Throughout Agawu’s outlook on African music, it is important to take into consideration the choices of words he uses in relation to an emic/etic perspective. As Americans looking into another culture- but not specifically a part of it- we tend to use words that stem from pre-conceived notions, and thus tend to be ones that distance us from that culture. In looking at how rhythm is seen as the dominant force of native African music, Agawu cites sources that use language such as “noisy demonstration,” “irregular rhythms,” “wild music,” and “incoherence.” The historians who use these phrases to describe African music are ones from Western society who are describing their outer- or etic- perspective on African music. However, I cannot help but wonder: if African music is considered “wild” and “irregular” from a Western perspective, how are we, as Westerners, perceived by African musicians? Is our music conversely deemed “quiet,” “civilized,” and “regular?”
Agawu’s usage of language stems from the ultimate idea that music does not have to be based on notes written on a page. Rather, rhythm is embedded within African daily life and culture, so it cannot help but be a part of its musical fabric; if anything, we can say that art imitates life. In Western society, notes written out in front of us are considered the dominant element in our music-making. African culture, on the other hand, takes the rhythm of daily walking, hunting, and talking and turns that into music.
Even though I am an outsider to African musical traditions, it is clear that in order break away from preconceived musical expectations, we must find a balance between the emic perspective and the etic one. Usage of language and understanding of what lies at the basis of a cultures’ music-making are two elements that can help bridge the gap between a distanced point of view and an immersed one.
No comments:
Post a Comment