surprised that Mexico’s music didn’t evolve in the same manner as European music did, expecting the creation of composers like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. Who is to say that Chavez, Revueltas and Mexican composers in general are not equal to the mentioned composers above? I think it’s simply because there hasn’t been enough research done on this area of music history and how Mexican music has contributed to the canon in significant ways.


“Musics and Canons”, an article written by Philip Bohlman, explains the different aspects of canons and how they are conceived and who in responsible for the creating them. One section I found particularly interesting was entitled “The Texts as Canons”. One way canons are created are by musicologists who turn music into texts, such as dictionaries, journals, field recordings, and even bibliographical indexes. These texts are very important to maintaining canons and making them accessible to anyone. Bohlman states, “to enter the canon of great works, a piece of music must “last,” and how better to make it last than to transform it into text?”. This process makes the music more permanent and determines precisely where their position in the canon will be. One great example of this is Carlos Chavez himself. As he became widely known throughout the world, he was determined to build his and Mexico’s image in the music world, producing press releases, writing articles and program notes and also giving lectures. In a way, Chavez became what Bohlman calls a “canonizer”.

There have been many canons throughout history and they are constantly evolving to accommodate the music being written every day. Mexican music has yet to gain its proper place in the Western art music canon, but as more research and exploration of it is done, it will eventually become a standard area of study. We all have our own canons and what’s important to us, and I think our job is to share it with others so they can expand their own canons. Fortunately, this class has added Mexican music and its history to my personal canon.

-Katy Andrade

Thoughts about – Epilogue Music and Canons by Philip V. Bohlman and Leonora Saavedra dissertation about Mexican politics and modern music – Canon

Thoughts about – Epilogue Music and Canons by Philip V. Bohlman and  Leonora Saavedra dissertation about Mexican politics and modern music




Canon always were a very important tool  for music from the very beginning with the ecclesiastic music  for church  that we can even  call  “memorization of laws”. A super perfect model  that matches with the human essence with difficulties, facilities, traditions, folklore, everything in music. With the years passing by  composers of all periods were able to find in  canon a safe place for their  compositions and ideas where  they could use it to develop their own thoughts with their own culture and traditions. The strong repetition of these models during the years helped to develop  and inspire our modern music in many ways. It is sometimes even possible to recognize  a very clear repetition  of that old times  in rhythms and  motives. This makes me think if composers still writing using canons for their base even if they try to be free with their technique they will still having something that is the  same  for all, the beginning of the process the same canon.

Reading an article by Philip Bohlman, where he talks about “musicologists feeling uncomfortable with the plural word of  the word canon”, we can understand better about canon and how they have being acting  in our music society throughout the years. Since Canon can mean different things, that means we can`t totally understand or define it very well. As Bohlm says “Canon was not determined by what it was, it was also determined by what it wasn’t”.

Bohlman also talks about discipline and how it is  important to maintain canons alive with the years musicologists are engaged to make choices, given the vast number of repertoire  they need to choose just some of them to create and define new canon for the humanity to follow he explain that “ Canon are directly related with the past and with the discipline.”

I also read the Leonora Saavedra doctors dissertation where she talks about Mexican music related with politic, history, ideology, modern music and also  canon. In her dissertation she explains that “The Mexican music and culture became very well known for the world with the Revolution in 1929 when new music’s were developed  and the Mexican music style was created” That means on that time canons for Mexican music were developed and now all the world  follow them, we can`t listen a mariachi orchestra or see a Mexican hat and relate them with other cultures, they are all Mexicans references.

So to conclude I would like to say that Canons have always helped to develop our music, but at the same time there are a problem. We can not be free with them that much many Mexicans don`t agree with the “La CuCaracha” being something related so strongly with Mexico. There are many other better compositions that should be reminded for the world but unfortunately, we can`t relate any new music even if was extremely well composed to Mexico so strongly as La Cucuracha. So Canon are a very good tool but can be bad in many ways.

Johanny Barbosa













Bohlman, Philip.Epilogue:Musics and Canons

Saavedra, Leonora “Of selves and others: HISTORIOGRAPHY, IDEOLOGY, and the  POLITICS of  MODERN MEXICAN MUSIC” Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh, 2001

What are the canons that govern us?

El jarabe en ultratumba

Ivan Lopez

As we all know, Mexican identity has always been uncertain. I am referring not only to musical identity, but to very identity of the Mexican being. It is very possible that in Mexico, a new nation was forged. Far from being indigenous in their totality, far from being “Españoles” completely, the Mexican is still looking for or rather continues to have doubts about his offspring. Historical facts have also marked a line between which we are, I mean the process of Independence and also that of the Mexican Revolution. This gives to a search for our nationalism as such.


Which is what identifies us as a nation and what musical elements we find in the composers who have marked the canons of our music? The composers that at first mark an identity as such use the folk or popular music as a connection between the people and the concert music. The music of that time, speaking of the end of the nineteenth century, was used in the gatherings, in the dance halls, in the streets of Mexico City in specific. But not only heard that, there were those who used to attend the theater, concerts of classical music that played European music. Carlos Monsivais said that we could not talk about Mexico without mentioning Stravinsky, Charles Chaplin, Rossini, and many others that without being of Mexican origin are part or were part of our culture. Will they be part of our canons? What is the beginning of our canons? The Spanish heritage, our indigenous ancestor, or our foreign tastes and preferences. The influences that had Manuel M. Ponce, Carlos Chavez or Silvestre Revueltas of Europe, are printed in our Mexican music?


If we think of what is truly Mexican we always relate to the popular. Popular songs, rhythms such as “Son”, mariachi music, “el Jarabe” or “La Valona”, without a doubt we catalog it as Mexican but, who dictates that ? If those influences do not have their origin here, then, who owns us? The work that composers have done at the beginning of the twentieth century, led by Chávez, has been the trampoline to meet us with that music that identifies us as Mexicans. Should we continue to identify them with the canons dictated by them? If we think well, we are neither indigenous nor Spanish. We are not revolutionary and we are even very attached to what we heard and see in other places, like in the United States for example. What are the canons that govern us?

A Single Canon

Musicologists have always played a role in determining the treatment of the word “music” or canon, and what falls under these categories through the study of musical, political, and history and analysis of the music in question. Without these studies it is hard to imagine where the world of music would be today without these studies and analytical findings. We all know that in the world of music, today, there are many different types of “musics” each representing a different nation or genre of music. Musicologists have often looked at Western European Influences to determine what should fall under or be a part of the musical canon. In the Bolhman article Epilogue: Music and the Canon, he expresses that one cannot label music as falling within the canon of western European music without having found research and writings done by musicologists. He also mentions that there would not be a canon without an exclusion of certain music that was representable of certain demographics such as woman or ethnic rooted music. Thus brings forth the music of Mexico and how according to Leonora Saavedra’s dissertation OF SELVES AND OTHERS: HISTORIOGRAPHY, IDEOLOGY, AND THE POLITICS OF MODERN MEXICAN MUSIC, Mexico was not recognized in the canon for centuries, and still remains mostly unexplored to this day. According to Saavedra, a country such as Mexico with quite a wide range of history, and culture should be studied, written about and performed more frequently than it has been. The reason?? Is the pure fact that it has not been kept up with in documenting such as the music of Mozart, Beethoven, or Bach. This was also echoed in the Bolhman article, that the musicologists of the time were blissfully unaware of anything that did not have to do with Western European music and its influences, as mentioned above, these “musicologist” had certain parameters in order for certain music to be in the canon. These parameters; however instead of allowing works in, it was treated as more of a barrier to keep them out. It was suggested that the fear of political stances would be taken about said works or research. This is what led to the main canon of Western Europe and its ideals taking precedent over music.su10_tijuana

Both Bolhmam and Saavedra scratch upon the idea that there is more than just one canon, and I would have to agree with them. A canon, to me is not just this single solitary line thru history that fit nicely on a blackboard. There are many culture and people whose own experience and growth have earned them the acceptance to be added to the canon. I do not personally the point of a singular canon when there is so much more to be explored such as the case of Mexico had there been better treatment or a better openness to these cultures at first the canon in question could be looking very different than it does today.

-John Guevara

Evolving Music: How Can I Help?

Love, Corina

     In an article by Philip Bohlam, where he talks about musicologists being scared to pluralize music because it is forever changing. It also talks about the canon today and how it’s maintained by composers who continually compose for music today. As I read on the idea that stuck with me, like my college Laura, was “What about the teachers?”

Lowell-GrahamWeb    So the more and more I thought about it, who taught the composers? Teachers did! Teachers or conductors taught the musicians that have changed the world. Mozart even learned from his father despite being awesome. Then I got to thinking about my role as a teacher while being a conductor. I spoke to Dr. Lowell Graham and he explained a lot of things to me. The main point that stuck with me was “The fish rots at the head.” While that is a metaphor that was used for something else, it applies to teaching. I need to be the best musician I can be so that my ensemble can be the best it can be. With that, there’s a snowball effect that happens with people. They love being in an ensemble and then they want to try to be a solo and then they explore their horizons. It all happened because I made my ensemble the best place for them to be at that time.

Conductor3     I took time to speak to my private teacher for conducting, Dr. Elisa Wilson, and what I took away was that she is about the rehearsal more than the performance. She cares that everyone is taken care of and that we learn how to study and work together effectively. It taught me that as a teacher/conductor, I need to remember to teach and not be about the performance all the time. It’s about finding that happy medium to ensure that all of the members of the ensemble are comfortable. It’s the motto that “If you want a happy work place, have a happy crew.” Too often, conductors think about the sound they want to move the audience. It’s perfectly fine to do so however, we’re molding the minds of musicians who are going to change the world. We need to remember that.

Conductor3 copy      In my undergrad at University of the Incarnate Word, I was in band (even though a voice major) and sadly we went through a couple of band directors. We have one currently by the name of Dr. Brett Richardson. He was always punctual. He was always tough but fair, always. He would teach his class knowing that we were the future musicians who were going to change the world at least for one person. I learned a lot in his class but mostly he taught me how to lead by example and that anything is possible if you can dream. While that last one sounds like a corny line from some kids movie, it’s true. He came into a program that wasn’t well developed and made it his.

UTEP      So, what’s the point you ask? The point is to share what I’ve learned about myself within the past 48 hours of reading the two articles assigned. Within the two articles, they describe the worries and concerns of the canon that music came from and keeping it’s integrity. Regardless if I were to be a performer, teacher, conductor, composer, or music therapist, I would be keeping the canon alive. It’s something I feel important to bring sight of. It’s something I will continue to remember as I go forward from this class and continue the pursuit of my masters in music at the University of Texas at El Paso.


Bohlmann, Philip. “Musics and Canons”. In Disciplining Music: Musicology and Its Canons edited by Katherine Bergeron and Philip V. Bohlman,  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992, 197-209.

Saavedra, Leonora. (1979).  Leonora Saavedra, “Of Selves and Others: Historiography, Ideology, and the Politics of Modern Mexican Music” Phd dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 2001.

What’s With Our Canon?

IMG_0143When I was first getting to know the man who would eventually become my father-in-law, I thought he was quite strange. His actions were unique and particular, and preservation (hoarding in my eyes back then) was one of his top priorities. For example: When Max the cat died, Steve placed the corpse in a plastic container along with photographs and a homemade DVD containing a digital memorial service. He then sealed the container and created a cement mold that would enclose it. By the time the entire process was finished, there was a cat-sized sarcophagus sitting in the back yard under a tree. After asking him what this was all for, Steve insisted it was important for future archeologists to clearly understand what had taken place. For quite awhile I thought this just to be a strange quirk of Steve’s, but then something hit me. Steve has been creating his own kind of “canon” in the most accurate way he can.
Let me try to explain why this strange cat story I just told you can be transitioned into a musical conversation. People interact with canon everyday, including musicians. The things we do on a day-to-day basis are molded by the canon that has been created ever since music’s inception. This idea in itself raises an important issue: Are we as careful as we can be when creating our canon?
Leonora Saavedra’s 2001 dissertation explains that Robert Stevenson’s Music in Mexico remains the only single volume book ever published on the history of Mexican music. Why should a country like Mexico, who’s history is as rich and eventful as many other’s, have such a neglectfully documented musical canon? Because of this, musicologists and students are paying the price. Research and study of Mexican music is difficult due to lack of scholarly sources, and finding those sources takes a great deal of time.
Another subject in question is the issue of canonic accuracy. Philip V. Bohlman’s essay Musics and Canons explores the topic of canons from multiple focus points, but one argument he raises that intrigued me was the possibility that canons may be false to a certain extent. All we often have to rely on is what people who are long gone documented about a certain topic. What if the information is blatantly incorrect or stretched to an extent to make it artificially more interesting? The only way to fact check something like this is to observe primary sources, which we often don’t have.
I believe my cat-mummifying father-in-law is up to something. We could make life so much easier for future scholars by being more cautious with how we create our canon. The more information we leave behind, the better, and if we can strive to make that information reflect on our time with pinpoint accuracy, we’re golden. There’s a saying that a person’s legacy is all they have to be remembered by. Let’s think deeper as we lay that legacy down.

-Nathan Black


Mexican Composers in the Musical Cannon

The term cannon is used very broadly in the music world today. For a long period of time, the term was used to only encompass Western Music, however, as society progresses music from other countries are included. Mexican Music struggled to find a place in the musical cannon for various reasons including understanding and finding it’s own identity separate from that of Western Europe. So exactly how did the standard cannon begin to change? How was it that “other music” (specifically Mexican) was finally allotted its rightful place? With the ability to find its own natural design, Mexican composers would eventually find a place in the musical cannon.


“Mexico occupies a peripheral position within Western culture, a position brought about not only by the legacy of its colonial past but by the particular characteristics of its history as an independent nation. It is from such a position that Mexican cultural agents establish a relationship with the Western metropolises (in both real and imaginary realms); that relationship itself inevitably is marked by an on-going tension between the processes of assimilation and resistance. This peripheral condition has repercussions on the manner in which Mexican music is made and talked about, repercussions that have thus far not been considered and formulated.”


Central European naturalism and bourgeois faith in science led to the importance that Western culture places on the idea of organicism as an aesthetic value. It is a quality most valued in German-speaking countries; therefore these countries played a huge role in the selection of the musical cannon. Western music has a uniformity in its development and as a result there is an inheritance of masterpieces that are recognized as universal. For years, Mexican composers were expected to compose in the Western style until the awakening of nationalism that came with the Mexican Revolution. During the eighteenth century the role of music in European society shifted, focusing on the historic and thus cannon formation changed. For the first time, the cohabitation of multiple musical cannons were tolerated.


With newfound tolerance, other musics were accepted into the musical cannon. With the awakening of Mexican nationalism and the adoption of national identity, Mexican music has developed its own organicism. I find it interesting that the moment Mexican composers stopped attempting to mimic and duplicate Western European music, that is when their music was accepted into the musical cannon. Once it had its own flow of organicism, the music of the Mexican culture was embraced by other cultures. I believe this is proof that choosing imitation over what is natural will present difficulties. Organicism and being true to ones own culture can only lead to overall satisfaction.


  • Jamille Brewster



Mexican Music Creating its Own Canon

Mexico’s Development of a New Canon


                For centuries of studies in music, there has been one canon of music until the twentieth century. Western European music held the focus of study for generations, while other cultures’ music was not studied nor performed at the same level. The music of the indigenous peoples of various locations, including those of indigenous Mexico and Africa, have always been underrepresented in the classical canon. In the twentieth century, this began to take a turn. As mentioned, there was seemingly only one canon for eras of music, until the canon studied by ethnomusicologists began to develop. Alongside the development of the study of this culture of music was the development of Mexican nationalist music. Today, one could consider this camp of music to be a whole canon of study and art itself. However, it was not until the Mexican nationalist style began to develop apart from the Mexican composers’ style before it that Mexican music became a subject of study that created a new canon for Mexican music. mexican-flag

                To enter a canon, per Bohlman, research and writings must occur. Mexican music has remained relatively under-researched until the last century. Assumptions can be made that music in Mexico at the time was not being produced in the same way that music in the main canon was being produced, with a European style. Bohlman speaks of multiple canons and musics in his article that began to split in the twentieth century. The new study of Mexican music and Mexico’s contentment to have their own original style, mostly produced by famous composers Silvestre Revueltas and Carlos Chavez, entered Mexican Music into their own canon. Research by writers such as Robert Stevenson and Robert Parker created a firm foundation for Mexico’s entrance it this new canon. It similar to when American music in the twentieth century began to split and create their own style apart from the European style that put American music into its own canon.  Without writings and publications about music, there is no formal record of their importance or beauty. Before there was the ability to record and mass-produce music, the only way people could understand about a work, especially without having the ability to hear it live, was to read what people may have written about it. Through the development of Mexican nationalist music, Mexican music is now beginning to gain more momentum in growing its own canon now that there is more research being done.

Joshua Lott

Of Canonic Oscillation, Ontogeny and Phylogeny


embriological-evolution-850x592 (1)

I found the opening of  Leonora Saavedra’s dissertation OF SELVES AND OTHERS: HISTORIOGRAPHY, IDEOLOGY, AND THE POLITICS OF MODERN MEXICAN MUSIC exciting and refreshing for the way it digs down into the central contradictions of Twentieth-century Mexican art music. In the readings and studies we have  engaged with in this seminar, this contradiction has been abundantly evident: the attempts of Mexican nationalist/modernist (there’s the contradiction right there! Yet the two are so intertwined it is almost impossible to separate them) composers, artist and writers to create specifically Mexican art all began  with European ideas. Saavedra attributes this in part to the implicitly peripheral role granted to Mexico (and other colonial cultures) by the West. Her persistence in rooting out the assumptions underpinning the development of Mexican national styles reveals some significant truths.

For instance, the assumption that the developmental stages and processes apparent in European music are universal and will inevitably arise in the development the music of any culture is astonishing, yet it rings true with regards to the attitudes of both Western and Mexican music historians. The roots of musicology in Western rationalism and science are somewhat veiled but quite obvious once they are pointed out. There is an assumption reminiscent of Haeckel’s Law of Biological Evolution (now largely disproved)  “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny” that posits that each individual in a species musit go through all the evolutionary phases that the species passed through in its own devlopment. In musicology, this translates into the  idea that Mexican music must logically go through all the stages that European music did, and have their own Palestrina, Bach, Beethoven etc. I find Saavedra’s point helpful in understanding why some scholarship on Mexican music seems to try to fit it into boxes that are the wrong size and shape.

Her highlighting of the conflicting impulses among Mexican artists of various mediums to be authentically Mexican and at the same time “catch up” to Western peers who seem to be “ahead” according to Western models and the idea that development in the artistic disciplines is always linear and progressive. Again her assertion that this creates an oscillation and tension  which results in a wonderful richness rings true based on the examples we have studied and listened to. For instance Revueltas’ incorporation of Mexican street cries into many of his work can be seen as reaching for both authentic “Mexicanness” and European modernist ideals of relating art to everyday life.

Saavedra’s points are especially salient when viewed in the context of Philip Bohlmann’s article “Music and Canons”. Bohlmann’s article is largely about the formation of Canons, the rethinking of Canon’s, and where the authority comes from to do so. Like Saavedra, he is quite clear that traditionally Musicology’s Canon derives from colonialism and imperialism. Bohlmann also makes the point that the “Canon” is evolving into “Canons” and “Music” is evolving into “Musics”, a process that began in the twentieth century and now continues into the twenty-first.

Bohlmann stresses that those in control of the Canonic texts gain authority, and as these texts become ubiquitous, they reinforce their own authority by being omnipresent. This idea ties in neatly to Saavedra’s observance that Carlos Chavez “….saw to it that the documentation on his historical and musical persona that had already been produced by 1928 in the United States became an early primary source.” Chavez understood the canonic process, and made his own texts central to the Mexican music canon.

Bohlmann’s article also points out that Canonic authority can come from skill, tenacity, or a position of power such as an editorial office. In the case of the Mexican nationalists/modernists, the Mexican government was essential in the formation of the canon, by its choice of which artists to support.  He ends his article by asking where the Canonic authority of the future will come from: from the working masses who are the main consumers of musical culture? From the consumers of musical texts? (a much smaller group!) In Bohlmann’s and Saavedra’s articles, I read the writing on the wall, that those who figure this out first will likely gain the Canonic upper-hand.

-Flora Newberry


Leonora Saavedra, Musicologist and Professor at UC Riverside


Philip Bohlmann, Musicologist and Professor at University of Chicago


Bohlmann, Philip. “Musics and Canons”. In Disciplining Music: Musicology and Its Canons edited by Katherine Bergeron and Philip V. Bohlman,  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992, 197-209.

Gould, Stephen. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge: Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1985.

Saavedra, Leonora. (1979).  Leonora Saavedra, “Of Selves and Others: Historiography, Ideology, and the Politics of Modern Mexican Music” Phd dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 2001.