I think developing theory around music that does not already have a formal theory could be of great use to ethnomusicologists because it allows them to observe patterns within the music they are studying. It gives ethnomusicologists a certain set of parameters within which they can observe one specific type of music while also allowing them to have specific means of comparing different styles of music. It also allows them to compare musical styles to general cultural practices and how the two maybe be interrelated and how they influence each other. As we've discussed in class, peoples' environments have a great impact on the music they produce because of individual soundscapes. Because there are infinitely many things that go into the music people produce, developing theory that can be applied to any genre of music allows ethnomusicologists to compare styles of music in a less bias way and a more methodical, objective way. I do also believe that theory can only tell us so much, however. We can observe patterns within music that may have not been created intentionally, or look for patterns that would confirm our preconceived notions of what a specific type of music should look like.
One other point I would like to touch upon is that the general population knows nothing about music theory yet is able to enjoy music just as much as someone who has spent years studying theory. In fact, I believe knowing all of the technicalities of the music greatly influences how we listen to music. People don't love a popular song for its 1-4-5-1 progression, but for its sound. Yes, the progression is the sound in and of itself, but no one needs to know that for it to be pleasant to the ear (at least in Western culture, that is). I also believe that as overly curious human beings, we are prone to over analyzing. We have no way of knowing what the original composer was thinking when he/she wrote the music, or what his/her intentions were. Obviously we can observe patterns among individual composers and musical styles, but what about coincidences? Music is math, and rearranging patterns of notes and chords. By probability alone, composers are going to write music that sounds similarly to someone else's. So again, while theory can help us gain insight to styles of tendencies of musical eras and genres, studying music requires so much more beyond theory.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Critical Review 9
A Sweet Lullaby for World Music - Steven Feld
In A Sweet Lullaby for World Music, Steven Feld discusses the origination of the term "world music", and how it was initially established as a more friendly, relatable term in the 1960s after the academic term ethnomusicology became widely used in the 1950s. The study of world music aimed to examine and support non-Western music practices and performances. While Feld acknowledges how world music had hopeful aims as a study, he discusses the divide that both the terms world music and ethnomusicology have caused, and the difference between world music and music. World music assumes an uncolonized, inferior state to the powerful, domineering Western music. World music became synonymous with third world music. In the 1990s with the rise of popular music, artists began using world music styles in a more aesthetically pleasing way, for the western marketplace, that is. But what really propagated the success of world music was the "rapid product expansion and the promotional support of both the recording and aligned entertainment industries". Throughout the 90s world music gained great fan support and began to penetrate of whole myriad of different venues. The term world music is now more of a musical genre than an academic property.
Feld goes on to a specific case study, discussing how "Rorogwela", a Beagu lullaby from Northern Malatia, only became popular once it became a hit in the 1990s in the world music marketplace. It was renamed "Sweet Lullaby" and includes the original female vocalist with a drum machine and synthesier accompaniments and digital insertions of sounds from Central Africa, such as vocal yodels and forest water-splashing games. Hugo Zemp examined the album Deep Forests, and UNESCO wanted Zemp to credit the American production industry over the artists themselves. Zemp also discovered the lack of consent given in the popularization of "Sweet Lullaby".
This to me provides a shameful example of how industry and business care about making money more than anything. They essentially authorized themselves to use "Sweet Lullaby" whenever and wherever they wanted, be it as a track on the radio or background music for a variety of commercial products. This money and success was never brought back to the roots though - the creators of the original tune that allowed this success to flourish never received any credit, monetary or verbal. Beyond this, the music itself took on an entirely different meaning when it became popular music - it was no longer world music. Even though world music has become a style in and of itself, why is it that it needed to take on the popular music style to gain accreditation? If world music is its own entity and a respected style, why then wasn't the original track used? What is it that truly makes music "popular"?
In A Sweet Lullaby for World Music, Steven Feld discusses the origination of the term "world music", and how it was initially established as a more friendly, relatable term in the 1960s after the academic term ethnomusicology became widely used in the 1950s. The study of world music aimed to examine and support non-Western music practices and performances. While Feld acknowledges how world music had hopeful aims as a study, he discusses the divide that both the terms world music and ethnomusicology have caused, and the difference between world music and music. World music assumes an uncolonized, inferior state to the powerful, domineering Western music. World music became synonymous with third world music. In the 1990s with the rise of popular music, artists began using world music styles in a more aesthetically pleasing way, for the western marketplace, that is. But what really propagated the success of world music was the "rapid product expansion and the promotional support of both the recording and aligned entertainment industries". Throughout the 90s world music gained great fan support and began to penetrate of whole myriad of different venues. The term world music is now more of a musical genre than an academic property.
Feld goes on to a specific case study, discussing how "Rorogwela", a Beagu lullaby from Northern Malatia, only became popular once it became a hit in the 1990s in the world music marketplace. It was renamed "Sweet Lullaby" and includes the original female vocalist with a drum machine and synthesier accompaniments and digital insertions of sounds from Central Africa, such as vocal yodels and forest water-splashing games. Hugo Zemp examined the album Deep Forests, and UNESCO wanted Zemp to credit the American production industry over the artists themselves. Zemp also discovered the lack of consent given in the popularization of "Sweet Lullaby".
This to me provides a shameful example of how industry and business care about making money more than anything. They essentially authorized themselves to use "Sweet Lullaby" whenever and wherever they wanted, be it as a track on the radio or background music for a variety of commercial products. This money and success was never brought back to the roots though - the creators of the original tune that allowed this success to flourish never received any credit, monetary or verbal. Beyond this, the music itself took on an entirely different meaning when it became popular music - it was no longer world music. Even though world music has become a style in and of itself, why is it that it needed to take on the popular music style to gain accreditation? If world music is its own entity and a respected style, why then wasn't the original track used? What is it that truly makes music "popular"?
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Critical Review 8
Notes on "World Beat" - Steven Feld
In the article "Notes on "World Beat", Steven Feld discusses the Americanization of African music and vice versa, and what is appropriate for an artist using music originating in other cultures in their own songs. He specifically addresses Paul Simon's album Graceland, which is described as a mix of world pop and African folk music. The album was an enormous success and Paul Simon received much acclaim for the music, but Feld points out the means by which Paul Simon gained this success. Even though Paul Simon worked with and paid South African groups and gave credit to his cowriters, the album is "produced by Paul Simon". This points to questions of ownership and power over the music, as Paul Simon seems to place himself above all of the people he worked with and makes himself seem like the overall composer and creator. Feld also points out that Simon does not properly credit coworkers in the United States, and questions why Simon may feel the need to credit those he collaborated with in South Africa and not those he collaborate with in the United States.
To me, this article shows how separate Simon views musical culture. Because he originates from America and traditionally has written American folk music, he feels entitled to the genre and the acclaim for anything he participates in. But when it came to utilizing African folk styles, he was suddenly much more concerned with citing everyone he worked with. As Feld almost implies, this seems derogatory in a way when compared to how he treats American artists/styles, because it seems as though the South African artists are beneath him and he wants to credit them to make himself seem like a legitimate, considerate artist. I was somewhat bothered by this because I have always loved Paul Simon, especially his album Graceland. But I can admit that I was unaware of all of the collaboration Paul Simon has done, because he does not make a point of emphasizing his collaboration. In the end, he wants the credit.
This made me think about where the line is between other musical styles influencing your own and flat out ignoring the rights of artists' composition. We are all influenced by styles we hear, consciously and subconsciously, so when do we need to credit other artists/styles? How we determine how much of any composition can be attributed to the artist him/herself versus major stylistic influences?
In the article "Notes on "World Beat", Steven Feld discusses the Americanization of African music and vice versa, and what is appropriate for an artist using music originating in other cultures in their own songs. He specifically addresses Paul Simon's album Graceland, which is described as a mix of world pop and African folk music. The album was an enormous success and Paul Simon received much acclaim for the music, but Feld points out the means by which Paul Simon gained this success. Even though Paul Simon worked with and paid South African groups and gave credit to his cowriters, the album is "produced by Paul Simon". This points to questions of ownership and power over the music, as Paul Simon seems to place himself above all of the people he worked with and makes himself seem like the overall composer and creator. Feld also points out that Simon does not properly credit coworkers in the United States, and questions why Simon may feel the need to credit those he collaborated with in South Africa and not those he collaborate with in the United States.
To me, this article shows how separate Simon views musical culture. Because he originates from America and traditionally has written American folk music, he feels entitled to the genre and the acclaim for anything he participates in. But when it came to utilizing African folk styles, he was suddenly much more concerned with citing everyone he worked with. As Feld almost implies, this seems derogatory in a way when compared to how he treats American artists/styles, because it seems as though the South African artists are beneath him and he wants to credit them to make himself seem like a legitimate, considerate artist. I was somewhat bothered by this because I have always loved Paul Simon, especially his album Graceland. But I can admit that I was unaware of all of the collaboration Paul Simon has done, because he does not make a point of emphasizing his collaboration. In the end, he wants the credit.
This made me think about where the line is between other musical styles influencing your own and flat out ignoring the rights of artists' composition. We are all influenced by styles we hear, consciously and subconsciously, so when do we need to credit other artists/styles? How we determine how much of any composition can be attributed to the artist him/herself versus major stylistic influences?
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Critical Review 7
In the article Representation and Intracultural Dynamics, Adriana Helbig addresses the difficulty and responsibility ethnomusicologists face when studying/observing a people who have a strong, almost degrading reputation. She specifically talks about her studies and experiences with the Roma, known as the "Gypsies" and how at ethnographic conventions some of her colleagues even said that the poorer groups of Roma people lacked culture and were not worth studying. I found this to be incredibly surprising, seeing as the field of ethnomusicology and ethnography prides itself on studying culture in an observational, removed manner. Helbig discusses how people tend to group the Roma together as one distinct group of peoples, while there is a broad spectrum of wealth and country within those who identify as Roma. In the West, however, all Roma are simply Gypsies. Studying and living with one group of Roma will not be representative of the entirety of Roma culture, especially because the Roma historically have been a traveling people and are spread out throughout a variety of different countries. It is only natural that culture will develop and begin to shape in different ways in different areas, just as various places within a single country have unique characteristics and traditions.
She also explains the difficulty in unequal representation of different Roma based on class and wealth. Only Roma who are of a certain class have the privilege to practice their cultural traditions freely and openly. But at the same time, she found that high class Roma often called the poor Roma dirty and uncivilized. This to me seems like an enormous abuse of power. Because they are given the opportunity to practice as they wish, they seem to view themselves as "real" Roma. Accusing the poor of being assimilated shows their completely lack of appreciation of their freedom - the poor Roma aren't assimilated by choice.
This article made me question how we tend to divide groups of people, and by what means. People practice tradition uniquely from individual to individual, and there will always be both similarities and differences in practices between each individual. So how "prominent" or distinctive does a practice need to be in order for it to be deemed a cultural tradition? How many people have to practice in this way for it to be deemed worthy of study? So when people initially began studying Roma culture, a group of people who became so widespread through their traveling, how did one group's practices become the dominant, stereotypical practices of all Roma people? Is there an aspect of chance that comes into play, such that the group that happens to be studied first become the norm? I think it is also easy for ethnographers to notice a certain tradition in one group, and look for affirmations of this traditions when studying other groups to support their theories of what all Roma people must be like.
She also explains the difficulty in unequal representation of different Roma based on class and wealth. Only Roma who are of a certain class have the privilege to practice their cultural traditions freely and openly. But at the same time, she found that high class Roma often called the poor Roma dirty and uncivilized. This to me seems like an enormous abuse of power. Because they are given the opportunity to practice as they wish, they seem to view themselves as "real" Roma. Accusing the poor of being assimilated shows their completely lack of appreciation of their freedom - the poor Roma aren't assimilated by choice.
This article made me question how we tend to divide groups of people, and by what means. People practice tradition uniquely from individual to individual, and there will always be both similarities and differences in practices between each individual. So how "prominent" or distinctive does a practice need to be in order for it to be deemed a cultural tradition? How many people have to practice in this way for it to be deemed worthy of study? So when people initially began studying Roma culture, a group of people who became so widespread through their traveling, how did one group's practices become the dominant, stereotypical practices of all Roma people? Is there an aspect of chance that comes into play, such that the group that happens to be studied first become the norm? I think it is also easy for ethnographers to notice a certain tradition in one group, and look for affirmations of this traditions when studying other groups to support their theories of what all Roma people must be like.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Interview
I have been having trouble reaching my interviewee, so I only have a few questions so far but he promises me he will have time to do an actual interview soon, so more to come! These few questions were done through email, and I kept everything exactly the same as he typed them. I am planning on interviewing him in person soon, in which case transposing will be an entirely different experience than using his written responses.
When did you start Taiko drumming?
last semester.
What influenced your decision to start?
Interested in combing musics and martial arts together.
What influenced your decision to keep playing?
* i enjoyed the strong and deep sound it makes
* the various body movement i have to do in playing. (the movement and form are called "kata") Form is really imporant in taiko (performing art)
* it can not be play alone. I like how taiko is a cooperating instrument.
Have you participated in other musical groups or have you played other musical instruments? If so, how would you compare Taiko drumming to those other experiences?
sorry, i actually have never participate in any other musical groups. However I did played piano before. Totally different experience. Taiko is "stronger" than piano.
What does Taiko drumming mean to you? (You can get as specific as you want)
It means dicipline, strength, endorance, and colaboration.
How would you describe the community involved in Taiko drumming? In the US? In Japan?
I actually haven't meet any taiko group outside of brown. However, i think taiko groups in the US are less tradition than the ones in Japan. Japan still has the best best taiko group "kodo" in my opinion.
NEW DOCUMENTATION
This interview was held with Luke Tedesco, co-director of Brown Gendo
When did you start Taiko drumming?
last semester.
What influenced your decision to start?
Interested in combing musics and martial arts together.
What influenced your decision to keep playing?
* i enjoyed the strong and deep sound it makes
* the various body movement i have to do in playing. (the movement and form are called "kata") Form is really imporant in taiko (performing art)
* it can not be play alone. I like how taiko is a cooperating instrument.
Have you participated in other musical groups or have you played other musical instruments? If so, how would you compare Taiko drumming to those other experiences?
sorry, i actually have never participate in any other musical groups. However I did played piano before. Totally different experience. Taiko is "stronger" than piano.
What does Taiko drumming mean to you? (You can get as specific as you want)
It means dicipline, strength, endorance, and colaboration.
How would you describe the community involved in Taiko drumming? In the US? In Japan?
I actually haven't meet any taiko group outside of brown. However, i think taiko groups in the US are less tradition than the ones in Japan. Japan still has the best best taiko group "kodo" in my opinion.
NEW DOCUMENTATION
This interview was held with Luke Tedesco, co-director of Brown Gendo
First, what’s your history with taiko drumming? How did you
start? How did you become interested?
Um, I had no idea what
it was before I came to Brown. But once we were at the activities fair my
freshman year, uh, there was just a group of taiko with the drums set up and
they were asking random people, ‘hey do you want to try hitting a giant drum?’
and I was just like, yeah, that sounds like fun. And so I was looking for
something musical to do in my extracurriculars, um, because I play guitar, and
drums back home, uuum, and I was also looking for something athletic. And taiko
in my mind was sort of the best of both worlds because it blended them
together.
Nice. Are you involved in any other musical groups on campus
other than Taiko?
No
And how long had you been drumming before then?
Um I had a teacher in
fourth grade for about three months. And then I quit. But it overlapped with
Christmas so I had convinced my parents that I loved drumming and was going to
do it for the rest of my life so they got me a drum kit for Christmas. Like a dinky little starter kit. Um but
then my senior year rock band came out and I liked playing the drums and I was
good and it and I realized, hey I have a drum kit in my attic. So I played for
about a year, um, in high school, but no lessons, just dabbling over songs, so
I wouldn’t exactly call that an extensive year of playing.
How did you feel it (Taiko) was different or similar to some
of your previous drumming?
Absolutely different.
It’s not even close to similar. Um, drum kit is all about keeping rhythm for
the rest of the song and really not part of the melody at all. Whereas Taiko,
you’re not only keeping rhythm but also the melody. So the beats have to be
different than just the standard four beat 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 . so
everything was changed. The skills translate, like it’s useful to have drumming
experience because then you can keep time.
Did you find that it was difficult to learn?
Um personally not
really. It can be pretty difficult for some people. But I have pretty good body
awareness because of my sports in high school. And then I have rhythm awareness
from drumming and guitar and stuff. But people learn at different speeds. So
personally I didn’t find it too hard, it’s just, the hardest part is just
memorizing the beats and what sort of goes together.
How long have you been a director of the group?
Um, I’ve been a
director for a year now. And I’m going to be a director again next year as
well.
How did you get picked to be the director?
We had elections. So
at the end of last year, we, three people ran and typically we have 2 directors
per year. So we each gave a little spiel, I would be a good director because…
and then we had a little Q and A, where you see the group going, what are you
goals for next year, stuff like that. So, after that we all vote and then Jen
and I were elected.
So how has it been different for you as an experience since
you became director of the group?
Um, it’s, you… you
don’t spend your time learning anything. I know the entire repertoire so it’s
my job to teach it to the next generation of Taiko players. Um so because of that
you don’t get to play as much. So this year I haven’t gotten to play, maybe,
except…really 10 or so practices I’ve really gotten to play. Most of the time
you’re just demonstrating stuff. So that’s different. But most of the time, you, you sort of, you can go in outside
of practice time to play on your
own. So I’ve done that a couple times to keep it.
Do you miss the actual playing?
I do, I do. But it’s
nice to teach. And it’s sort of responsibility I have now as the director. But I
like teaching, it’s fun.
So do you have the same repertoire every year or do you
introduce new pieces in?
So we basically
have…do you want me to use actual song names and stuff?
Sure go for it!
Ok so when gendo was started, the only three songs we had in
our repertoire were miyake, which is the one where we’re really low and playing on a horizontal drum. We had
yatay, which is the one where we’re sitting down and it’s all ab workout. And we had a song achido, which is
a song where the drums are elevated up on bigger stands, sort of at shoulder
height, and you play on horizontal, again. Um, and then, so that was all we
played for four years, and we got really good at those 3 songs. And then john, who was a director my
freshman year, he was a senior, he has since graduated brown 2 years ago. He
had friends in California who played, and they introduced him to this whole
other style of Taiko playing which is naname, which is the slant style which we
have a few songs on. And they introduced us to benta style, which is when the
drum is flat on the ground and you’re standing up hitting like this. After he learned a couple songs called
open pieces, which means they are open to the entire community, he brought
those back and that became part of our Taiko style.
So what does that mean? Open to the community?
Open to the community
so that means…so when you write a taiko song, it’s either, you can choose to
give it to the entire community which means that any taiko player anywhere in
any country can learn your song and perform it. Whereas if you don’t choose to
do that, there is a lot of um, politics behind taiko songs. So there is a
famous group called Kodo that played a song called itadori. One of our members
had permission to perform that piece so when he was in gendo, they performed
it. But once he graduated we couldn’t perform it anymore. It’s not inherently a
copyright violation or anything like that, but it’s disrespectful to the
artists who wrote the piece, to the people who performed it. So once we learned
those styles, a few of our members, John wrote a song, JD wrote a song, and
Larry has finished writing a song. So now, for the most part, those are
integrated into our repertoire. Then the only way we really learn songs is if,
we don’t really take any more open source songs, because we have a pretty full
repertoire, but if I were to write a song over the summer, say, which I’m planning
on doing, I would want that to be integrated into the repertoire.
Have you ever written a piece before?
I’ve dabbled. I’ve
come up with beats, I’ve come up with themes, but I’ve never actually pulled it
all together.
How would you go about writing a song for taiko?
It depends. A lot of
people get a lot of different inspiration from a lot of different places. Um,
John, his song, he’s very involved in martial arts, so he wanted his song to be
reflective of martial arts things. So his piece is very heavy on what we call
kata, which is the movements that we do. Whereas Larry’s song, Larry is a music
major, um, or music minor or double…whatever. His song was written in 5 times.
Was it hard for people to learn?
It was really hard for
people to learn. Really hard. I can’t tell you, I can’t count on the beats
while I play it. I have to rely on muscle memory to play it. But it’s a very
musically complex song, and less heavy on things like kata. So people get
inspiration from a lot of different places. Me, when I write my song over the
summer, I’m gonna plan on doing it unlike anything gendo has ever done before.
So there’s something called kuy daiko, which all of our songs are, which is
when most of the people are playing the same thing. And you have the shime,
which is the higher pitched one, that’s just playing one thing the entire song.
And so I, I play shime a lot since I’m the director and I have to keep time
while I teach, I want my song to be less of that and more of like a
professional group might have a song be arranged.
Which would be how…
Which would be, for
example, many songs by kodo, which is one of the most famous taiko groups, or
Tao, they have like, drum kits assembled. So ike four different drums that one
guy might play like a drum kit. That plus somebody on nodaiko which is the
really big one in the back. Plus one of our members is trying to learn the
Fuye, which is the Japanese flute, this summer, so I want a piece to be like,
musical, in terms of have a melody.
Challenge Question
In Bruno Nettle's Piece Heartland Excursions; Ethnomusicological Reflections on Schools of Music, Nettle says, "Ethnomusicologists have contributed to the understanding of the classical music culture of our century in several ways: They try to comprehend the musical culture through a microcosm, to provide an even-handed appraisal without judgment, to look was well as possible at the familiar as if one were an outsider, to see the world of music as a component of culture in the anthropological sense of that word, and to view their own music from a world perspective."
My question is, is it ever possible to comprehend musical culture through a microcosm without judgment? People often tell you to 'go with your gut', meaning go with your instinct. Do we not all have instinctive reactions to the music we hear? If so, would this necessarily mean you are listening to music judgmentally because our instincts arise from our own past experiences and exposure to specific kinds of music? While ethnomusicologist aim to look at the familiar as if they were an outsider, is that truly possible? We can't just suddenly forget what we know - our knowledge and experience is always with us. So while you may be trying to look at something subjectively, wouldn't you objectively be trying to ignore certain things you already know?
My question is, is it ever possible to comprehend musical culture through a microcosm without judgment? People often tell you to 'go with your gut', meaning go with your instinct. Do we not all have instinctive reactions to the music we hear? If so, would this necessarily mean you are listening to music judgmentally because our instincts arise from our own past experiences and exposure to specific kinds of music? While ethnomusicologist aim to look at the familiar as if they were an outsider, is that truly possible? We can't just suddenly forget what we know - our knowledge and experience is always with us. So while you may be trying to look at something subjectively, wouldn't you objectively be trying to ignore certain things you already know?
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Critical Review 6
Jacking the Dial: Radio, Race, and Place in Grand Theft Auto
Kiri Miller
Miller’s piece discusses the role of music in a popular video
game, Grand Theft Auto, and how music effects the player’s experience. Music
plays a much larger role in the game than one might consciously notice, as
theme songs go along will all different aspects of the game such as radio
stations in the cars, and driving in different areas of the city. He notes that
the scene is meant to mimic Compton in LA, and producers attempt to give
players the experience that they are fully emerged in the video game
environment through stereotypical aspects of black and thug culture, such as
playing popular R&B, hip-hop, and Latina music.
He also discusses the nostalgic aspect of music, and how it
brings players back to a different time era, specifically the 80s. Players seem
to enjoy being in a world outside of their own, navigating a world that is
completely unfamiliar to them. In this way, video games seem like an escape
from the life they are living. But the specific 80s music presented in the game
only represents a very small sliver of 80s music on the whole, and produces are
selective in choosing which music to play.
Even though many of the aspects of the game seem to go
overboard and utilize stereotypes to a maximum, players responded to Miller
saying that it makes the game more fun because it brings game life further away
from serious issues revolving around racism and black culture and thug life. Players
do not want to be thinking about political and social issues while playing the
game – they want to be exploring a new world and having fun while doing so.
Miller also discusses other aspects of the game beyond music
that contribute towards the stereotypes of black culture, such as graffiti that
ties in with hip hop, choosing specific types of clothes to wear, and women
walking around in bikinis. While I appreciate that video games are meant to be
fun and allow players to immerse themselves in a new life, I don’t believe that
argument that the game is so over stereotyped that people don’t take some
aspects of it seriously. I’m sure only a fraction of game consumers are aware
of what stereotypes the game portrays, and consciously realize that it is not
an accurate representation of LA’s Compton, or black culture. I think it
romanticizes what thug life actually entails, since you get to design your own
character and go around killing people and stealing cars with no real
consequence or application. Miller talks about European consumers who have only
a small idea of what this type of American culture entails, so it seems pretty
accurate to them.
I also think that music plays a particularly influential role
in the perpetuation of stereotypes because players may not necessarily be aware
of what is playing and the associations they make between certain types of
music and the scenarios they are in. Outside of video games, where else does
this occur? How often do we hear music and make unconscious associations? I
believe it happens all the time, but not necessarily to perpetuate stereotypes.
When/where is music tied to these preconceived notions versus representing a
specific event or time in your life? Is there a connection between the two?
Friday, March 9, 2012
Fieldnotes
Some notes taken during rehearsal on Thursday, March 8th
In basic dance room - mirros on two walls
10 members present
First part of practice consists of stretching in a circle; variety of full body stretching, count to 10 in Japanese for each different stretch
Beginning of playing, play 3 "kiodotay" (?); 3 slow, 3 fast
2 people to a drum, 3 drums total. On the middle drum, partners are facing same direction, on the two side drums, players are playing in opposite direction
One member sitting in the middle, playing a smaller drum by himself, the drum rests on wooden supports that angle the drum facing towards him
3 members are not playing an instrument, practice on the side without the drum itself
One main leader of the group not playing, male, giving directions on order of pieces, when people get solos, the tempo, etc., standing facing the members
Everyone starts off sitting, except the 3 members practicing on the side without instruments, then rise as the piece begins
Everyone dressed in athletic wear: shorts, leggings, sweatpants, t-shirts
The one person sitting with the small drum in the center starts off with one main beat, others come in with movement of rising and raising theirs arms/sticks up in the air before playing
Only 2 distinct tambres; the small drum in the middle and the 3 larger drums. The smaller drum is higher and less dense in pitch
Mallets are large wooden, solid cylinders
The member on the smaller drum is responsible for setting the tempo; speeding up and/or slowing down during the piece
People give different chants or shouts during the piece
Players play in spread leg standing position. They often switch leaning towards and away from the instrument as they play, and I noticed they lean in the direction that indicates the arm they will use to strike the drum
They were playing barefoot - I don't know if this was because it was rehearsal and it was meant to help them not slip on the dance hardwood floor, or if they generally play barefoot.
I must say I was surprised that so many of the members were not Japanese. I had made the stereotypical assumption that because Taiko originated in Japan, the Taiko club here would consist of Japanese students - and I was absolutely wrong. There were people of all different races involved, and I really appreciated the fact that students didn't shy away from joining the group because of not being Japanese themselves.
I was also very impressed by the discipline of rehearsals. When the leader is speaking, everyone listens to what he has to say. People were very focused during rehearsal and asked questions and even continued to practice on their own during breaks, even though they had already been working so hard and were out of breath. Taiko is a surprisingly taxing activity and requires a lot of strength and conditioning. It is also very serious and structured - but I think that ads a lot to the performance and strong beat of the drums. They reminded me of warriors, going into battle.
In basic dance room - mirros on two walls
10 members present
First part of practice consists of stretching in a circle; variety of full body stretching, count to 10 in Japanese for each different stretch
Beginning of playing, play 3 "kiodotay" (?); 3 slow, 3 fast
2 people to a drum, 3 drums total. On the middle drum, partners are facing same direction, on the two side drums, players are playing in opposite direction
One member sitting in the middle, playing a smaller drum by himself, the drum rests on wooden supports that angle the drum facing towards him
3 members are not playing an instrument, practice on the side without the drum itself
One main leader of the group not playing, male, giving directions on order of pieces, when people get solos, the tempo, etc., standing facing the members
Everyone starts off sitting, except the 3 members practicing on the side without instruments, then rise as the piece begins
Everyone dressed in athletic wear: shorts, leggings, sweatpants, t-shirts
The one person sitting with the small drum in the center starts off with one main beat, others come in with movement of rising and raising theirs arms/sticks up in the air before playing
Only 2 distinct tambres; the small drum in the middle and the 3 larger drums. The smaller drum is higher and less dense in pitch
Mallets are large wooden, solid cylinders
The member on the smaller drum is responsible for setting the tempo; speeding up and/or slowing down during the piece
People give different chants or shouts during the piece
Players play in spread leg standing position. They often switch leaning towards and away from the instrument as they play, and I noticed they lean in the direction that indicates the arm they will use to strike the drum
They were playing barefoot - I don't know if this was because it was rehearsal and it was meant to help them not slip on the dance hardwood floor, or if they generally play barefoot.
I must say I was surprised that so many of the members were not Japanese. I had made the stereotypical assumption that because Taiko originated in Japan, the Taiko club here would consist of Japanese students - and I was absolutely wrong. There were people of all different races involved, and I really appreciated the fact that students didn't shy away from joining the group because of not being Japanese themselves.
I was also very impressed by the discipline of rehearsals. When the leader is speaking, everyone listens to what he has to say. People were very focused during rehearsal and asked questions and even continued to practice on their own during breaks, even though they had already been working so hard and were out of breath. Taiko is a surprisingly taxing activity and requires a lot of strength and conditioning. It is also very serious and structured - but I think that ads a lot to the performance and strong beat of the drums. They reminded me of warriors, going into battle.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Critical Review 5
Nettl discusses the ethnomusicological background in West, referring to a social structure he terms "The Pantheon". The describes the relationship between the great composers of society and the Music Building, and how they influence each other. He focuses mainly on Mozart and Beethoven as the chief great composers of the 18th/early 19th century.
I like the questions Nettl raises regarding whether or not the same piece of work would mean or sound the same if it were created/thought up of by two different people. It is impossible to ignore the impact experience has on how one views what an artist produces, both from the perspective of the audience and the producer. The producer may have different intentions as to how they want their music to be perceived in society, and therefore may introduce it through a different light that alters how society receives the music. The listener also likely has predetermined feelings about a particular artist, and will automatically compare new works to old works. So whether or not someone likes or dislikes an artist, or feels that their new work is true to that artists form, will also determine how he/she receives the piece.
I also appreciated Nettl's comparison of the engraved composers names at the Indiana University in Bloomington versus at Harvard University. I thought it provided an appropriate example showing several crucial aspects of the ethnomusicology of Western music. One important point is that there really is no universal agreement as to what composers were the greatest. Yes, some are more well known than others, but who determines who is "better" than another? We can arrange names in any order we want and provide a logical explanation as to why, just as how Harvard shows a sequence of history, but this too includes a matter of opinion. In addition, the ranking is severely limited by the constraints of what defines Western music. Those who fit the mold more precisely are often considered the more talented composers. But this is only in terms of how well it applies to one specific circle of music. And, as Nettl addresses, wasn't this circle created, defined, and established through these composers themselves? It's not fair to say Beethoven and Mozart were the best composers when in fact they were two of the leading pioneers in the foundation of Western classical music - of course they fit the mold, they shaped it!
I like the questions Nettl raises regarding whether or not the same piece of work would mean or sound the same if it were created/thought up of by two different people. It is impossible to ignore the impact experience has on how one views what an artist produces, both from the perspective of the audience and the producer. The producer may have different intentions as to how they want their music to be perceived in society, and therefore may introduce it through a different light that alters how society receives the music. The listener also likely has predetermined feelings about a particular artist, and will automatically compare new works to old works. So whether or not someone likes or dislikes an artist, or feels that their new work is true to that artists form, will also determine how he/she receives the piece.
I also appreciated Nettl's comparison of the engraved composers names at the Indiana University in Bloomington versus at Harvard University. I thought it provided an appropriate example showing several crucial aspects of the ethnomusicology of Western music. One important point is that there really is no universal agreement as to what composers were the greatest. Yes, some are more well known than others, but who determines who is "better" than another? We can arrange names in any order we want and provide a logical explanation as to why, just as how Harvard shows a sequence of history, but this too includes a matter of opinion. In addition, the ranking is severely limited by the constraints of what defines Western music. Those who fit the mold more precisely are often considered the more talented composers. But this is only in terms of how well it applies to one specific circle of music. And, as Nettl addresses, wasn't this circle created, defined, and established through these composers themselves? It's not fair to say Beethoven and Mozart were the best composers when in fact they were two of the leading pioneers in the foundation of Western classical music - of course they fit the mold, they shaped it!
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
4th Critical Review
Buchanan 1995
Buchanan discusses the history of Bulgarian folk music and how it was influence under the socialist regime since the early 20th century. Traditional Bulgarian folk music was called narodna muzika, and was generally a melody played or sang by a single person. But amongst the emergence of the socialist regime, musical professionalism began to develop. This explains how the government altered traditional music to popularize it for political and economic gain. As Bulgaria took part in the Warsaw pact and aspired to be part of the European economic community, the Bulgarian government wanted music to be more pleasing to the Western ear, and they wanted to make more money.
Indigenous musicians began to be seen negatively because they symbolized moral and financial impoverishment. While I understand that the government wanted to integrate itself, I do not understand how it could so blatantly sacrifice tradition amongst their own country. This seems like a sort of anti-nationalist move, trying to rid the country of and look down up tradition Bulgarian folk music. Instead, they encouraged the growth of Western style by abandoning solo performance and encouraging ensembles, standardizing instruments and tuning, and requiring musicians to go through certain training that taught Western ideals such as notation.
I thought reading about Bulgarian history really gave me insight as to how their music had developed over the nineteenth century. This is a perfect example of how historical/social context is necessary in order to understand growth. It is easy for one to say, the Bulgarians started succumbing to Western influence, but it is really not that simple. They specifically altered their musical style in order to gain some kind of political and economic power. But when does the government have the right to step in? Is power ever an excuse to abandon your identity as a country or a community?
Buchanan discusses the history of Bulgarian folk music and how it was influence under the socialist regime since the early 20th century. Traditional Bulgarian folk music was called narodna muzika, and was generally a melody played or sang by a single person. But amongst the emergence of the socialist regime, musical professionalism began to develop. This explains how the government altered traditional music to popularize it for political and economic gain. As Bulgaria took part in the Warsaw pact and aspired to be part of the European economic community, the Bulgarian government wanted music to be more pleasing to the Western ear, and they wanted to make more money.
Indigenous musicians began to be seen negatively because they symbolized moral and financial impoverishment. While I understand that the government wanted to integrate itself, I do not understand how it could so blatantly sacrifice tradition amongst their own country. This seems like a sort of anti-nationalist move, trying to rid the country of and look down up tradition Bulgarian folk music. Instead, they encouraged the growth of Western style by abandoning solo performance and encouraging ensembles, standardizing instruments and tuning, and requiring musicians to go through certain training that taught Western ideals such as notation.
I thought reading about Bulgarian history really gave me insight as to how their music had developed over the nineteenth century. This is a perfect example of how historical/social context is necessary in order to understand growth. It is easy for one to say, the Bulgarians started succumbing to Western influence, but it is really not that simple. They specifically altered their musical style in order to gain some kind of political and economic power. But when does the government have the right to step in? Is power ever an excuse to abandon your identity as a country or a community?
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
3rd Critical Review
Thomas Turino discusses practice theory in terms of how Bourdieu defines habitus in Outline of a Theory of Practice. Bourdieu addresses the relationship between how people act and the "objective structures" of society. People tend to act based on what they have learned from their environment, in ways that are not always obvious and conscious. In fact, most people internalize the "objective structures" of society, which causes them to become "objective conditions", and eventually "internalized dispositions".
"As does Bourdieu, Gramsci, too, often characterizes "common sense" as being unelaborated, and some writers have been troubled by the implication that the internalized bases for everyday practices thus become relegated to the unconscious."
I thought the discussion around common sense was particularly interesting in this article because I have never thought of common sense as an unconscious entity. I think of common sense as the conscious decisions we make based on what we deem is the "correct" decision, or most moral decision. But it does make sense that "common sense" would also include our daily actions that we never consciously think about, such as how to walk up a flight of stairs or sitting in a chair.
So my question is, can music ever be considered to be common sense? What about when we sing lyrics to a familiar song without even realizing we know all of the lyrics? I know this doesn't exactly relate to the idea of "objective structures" of society, but it's most of an extension of what unconscious behavior entails, and what can be classified as common sense. Then, thinking backwards, is there a way that music can be considered to be an objective structure of society? Western cultures are almost taught to appreciate harmonies in music, so whenever we hear harmonies we perceive the sound as pleasurable. I would argue that that could indeed be an "objective structure" of society, and the pleasant feelings around the harmonies could be considered an unconscious, internalized common sense. Many people can tell you which songs they like and which songs they don't like without being able to articulate why.
"As does Bourdieu, Gramsci, too, often characterizes "common sense" as being unelaborated, and some writers have been troubled by the implication that the internalized bases for everyday practices thus become relegated to the unconscious."
I thought the discussion around common sense was particularly interesting in this article because I have never thought of common sense as an unconscious entity. I think of common sense as the conscious decisions we make based on what we deem is the "correct" decision, or most moral decision. But it does make sense that "common sense" would also include our daily actions that we never consciously think about, such as how to walk up a flight of stairs or sitting in a chair.
So my question is, can music ever be considered to be common sense? What about when we sing lyrics to a familiar song without even realizing we know all of the lyrics? I know this doesn't exactly relate to the idea of "objective structures" of society, but it's most of an extension of what unconscious behavior entails, and what can be classified as common sense. Then, thinking backwards, is there a way that music can be considered to be an objective structure of society? Western cultures are almost taught to appreciate harmonies in music, so whenever we hear harmonies we perceive the sound as pleasurable. I would argue that that could indeed be an "objective structure" of society, and the pleasant feelings around the harmonies could be considered an unconscious, internalized common sense. Many people can tell you which songs they like and which songs they don't like without being able to articulate why.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Fieldwork Topic
For my fieldwork topic I would like to study the taiko drumming group on campus. I have a friend who is in the group and have heard him mention going to/coming from rehearsal, but I realized I really know absolutely nothing about taiko drumming. All I know is that taiko means drum in Japanese, and taiko drumming is generally performed by an ensemble and is a relatively recent genre of music originating in Japan. I want to study something completely unfamiliar because I think it will give me a better perspective in terms of having no specific expectations or experiences to compare my research too. I am also attracted to the prospect of studying drumming because I have always been one to focus more on the melodic aspect of music - beat almost comes second, or is the background. I have never really studied rhythm purely on its own.
Some of the things I would like to focus on in this project is, how many people on this campus know what taiko drumming is, or have ever even heard a taiko performance before? I would like to interview my friend who is in the ensemble, and ask if he was also in an ensemble when he lived in Japan. I am curious to find out how both the ensembles and the audiences may differ, and the overall "enthusiasm" or interest in taiki drumming at Brown versus in Japan. I want to sit in on their rehearsals and attend as many of their concerts as possible between now and the end of the semester.
Some of the things I would like to focus on in this project is, how many people on this campus know what taiko drumming is, or have ever even heard a taiko performance before? I would like to interview my friend who is in the ensemble, and ask if he was also in an ensemble when he lived in Japan. I am curious to find out how both the ensembles and the audiences may differ, and the overall "enthusiasm" or interest in taiki drumming at Brown versus in Japan. I want to sit in on their rehearsals and attend as many of their concerts as possible between now and the end of the semester.
Third Critical Review
This critical review is in response to Phenomenology and the Ethnography of Popular Music by Harris M. Berger.
Berger begins this piece by explaining how he began his career as an ethnomusicologist. As a music major at Wesleyan University, he was taught that rock music, his love and passion, was not sophisticated music. As much as he tried to convince himself to enjoy other genres, he continually felt drawn to rock. When he took his required ethnomusicology class, he was attracted to the freedom amongst the subject, how ethnomusicologists could study whatever type of music they wanted to.
He continues to discuss how "all musics are equally worth studying; that music is inextricable from the rest of culture; that music doesn't have an inherent value, but is only valuable to particular people in particular societies..."(64). Berger takes a very philosophical approach to the study of ethnomusicology, often calling it "phenomenology of ethnography". He emphasizes the importance of experience in creating music, relating to music, and finding meaning in music. Those who write music can only write what they know, which is their own personal history and experience. What is meaningful to them will not reach out to everyone, because everyone connects to a single piece of music differently - no two people will have the same response to the same song because they come from different backgrounds.
It is important for ethnomusicologists to understand the importance of meaning in both making music and reacting to/listening to music, as both are incredibly personal experiences. Technical sophistication in a piece does not in any way guarantee more people will enjoy listening to it. In fact, there is no way to teach someone how to listen to music. Yes, we can learn to pick out different instruments and timbres and time signatures, but we can't teach ourselves how to find meaning. As Berger illustrates, music is not merely a string of notes or a sound, but someone's past, someone recounting an event or personal experience through a different medium other than speech.
This makes me think about the thousands and thousands of trained musicians in the world, and how few of them actually make a name for themselves. Is this because they are more technically skilled than their peers? Maybe on a certain level, but more than anything I think it is because of their passion. The players who truly make themselves vulnerable and emotional during their performance are the most brilliant. But I also wonder, what kinds of experiences lead people towards connecting to different styles of music? Is there even a trend? Or is it so individualistic that we really can't recognize any patterns? How do the events going on in our lives while we listen to music influence how we view that music?
Berger begins this piece by explaining how he began his career as an ethnomusicologist. As a music major at Wesleyan University, he was taught that rock music, his love and passion, was not sophisticated music. As much as he tried to convince himself to enjoy other genres, he continually felt drawn to rock. When he took his required ethnomusicology class, he was attracted to the freedom amongst the subject, how ethnomusicologists could study whatever type of music they wanted to.
He continues to discuss how "all musics are equally worth studying; that music is inextricable from the rest of culture; that music doesn't have an inherent value, but is only valuable to particular people in particular societies..."(64). Berger takes a very philosophical approach to the study of ethnomusicology, often calling it "phenomenology of ethnography". He emphasizes the importance of experience in creating music, relating to music, and finding meaning in music. Those who write music can only write what they know, which is their own personal history and experience. What is meaningful to them will not reach out to everyone, because everyone connects to a single piece of music differently - no two people will have the same response to the same song because they come from different backgrounds.
It is important for ethnomusicologists to understand the importance of meaning in both making music and reacting to/listening to music, as both are incredibly personal experiences. Technical sophistication in a piece does not in any way guarantee more people will enjoy listening to it. In fact, there is no way to teach someone how to listen to music. Yes, we can learn to pick out different instruments and timbres and time signatures, but we can't teach ourselves how to find meaning. As Berger illustrates, music is not merely a string of notes or a sound, but someone's past, someone recounting an event or personal experience through a different medium other than speech.
This makes me think about the thousands and thousands of trained musicians in the world, and how few of them actually make a name for themselves. Is this because they are more technically skilled than their peers? Maybe on a certain level, but more than anything I think it is because of their passion. The players who truly make themselves vulnerable and emotional during their performance are the most brilliant. But I also wonder, what kinds of experiences lead people towards connecting to different styles of music? Is there even a trend? Or is it so individualistic that we really can't recognize any patterns? How do the events going on in our lives while we listen to music influence how we view that music?
Monday, February 13, 2012
SEM History Post
After looking through Ethnomusicology articles from the 1950s and the 1970s, it became clear to me that not was ethnomusicology a new, developing field in the 1950s, but in even just two decades it grew and expanded to encompass a completely different kind of study.
The articles in the 1950s seem heavily focused on musical technique. Many of the authors talk about specifics of scales, such as ascending versus descending, or scale degrees. They often compare the specific differences between countries or continents. I found that the authors particularly liked to address "Western versus Non-Western", or "American versus European". This to me seems like a very narrow minded way of thinking, and presents many of the issues the articles we have read for class discussed themselves. In particular, I do not think the term comparative musicology had been completely abandoned yet. Some of the articles talk about moving away from the idea of it, but most of the articles still describe methods that come off as comparative to me. Even just mentioning the scales of different countries in comparison to America sets a tone of power, especially be discussing what the most common scales are. Does it matter which ones are the most common? Does that make them "better" than those which are uncommon? I understand this is important in terms of understanding how musical methods may have spread or influenced each other over time, but the way in which it is presented does not address this.
The articles in the 1970s focus much more on the idea that ethnomusicology includes essentially anything, any way of life or tradition or culture, that relates to music. The articles have moved away from the specifics of technique to addressing more of what music means to society. In the 1950s articles, authors try and convince the readers that ethnomusicology is an interdisciplinary study, but I didn't find their arguments very convincing. They give you the what, but not the how. In the 1970s articles, however, the authors really spend more time discussing the methods as they pertain to different fields. This to me showed how much the field grew to really associate itself with anthropology. You can also tell that ethnomusicologists have really abandoned the term comparative musicology by this time. Another major difference I noticed was simply how the authors talked about the term ethnomusicology. In the 1950s, the authors made much more of an effort to specifically describe what the word meant, what people in the field did, and its applications in society. However, in the 1970s, authors are careful in how they describe ethnomusicology, and many of them describe it as a somewhat ambiguous term/study that can't be accurately described without going against the purpose of the study itself. They also seem much more careful in how they address other cultures so as to not have a superiority complex over the societies they are studying. This goes hand in hand with abandoning comparative musicology and focusing more on integration and observation.
The articles in the 1950s seem heavily focused on musical technique. Many of the authors talk about specifics of scales, such as ascending versus descending, or scale degrees. They often compare the specific differences between countries or continents. I found that the authors particularly liked to address "Western versus Non-Western", or "American versus European". This to me seems like a very narrow minded way of thinking, and presents many of the issues the articles we have read for class discussed themselves. In particular, I do not think the term comparative musicology had been completely abandoned yet. Some of the articles talk about moving away from the idea of it, but most of the articles still describe methods that come off as comparative to me. Even just mentioning the scales of different countries in comparison to America sets a tone of power, especially be discussing what the most common scales are. Does it matter which ones are the most common? Does that make them "better" than those which are uncommon? I understand this is important in terms of understanding how musical methods may have spread or influenced each other over time, but the way in which it is presented does not address this.
The articles in the 1970s focus much more on the idea that ethnomusicology includes essentially anything, any way of life or tradition or culture, that relates to music. The articles have moved away from the specifics of technique to addressing more of what music means to society. In the 1950s articles, authors try and convince the readers that ethnomusicology is an interdisciplinary study, but I didn't find their arguments very convincing. They give you the what, but not the how. In the 1970s articles, however, the authors really spend more time discussing the methods as they pertain to different fields. This to me showed how much the field grew to really associate itself with anthropology. You can also tell that ethnomusicologists have really abandoned the term comparative musicology by this time. Another major difference I noticed was simply how the authors talked about the term ethnomusicology. In the 1950s, the authors made much more of an effort to specifically describe what the word meant, what people in the field did, and its applications in society. However, in the 1970s, authors are careful in how they describe ethnomusicology, and many of them describe it as a somewhat ambiguous term/study that can't be accurately described without going against the purpose of the study itself. They also seem much more careful in how they address other cultures so as to not have a superiority complex over the societies they are studying. This goes hand in hand with abandoning comparative musicology and focusing more on integration and observation.
Second Critical Review
This critical review is in response to "Writing Against Culture" by Lila Abu-Lughod.
Abu-Lughold focuses on the main distinction between the self and the other in this piece, specifically through anthropologists, feminists, and "halfies". There is a fine line between self vs. other and power vs. inferiority. Through each of these studies, as professions attempt to expand their knowledge on cultures other than their own, they consequently create the other. But this is also limiting in their creation of boundaries - why do separate countries need to be separate entities? There will always be some crossover between what we define as different cultures, as people are not physically separated from each other nor are they unaware of societies that exist beyond their immediate proximity. At this point in time, with our methods of communication and transportation, almost no one in the world is completely isolated and ignorant of the fact that somewhere there exists a people different from him/herself. But Abu-Lughold discusses how such differences cannot be defined by concrete terms, as ways of mankind really exist along a spectrum with no distinct borders. I like how she discusses how in order for one to find or discover his/herself, the other must exist. The self and the other depend on each other. This could be an explanation as to why people seem to take comfort in labeling both themselves and their peers. Maybe mankind has a tendency to segregate to feel more secure about their selves.
This made me wonder, what is the threshold for defining someone or another culture as different? Obviously similarities and differences exist across all realms of culture, from nations to states to towns to individuals. So when do people decide to call something different? There is an infinite number of characteristics that constitutes each individual, which is why we really exist on a spectrum. But this spectrum can't really be a two dimensional line from black to white, it must extend into all dimensions to really represent all that defines a single being. It strikes me as odd that people can be turned off by a single trait in a single being. Or, vice versa, people can be attracted to a single trait in a single being. So bringing this back to the discussion of the self and the other, how does an anthropologist successfully immerse him/herself into a new society to study their culture? Must the anthropologist possess certain traits to be accepted into this new society? Is it really possible for an anthropologist to be treated as a member of this society, even if the society perceives him/her as different?
Abu-Lughold focuses on the main distinction between the self and the other in this piece, specifically through anthropologists, feminists, and "halfies". There is a fine line between self vs. other and power vs. inferiority. Through each of these studies, as professions attempt to expand their knowledge on cultures other than their own, they consequently create the other. But this is also limiting in their creation of boundaries - why do separate countries need to be separate entities? There will always be some crossover between what we define as different cultures, as people are not physically separated from each other nor are they unaware of societies that exist beyond their immediate proximity. At this point in time, with our methods of communication and transportation, almost no one in the world is completely isolated and ignorant of the fact that somewhere there exists a people different from him/herself. But Abu-Lughold discusses how such differences cannot be defined by concrete terms, as ways of mankind really exist along a spectrum with no distinct borders. I like how she discusses how in order for one to find or discover his/herself, the other must exist. The self and the other depend on each other. This could be an explanation as to why people seem to take comfort in labeling both themselves and their peers. Maybe mankind has a tendency to segregate to feel more secure about their selves.
This made me wonder, what is the threshold for defining someone or another culture as different? Obviously similarities and differences exist across all realms of culture, from nations to states to towns to individuals. So when do people decide to call something different? There is an infinite number of characteristics that constitutes each individual, which is why we really exist on a spectrum. But this spectrum can't really be a two dimensional line from black to white, it must extend into all dimensions to really represent all that defines a single being. It strikes me as odd that people can be turned off by a single trait in a single being. Or, vice versa, people can be attracted to a single trait in a single being. So bringing this back to the discussion of the self and the other, how does an anthropologist successfully immerse him/herself into a new society to study their culture? Must the anthropologist possess certain traits to be accepted into this new society? Is it really possible for an anthropologist to be treated as a member of this society, even if the society perceives him/her as different?
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
First Critical Review - Richard Handler and Jocelyn Linnekin
Handler and Linnekin aim to define tradition and its common misuses in modern society. To view a particular tradition as old or new "encourages us to see culture and tradition naturalistically, as bounded entities made up of constituent parts that are themselves bounded objects. They go on to discuss how it is not really feasible to say that culture remains stagnant through time, because modern context changes the interpretation and meaning traditions from the past. In addition to this, for us to refer to the past means we are in the present and have a different frame of reference that influences how we view these aspects of culture as objects that identify certain nations and groups of people.
One of my favorite points they made was that the people who preceded us were not consciously aware they were establishing traditions for their nations - it was simply their way of life. Handler and Linnekin discuss this in their case study of culture in Hawaii, as they examine the convergence nationalist and rural Hawaiian tradition. This is why we do not need to base tradition off of its relation to the past - what is important is its relevance in present day society. In conventional luau, Hawaiians would offer kumu, a red fish, to the Gods, because "red was a ritually high color". But nowadays, luaus are characterized by the serving of lomi-lomi salmon. This is also a red fish, and as Handler and Linnekin point out, "very few modern Hawaiians are aware that lomi salmon is probably a surrogate for the kumu fish...this historical relationship is irrelevant, and lomi salmon is just as traditional, just as meaningful, as kulolo or laulaus".
This made really question what it means to have tradition, and what constitutes tradition in general. Just as we listen to certain types of music and are inclined to associate it with a specific culture, society, and/or setting, we distinguish people and groups of people through these defining characteristics. So even though tradition can bring about feelings of pride and nationalism, can it also be a means of separation amongst mankind? How so? Especially in America, where people come from all over the world with all different backgrounds, there can often be a conflict between the traditions of where you are from and the traditions the define where you settle. So how do you decide which ones are more important to stay true to? Is it possible to combine traditions from two separate societies and still feel as though you are equally a part of each one? Where does your personal identity come into play in all of this?
One of my favorite points they made was that the people who preceded us were not consciously aware they were establishing traditions for their nations - it was simply their way of life. Handler and Linnekin discuss this in their case study of culture in Hawaii, as they examine the convergence nationalist and rural Hawaiian tradition. This is why we do not need to base tradition off of its relation to the past - what is important is its relevance in present day society. In conventional luau, Hawaiians would offer kumu, a red fish, to the Gods, because "red was a ritually high color". But nowadays, luaus are characterized by the serving of lomi-lomi salmon. This is also a red fish, and as Handler and Linnekin point out, "very few modern Hawaiians are aware that lomi salmon is probably a surrogate for the kumu fish...this historical relationship is irrelevant, and lomi salmon is just as traditional, just as meaningful, as kulolo or laulaus".
This made really question what it means to have tradition, and what constitutes tradition in general. Just as we listen to certain types of music and are inclined to associate it with a specific culture, society, and/or setting, we distinguish people and groups of people through these defining characteristics. So even though tradition can bring about feelings of pride and nationalism, can it also be a means of separation amongst mankind? How so? Especially in America, where people come from all over the world with all different backgrounds, there can often be a conflict between the traditions of where you are from and the traditions the define where you settle. So how do you decide which ones are more important to stay true to? Is it possible to combine traditions from two separate societies and still feel as though you are equally a part of each one? Where does your personal identity come into play in all of this?
Monday, January 30, 2012
24 Hour Listening Log
I recorded all of the music I heard from Sunday evening, the 29th, until this evening, the 30th.
9:00 pm I played around on spotify to make a new workout playlist. I listened to bits and pieces of:
Stereo Hearts - Gym Class Heroes feat. Adam Levine
Without You - David Guetta, Usher
All Of The Lights - Kanye West
Lost in the World - Kanya West
Look At Me Now - Chris Brown feat. Lil Wayne & Busta Rhyme
Eye Of The Tiger - Survivor
Lose Yourself - Eminem
We Will Rock You - Queen
Waka Waka - Shakira
Mr. Saxobeat - Alexandra Stan
Boomerang - DJ Felli Fel feat. Akon, Pitbull & Jermaine Dupri
8:15 am Woken up to Closer to You by Brandi Carlile.
12:00 pm At lunch my friends tried to help me decide what song to sing for a cappella auditions. We sang through a variety of excerpts of songs (some serious, some not), such as A Whole New World, Under the Sea, Let's Give Them Something to Talk About, Above Ground, a monotone alto line consisting of a single note... As you may have guessed, the last option was quickly rejected.
3:30 pm I got home from class and decided to watch an episode of 30 Rock. This consisted of the 30 rock theme song, background music played through the show, and of course a performance from the lovely Jenna Maroney.
4:30 pm While doing homework I like to listen to classical or jazz music. Today's choices were:
Nocturne for Piano, No. 8 in D flat major - Chopin
Etude for Piano No. 21, Op. 25,9 - Chopin
Waltz No. 7 in c sharp minor, Op. 64,2 - Chopin
Nocturne for Piano No. 7 in c sharp minor, Op. 27, 1
Klactoveesedstene - Roy Hargrove
Parker's Mood - Roy Hargrove
Marmaduke - Roy Hargrove
Laura - Roy Hargrove
Dexterity - Roy Hargrove
6:00 pm While walking to the dining hall I listened to an acoustic version of Breakeven by The Script
6:30-8:30 pm Chorus Rehearsal. The pieces we rehearsed tonight were:
Three Graduals For The Church Year For Mixed Voices - Anton Bruckner
Cantemus! - Bardos
Beethoven's 9th Symphony
9:00-10:00 pm I went to the ADPi rush event tonight and someone was playing the piano occasionally. He was playing some classical music I couldn't identify, but then he did play Bittersweet Symphony by The Verve. I may have sang along.
10:30 pm iphone marimba alarm to remind me to finish work.
9:00 pm I played around on spotify to make a new workout playlist. I listened to bits and pieces of:
Stereo Hearts - Gym Class Heroes feat. Adam Levine
Without You - David Guetta, Usher
All Of The Lights - Kanye West
Lost in the World - Kanya West
Look At Me Now - Chris Brown feat. Lil Wayne & Busta Rhyme
Eye Of The Tiger - Survivor
Lose Yourself - Eminem
We Will Rock You - Queen
Waka Waka - Shakira
Mr. Saxobeat - Alexandra Stan
Boomerang - DJ Felli Fel feat. Akon, Pitbull & Jermaine Dupri
8:15 am Woken up to Closer to You by Brandi Carlile.
12:00 pm At lunch my friends tried to help me decide what song to sing for a cappella auditions. We sang through a variety of excerpts of songs (some serious, some not), such as A Whole New World, Under the Sea, Let's Give Them Something to Talk About, Above Ground, a monotone alto line consisting of a single note... As you may have guessed, the last option was quickly rejected.
3:30 pm I got home from class and decided to watch an episode of 30 Rock. This consisted of the 30 rock theme song, background music played through the show, and of course a performance from the lovely Jenna Maroney.
4:30 pm While doing homework I like to listen to classical or jazz music. Today's choices were:
Nocturne for Piano, No. 8 in D flat major - Chopin
Etude for Piano No. 21, Op. 25,9 - Chopin
Waltz No. 7 in c sharp minor, Op. 64,2 - Chopin
Nocturne for Piano No. 7 in c sharp minor, Op. 27, 1
Klactoveesedstene - Roy Hargrove
Parker's Mood - Roy Hargrove
Marmaduke - Roy Hargrove
Laura - Roy Hargrove
Dexterity - Roy Hargrove
6:00 pm While walking to the dining hall I listened to an acoustic version of Breakeven by The Script
6:30-8:30 pm Chorus Rehearsal. The pieces we rehearsed tonight were:
Three Graduals For The Church Year For Mixed Voices - Anton Bruckner
Cantemus! - Bardos
Beethoven's 9th Symphony
9:00-10:00 pm I went to the ADPi rush event tonight and someone was playing the piano occasionally. He was playing some classical music I couldn't identify, but then he did play Bittersweet Symphony by The Verve. I may have sang along.
10:30 pm iphone marimba alarm to remind me to finish work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)