Response to Julie's Response to my question!

Response to Julie’s Comment

Julie’s comments in regard to my response provided a well-rounded view on the notion of how much historical context should be taken into account when viewing a culture’s musical performance. In reading your response, I became really interested in how an ethnographer views a performance ethnography versus an ethnography of a musical culture. Furthermore, how does historical context and background play a role in each one? Is it the job of the ethnographer to record an individual experience or the culture as a whole? I would agree with Julie that disregarding a culture’s history and background digresses focus from the culture and places more emphasis on the individual’s relationship to the performance. Ultimately, when we read an ethnography, we seek to maintain a balance between the two. As someone unfamiliar to a culture and its music, it is important to receive as much information about that culture as possible in order to truly understand the importance of the music that he/she is listening to and/or witnessing.

Your response only furthers the fact that this is an open-ended question. While no response will ever produce a precise or “correct” response, different views on what is covered in an ethnography can only add to this on-going discussion. Furthermore, I completely agree with your idea that performance ethnography deals with time-specific occurrences, while an ethnography of a musical culture focuses on events over a larger span of time. How does this shift in time effect how we will understand a culture and its musical performance? Will a specific moment versus a longer historical journey alter what we witness?

Critical Review # 10

Critical Review # 10

Titon views film and video as two modes through which an ethnographer can channel his/her perspective on a culture and its music. So often an ethnography is solely portrayed through written work. While this form of transcription is a way to see a culture and its music from the point of view of the ethnographer, according to Titon, it does not provide a more flexible depiction. Titon states, “so long as ethnographer’s assume the authority to represent other people, they control how others will appear in their texts, even if the ethnographer allows others to speak their own words.” By using film and video as a medium of ethnography, we are able to see a culture through two lenses. Not only do we get the ethnographer’s perspective through the camera, but we are also able to see the culture through our own eyes. Yes, the ethnographer “controls” what is put on film, but are able to get a visual representation of the actual culture, rather than a controlled textual interpretation. Titon furthers this notion by saying that “realism in film and video… offers up images and sounds in ways books can never do.” By visually witnessing a culture create and perform music, we can “magnify” what we literally see and interpret it however we would like to.

In reading his article, I wonder whether Titon believes that the ethnographer will always present a “biased” or limited depiction of a culture when he/she writes of it. He seems to believe that the visual approach is the more truthful and authentic way to see into a culture and its music. Does this mean that we, as students, should question what we read a little more closely versus what we see firsthand?  

Comment to Leen's Challenge Question Response

Comment to Leen’s Challenge Question

As students well-versed in our understanding of music, it is sometimes hard for us to realize that there are people outside of our scope of knowledge who don’t have as deep of an understanding of music. While this may sound elitist, it really is true and is a large part of your response. In mapping out the different ways people study music, it’s clear that there isn’t just one way to approach a piece or a genre. In recognizing each of the different modes through which we can view music through, it is really interesting to see which ones are considered more applicable to music students and scholars and those that correspond with the understanding and musical limitations of people who don’t study it. In reading your response, it becomes clear that the more “universal” approach to understanding music lies within the aural, oral, and recorded forms. Why is this? Is it because there is more room for interpretation from all types of listeners and not just the music scholars? Do the written and printed forms automatically inhibit those who are less familiar with the technicalities of music? Is it the mere sight of multiple sixteenth notes on a page that scares the average listener away?

Your argument in your conclusion really makes clear that the answers to these questions are working ones. Just as we don’t expect everyone to be able to comprehend sheet music, we, as ethnomusicologists cannot restructure our ways of approaching music to suit those whose knowledge of music is more limited. You’re right-- it is impossible to choose just one of Nettle’s points and deem it the “correct” or “right” way to approach music. Instead, it is our job as ethnomusicologists to embrace the oral, aural, written, printed, and recorded approaches and see which fits our own personal understanding of a piece of music.

Challenge Question

Challenge Question

While a culture’s background and history are two important elements in understanding its music, it is the live performance itself, as well as an ethnographer’s experience at that performance that lies at the heart of any ethnography. What an ethnomusicologist includes in a performance ethnography reflects the music of a given culture through the eyes of that ethnomusicologist. Because ethnomusicology is the meld between a culture and a culture’s music through the perspective of the outsider, an ethnography is a detailed account of what a certain person witnesses at that particular event. As a result, it is not the responsibility of the ethnomusicologist to present the “unseen”—historical context, background-- but rather, what that ethnomusicologist sees and hears when in the presence of live performance by that given culture.

Live performance of music can be seen through a series of layers- what instruments are used, how many performers play in the group, what songs are played, the audience size and reaction, and the performance as a whole. As a witness of a performance, an ethnographer can only focus on one aspect at a time while in the moment of watching a performance. In retrospect, however, these smaller pieces help to paint the larger picture of the performance in which each of these parts can be layered on top of one another in order to re-create the performance as a whole. What is remembered subconsciously or consciously cannot, and should not, influence what is or is not “important information;” what may be vital to a culture may not be what is witnessed at that particular moment. As a result, the observer cannot write about what he or she does not see and experience.  If a certain aspect of a performance is left out, it is because another element of that performance has remained more central in the observer’s memory; it is not because one aspect plays a larger role in the performance than another.

On a personal level, whenever I attend Opera in the Park in New York City, I become fully immersed in the music and the story that is being told onstage. While I am aware of the significance of opera and classical music in New York, and America in general, the dominant aspect of what I witness is the sound and action coming from onstage and how it affects the performers as well as the audience members. If I were to write a performance ethnography on a concert at Opera in Bryant Park, its main points of focus would be those of the performance, music, and how it affects those watching it. Because the history of opera in the United States is not included in that immediate account that I witness, I would not include it in my ethnography. Furthermore, within my ethnography of this performance, some aspects may stand out from others; I may reflect on a certain piece or scene more than another, merely because it had a greater impact on me at the time of performance. This does not stunt the performance experience as a whole or demean it, but purely satisfies the notion of ethnomusicology—to write of what is witnessed through the eyes of one individual.

Anthony Seeger’s views on ethnography focus on both the present and the past within a cultures’ musical performance. He utilizes the “who, what where, when, why, and how,” of a culture and its music, and as a result, makes the importance of a culture’s background just as significant as its present creation and performance of music. While I do not agree with the emphasis that Seeger places on background in order to convey a present musical experience, it is still important to consider his theory. Seeger’s notion makes the ethnographer aware of all aspects of a culture and its music. However, it is still important to be aware that no audience member or ethnographer will ever view a performance in the same way that someone else might. This not only creates an array of diverse accounts, but respects the notion that what is seen in live performance is the fundamental aspect in understanding a cultures’ music. 

Critical Review #9

Critical Review #9

In his article, Campbell focuses on the reactions toward “new” forms of Sacred Harp Singing versus the “old” form. Progress is the key term that acts as a “happy medium” between the two. The idea that Sacred Harp music must modernize in order to progress is one that devotees of the traditional style loathe. On the other hand, those who are in favor of the more contemporary gospel style feel that the only way to progress is to get rid of older styles and introduce newer ones. Herein lies the problem: Why must singers of Sacred Harp music give into the “out with the old, in with the new” motto? Traditionalists fear that the “intrusion of new elements…would pollute the sanctity of their tradition.” Those in favor of contemporary infusion worry that without revitalizing the traditional style, Sacred Harp singing could face “extinction.” As an outsider, I can only wonder whether or not there is a way to keep Sacred Harp music “pure” and closely embedded within its tradition, but not “pollute” it?  Why must modernization be seen as a form of “pollution?” Will the keeping of traditional styles really extinguish Sacred Harp music from the general musical scope?

Interestingly enough, Campbell states that it is the opposition between these two sides that “disguises some fundamental similarities between them.”  According to Campbell, both the modern and the traditional repertoires are easily learnable, and their music books merely seek to fuse both styles with one another, not disjoint them. Their point of contention lies within their followers, who refuse to see that this meld can, in fact, really exist. In reading Campbell’s article, I realize that contemporary revitalizations of older traditional music are not a form of exclusion, but rather, a joining of the past and present.