You bring up several interesting points, and I’ll attempt to touch upon those which I found most interesting. Classical music followers are probably made up of middle and upper classes. This separation comes from a variety of reasons, as you mentioned, however, I feel as though the make-up also stems from age and generational differences. Each generation has had to acknowledge more variety in music than the last, and with the rise of popular music and all of its genres, classical music has suffered in popularity because it is viewed as anachronistic and as music worth only preserving. One only needs to attend a rock concert and an orchestra concert to see the difference in audiences. The community is really what matters and dictates who is and can be a part of this culture. These days, the communities of classical music participants and followers definitely appeal to a certain set of people, those who have probably been brought up in a household of classical music appreciation. Directly, money may have less to do with the apparent elitism than class structure or community, seeing as rock, drumming, jazz, and other music all require relatively expensive instruments.
Also, I agree that it is the degree of emphasis of the written score that is key to defining classical music. The reasons for this emphasis are definitely practical, but regardless it leads to splits in a culture. Many do not have the time and means to not only learn how to read a score but also translate it into music, partially because classical music is not really commercial and popular anymore. There are the same issues with jazz. If, like you said, classical music could focus more on progress instead of preservation, I feel more people would relate, more new composers could succeed, and a fresh, interesting beginning could come around.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Challenge Question Response
Q.)1. In several different readings (Wong, Agawu, Shelemay, Miller, etc) the author discusses issues that arise from studying a culture that one is not part of. Write a 2-3 page paper about some of the problems involved in studying one's own musical group or culture.
A.)
In studying ethnomusicology, ethnographers constantly struggle to get the closest and most accurate portrait of the culture that they are studying. Often these ethnographers come from outside communities, and struggle with their etic perspectives. Therefore, much has been said in favor of directly empowering those within the musical culture to analyze and provide a true representation of their own music. Agawu emphasizes this point, arguing that in order for the generalization of African music to disappear, Africans must be given the chance to educate themselves in their own universities and ultimately provide insight on their own distinct musical cultures. This would do away with a lot of issues involving authority, and would help steer the audience of ethnomusicology away from its mainly Western base.
In some studies, this switch to the insider’s perspective has already been attempted. Deborah Wong’s idea of performance ethnography takes the idea and writes about how she can help meld and change the focus of taiko drumming through writing about what her own hopes will be. Is this right to change the musical culture that one is studying? Herein lies a potential problem of studying one’s own music, in that the ethnography will be biased with underlying motivations. In countering this argument, all ethnographies are biased, because there is really no way a single author can erase themselves totally from their studies, nor should they. In accepting the ethnography as biased, how should we look at the motivation to change or direct a tradition in the way an author wants? If this view is shared by the musical community, I argue that it is not a problem, the ethnographer is simply helping to further the tradition. If the author is trying to change the tradition drastically, and is doing so in a way that is not positively viewed by the musical community, I think there is a problem. This would lead to strained relationships between the researcher and the musicians, and at the same time provide an inaccurate view of most of the culture.
These relationships with the musicians are also of interest. In studying one’s own music, a researcher is bound to have many friends or at least feel close to the musicians being studied. That being said, problems might be created when the research is written not for the musicians, but for the scholars. In attempting to please one audience, the ethnographer might offend another, and this would lead to poor communication and understanding, points that ethnomusicology strives to connect.
Another problem that has been discussed in class is the difference between critical and celebratory ethnographies. In contrast to the celebratory ethnographies of etic ethnographers, some ethnographies of authors studying their own musical culture read as very critical. Nettl’s paper, for example, provides a critical view rather than a celebratory one. This critical aspect may not help fuel the idea of Western music continuing as a healthy changing tradition, and outsiders to this culture may view the music negatively rather than if they had read a celebratory ethnography. At the same time, the critical aspect of Nettl’s paper offers a unique perspective, and at times would probably offer a more truthful and interesting voice than a simple celebratory write-up. I think there is definitely more room in ethnomusicology for the critical aspect and with the study of one’s own culture, this needed authority is becoming more prevalent.
Other problems of studying one’s own culture appear in Nettl’s paper on Western music, in that it contains no outside voices, is not reflexive, and references many aspects of the Western music culture that only an insider would understand. The fact that it is from an emic view gives Nettl an authority, which is justified, but at the same time this authority lets Nettl overlook many aspects of a traditional ethnography. He assumes that his audience is familiar with his culture, creating problems of understanding. He only uses himself as an authority, which excludes other helpful perspectives on the culture. These problems stem from the authority of reporting on one’s own culture, and though the ethnographer creates an interesting, personalized inside view of a culture, the outsider’s perspective, one that can connect the author and culture with the audience, is missing. The best ethnographies should be a mix between emic and etic, combining various views of the musical culture from inside and outside, and though many problems crop up in studying one’s own culture, this method should continue to grow and these problems will be addressed and eventually sorted out.
A.)
In studying ethnomusicology, ethnographers constantly struggle to get the closest and most accurate portrait of the culture that they are studying. Often these ethnographers come from outside communities, and struggle with their etic perspectives. Therefore, much has been said in favor of directly empowering those within the musical culture to analyze and provide a true representation of their own music. Agawu emphasizes this point, arguing that in order for the generalization of African music to disappear, Africans must be given the chance to educate themselves in their own universities and ultimately provide insight on their own distinct musical cultures. This would do away with a lot of issues involving authority, and would help steer the audience of ethnomusicology away from its mainly Western base.
In some studies, this switch to the insider’s perspective has already been attempted. Deborah Wong’s idea of performance ethnography takes the idea and writes about how she can help meld and change the focus of taiko drumming through writing about what her own hopes will be. Is this right to change the musical culture that one is studying? Herein lies a potential problem of studying one’s own music, in that the ethnography will be biased with underlying motivations. In countering this argument, all ethnographies are biased, because there is really no way a single author can erase themselves totally from their studies, nor should they. In accepting the ethnography as biased, how should we look at the motivation to change or direct a tradition in the way an author wants? If this view is shared by the musical community, I argue that it is not a problem, the ethnographer is simply helping to further the tradition. If the author is trying to change the tradition drastically, and is doing so in a way that is not positively viewed by the musical community, I think there is a problem. This would lead to strained relationships between the researcher and the musicians, and at the same time provide an inaccurate view of most of the culture.
These relationships with the musicians are also of interest. In studying one’s own music, a researcher is bound to have many friends or at least feel close to the musicians being studied. That being said, problems might be created when the research is written not for the musicians, but for the scholars. In attempting to please one audience, the ethnographer might offend another, and this would lead to poor communication and understanding, points that ethnomusicology strives to connect.
Another problem that has been discussed in class is the difference between critical and celebratory ethnographies. In contrast to the celebratory ethnographies of etic ethnographers, some ethnographies of authors studying their own musical culture read as very critical. Nettl’s paper, for example, provides a critical view rather than a celebratory one. This critical aspect may not help fuel the idea of Western music continuing as a healthy changing tradition, and outsiders to this culture may view the music negatively rather than if they had read a celebratory ethnography. At the same time, the critical aspect of Nettl’s paper offers a unique perspective, and at times would probably offer a more truthful and interesting voice than a simple celebratory write-up. I think there is definitely more room in ethnomusicology for the critical aspect and with the study of one’s own culture, this needed authority is becoming more prevalent.
Other problems of studying one’s own culture appear in Nettl’s paper on Western music, in that it contains no outside voices, is not reflexive, and references many aspects of the Western music culture that only an insider would understand. The fact that it is from an emic view gives Nettl an authority, which is justified, but at the same time this authority lets Nettl overlook many aspects of a traditional ethnography. He assumes that his audience is familiar with his culture, creating problems of understanding. He only uses himself as an authority, which excludes other helpful perspectives on the culture. These problems stem from the authority of reporting on one’s own culture, and though the ethnographer creates an interesting, personalized inside view of a culture, the outsider’s perspective, one that can connect the author and culture with the audience, is missing. The best ethnographies should be a mix between emic and etic, combining various views of the musical culture from inside and outside, and though many problems crop up in studying one’s own culture, this method should continue to grow and these problems will be addressed and eventually sorted out.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Miller 2004 - Questions
Authenticity is clearly valued dearly in Sacred Harp. Would it have made a difference if the Lee family was not from the South? Would they have had the same impact if they were not a family but a group of people from an isolated community? They seem popular enough to draw together the two main factions of Sacred together. Is this popularity because they exemplify best the qualities for which Sacred Harp singing wish to be known?
Discussion Question
What are the qualities that Sacred Harp singers wish to protect? What kind of qualities do Sacred Harp singers wish to project? How does the use of conventions help further these goals?
Discussion Question
What are the qualities that Sacred Harp singers wish to protect? What kind of qualities do Sacred Harp singers wish to project? How does the use of conventions help further these goals?
Monday, November 3, 2008
Campbell Review
Campbell’s article concentrates on the history and mixed reactions of change to the Sacred Harp shape note singing. He talks of the history of preference of seven-shapes over four by many groups, and the contrasting belief that the Sacred Harp book shouldn’t change its four-shape edition. Many compromises came to be through cautionary modification and updating of the book. Attempts to drastically change the literature were condemned. Loyalty, tradition, and religion were all pressing factors in the pressure to keep the Sacred Harp book enduring as a timeless yet relevant piece of culture.
How are recent revisions looked upon by Sacred Heart practitioners? Are the revisioners careful to make only small changes, keeping out gospel sounds? Also, is seven-shape note singing still popular among areas today?
How are recent revisions looked upon by Sacred Heart practitioners? Are the revisioners careful to make only small changes, keeping out gospel sounds? Also, is seven-shape note singing still popular among areas today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)