Critical Review #4

Wong, Deborah.  “Moving from Performance to Performative Ethnography and Back Again.”  Shadows in the Field.  Ed. Barz and Cooley.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 76-89.

Deborah Wong’s chapter on Performative Ethnography is accessible to the general public, unlike last week’s Clifford reading, which is only easy to understand for a select group of scholars.  Wong employs several “ethnographic moments” throughout her text to draw the reader in, as though the reader is attending a performance; it is this writing technique that drives her argument.  Her work is wholly reflexive, and she is constantly referring to her double role as a Taiko drummer and an ethnomusicologist.  For her, the job of the ethnomusicologist is not only to develop broad generalizations about a culture but also to study the important ethnographic moments.  I hope that ethnographic writing moves more in this direction. 

On page 80, Wong outlines a few “ideological problems” that Classical western musicians may encounter, including “the understanding that performing is categorically different from everyday life.”  What are the implications of this statement?  Would she have classical instrumentalists look at their “performances” as extensions of everyday life, or vice versa? 

SEM through the ages

The mission statement of the January 1956 “Ethno-musicology” newsletter declares that the publication “at present is intended to serve as a vehicle for the exchange of ideas and opinions, news and information among the widely scattered members of our field of study.”  This fledgling periodical was then calling itself a “newsletter” and it had only printed five issues.  In its very early stages, as the journal was trying to find its niche and hammer out its mission, the field of Ethnomusicology as we know it today was at a turning point.

In order to better understand the history of the discipline, I looked at and compared three issues of the journal from different stages in its history.  The earliest “newsletters” were concise, 30-page publications with about 10 pages of text followed by a 20-page bibliography; there were no complete articles, and much of the journal was dedicated to recording the minutes of related meetings.  

The next journal I removed from the shelf was Volume 32, Number 1, from winter 1988; this issue was already markedly different.  Not only had the mission changed to include more relevant language (“all interested persons, regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin are encouraged to become members”), but also the sheer size of the journal had increased to more than 150 pages.  Even the title had changed: whereas in 1956 there was a hyphen between Ethno- and musicology, by 1988 the word had been accepted as a whole.  Additionally, the journal was no longer a “newsletter,” but a Journal for the Society of Ethnomusicology, which had not yet been established in January 1956. 

When I pulled out the most recent journal on the shelf (Volume 51, Number 3), I found Kiri’s article on Grand Theft Auto, and it was clear to me that the field had changed a great deal.  I opened to page 402 and began to read, and immediately I spotted reflexivity, even in the first sentence.  Although I did not read the articles in the 2007 issue of the journal in their entirety, the authors seemed to focus as much on the cultures of the people studied as on their music; an article subtitled “Rock, Cosmopolitanism, and the Nation in Trinidad” by Timothy Rommen, and another exploring “Expressivity and Grammar in Vocal Performance” appear with Kiri’s work. 

I turned back to Volume 1, Number 6 and read the list of papers of interest that were presented at the American Anthropological Association that year; the first, by Willard Rhodes, was called “Toward a Definition of Ethnomusicology.”  It seems that defining the discipline will never grow old.  The other three papers, however, seem dated: all seem to focus on the classification and analysis of the music of the world, with very little focus on each music-culture.  I noticed that there were no Americans studying music of the USA in that journal and that there were few, if any, indications of reflexivity. 

The issue from 1988 does indeed show the evolution of the field, as one might expect.  When I read the beginning of Chris Goertzen’s article on Country music in Vienna, I noticed the extreme importance he attributed to his fieldwork, as has always been done, but I also noticed the term “participant-observer,” which indicates reflexivity. 

Ethnomusicology seems to be an ever-evolving field, and only by understanding its history can we hope to continue to progress. 

Critical Review #3

Clifford, James.  “On Ethnographic Authority.” The Predicament of Culture.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988. 21-54.

Clifford’s dense chapter on ethnographic authority addresses the perennial problem of the responsibility of the anthropologist; he must portray the people he studies in a scholarly fashion, but he must figure out how to be honest.  This raises the question of objectivity and participant-observation, about which he writes in some detail.  He outlines the history of writing ethnographies, citing major authors and describing their methods and their techniques of asserting authority, and his article shows that he is in favor of the evolution that has taken place in the past century.  He describes “experiential, interpretive, dialogical, and polyphonic processes” that must all be employed in writing an ethnography to assure its “coherent presentation” (54).  

In his discussion of interpretive anthropology, Clifford suggests that reading a culture is like reading a book, and that one can analyze a culture as one would a text.  Does this idea fit into the “participant-observation” frame that he has so carefully laid out?  Isn’t a culture ever-evolving, whereas a text (written firmly on the page) is only evolving in the way we see it? 

Fieldwork

I would like to write about the Brown Opera Productions scenes concert, which will take place the weekend of October 30-November 2.  Four to six scenes will be presented, and I will select one of the groups with which I am not involved to study from an ethnomusicological perspective.  Each group will include a director, an accompanist/music director, and several singers.

My hope in studying this kind of group is to understand the relationship between the fields of theater and music.  How does a director who works primarily with non-singing actors interact with singers who find it hard to "come out of their shells"?  What kind of role does a music director/accompanist play?  Are boundaries crossed in working with opera that allow all the members of the scenes to gain a greater understanding of both theater and music?  Is there some kind of hierarchy between music and theater, and how do the opinions of this ranking differ within the group?  What is the rehearsal dynamic?  Is there a definite leader, or is it a collaborative effort?  

Critical Review 2

Shelemay, Kay K. “The Ethnomusicologist, Ethnographic Method, and the Transmission of Tradition.”  Shadows in the Field.  Ed. Barz and Cooley. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 141-156.

I found Kay Shelemay’s description of the active role of the ethnomusicologist in the transmission of tradition convincing.  She addressed the differences in the field work of anthropology and ethnomusicology, and ultimately she came to the conclusion that ethnomusicologists must reconcile the commitment to preserving musical heritage from the musicological standpoint with the reciprocity and responsibilities that anthropologists worry about.  After citing her own field experience, she outlines the ways that ethnomusicologists will inevitably become involved with the transmission of a tradition and then lays out a set of rules or guidelines that they should follow.   She effectively makes the point that the ethnomusicologist must work reflexively, acknowledging that he or she will have some effect on the people with whom he works, and that he must make conscious choices in his work, understanding their consequences at all times.

Shelemay mentions “concerns regarding reciprocity and social responsibility” on page 143.  She later writes of an “implicit contract between the ethnomusicologist and the tradition’s native carriers” (150).   What does this focus on responsibility mean for the field of ethnomusicology, and how does it differ from studying Haydn and Mozart in “historical musicology”? 

Critical Review #1

Handler, Richard and Jocelyn Linnekin. “Tradition, Genuine or Spurious.” Journal of American Folklore 97.385 (1984): 273-290.

I was caught off guard by the thesis of Handler and Linnekin’s article on tradition: their suggestion that even “spurious” traditions are “genuine” made me take a step back and see “tradition” in a different light. They draw an important distinction between commonsense tradition, which suggests that a core of traits are passed from one generation to another, and tradition as a symbolic interpretation of a society’s past. They demonstrate their hypothesis by suggesting that the Quebecois have a tradition only because they put so much stock in a shared heritage and culture, even though objectively, their culture is very similar to most Canadians. Similarly, they show that Hawaiians look to rural villages to learn about their heritage and consequently adopt “traditional” practices, while the villagers have adopted modern ways.

In a world where globalization is causing languages to die and cultures to change, what is the role of “tradition?” How do societies that value their past reconcile traditional culture with mass media and the sometimes-called Americanization of the rest of the world?

24-hour log

Thursday, September 11

11:50 am-12 noon.  First two tracks of Wagner's Götterdammerung.  iPod.

2:20-2:55 pm. Continuation of Götterdammerung. iPod.

2:55-3:00 pm. Rock coming from the headphones of the person next to me in the mailroom.

3:00-3:10 pm. Continuation of Götterdammerung. iPod.

3:15-3:45 pm. Songs from Mamma Mia. iPod.

3:55-4:15 pm. Mozart oboe concerto. iPod.

Interruptions:

3:57 pm. Cell phone rings pop song.

4:05 pm. Rap coming from the windows of AEPi.

4:15 pm. 80's rock coming from the windows of AEPi.

4:26-4:38 pm. Prelude to Wagner's Parsifal.  Computer speakers.

4:45 pm. Random piano practice and singing practice as I entered Steinert.

4:46-6:25 pm. I played scales, Ferling etudes, Martinu, and Hindemeth on the oboe.  I also played English Horn during this time.  Steinert practice rooms.

6:26 pm. Sacred Harp ensemble.  Steinert practice rooms.

6:32 pm. Beginning of Un Ballo in Maschera.

-----

I arrived at orchestra rehearsal and heard all of the instrumentalists warm up until 7:24.

The following were the pieces we rehearsed during the next few hours:

7:24 pm. Lord of the Rings medley. 

8:00 pm. Brunoniana (LeRoy Anderson)

8:20 pm. Overture to Candide.

9:15 pm. Empire Strikes Back medley

9:21 pm. Harry Potter suite.

9:35 pm. Pirates of the Caribbean medley.

----

I then returned to my house, where we had a birthday party.

10:45 pm. Happy Birthday, sung by about 9 people.

11:55 pm-12:50 am. Random selections from Rock Band.

----

Friday, September 12

10:10 am.  "Friends" theme song.  Computer speakers.

Test Post

This is a test.