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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)