This article was informative, yet also rather.... well... let's just say I got a few good winks of z's from reading it. It is quite hard to form an opinion on it as much of it, if not all of it, is the history of ethnomusicology's growth post-1945. Bohlman discusses the evolution and the "paradigm shifts" of the practice of ethnomusicology from just music to the applications of music within culture and society.
I shall briefly summarize and provide an opinion on what I found to be the most interesting aspect of Bohlman's article and its relation to the paradigm shifts ethnomusicology underwent with the advent of recording and playback technologies. Originally, recordings of traditional musics and melodies were for archival and historical purposes with... adequate support from external organizations and communities. With the rise of ethnomusicology becoming an academic field of study, along came the increased funds from these universities and organizations to fund research and field work on recording, exploring, and discovering new aspects of a culture's music. With the rise in popularity of ethnomusicology, so too did the recordings and the musics of other cultures (this is still when ethnomusicology was considered most world musics EXCEPT western art music and their traditions).
This led to a transformation in which the recordings that were once used primarily for scientific and archival purposes changed to a more public and commercial view; for many reasons I might add. One of these reasons is for the benefit and goodwill of increasing the awareness of these musics through its commercialization, leading to a greater purpose to record and archive these pieces for the public to enjoy. Another reason is for the positive-growth profit model that this genre of music "world music" can generate. Companies in both private and business sectors acted as sponsors for ethnomusicologists to conduct field research and the production of quality recordings to be enjoyed at one's pleasure by the consumer and at one's leisure by the scholar. The large increase in available funds contributed to both the amount of recordings seen as well as the technologies that were used to record them.
Now to get to the heart of things. I found this particularly interesting because "world music" is one of the genres of music that I listen to quite often and this section in Bohlman's article sparked interest and thought at a hopefully deeper level. World music is its own genre as labeled by the music industry and its consumers (it certainly has a nicer ring to it than "traditional musics of the world" or "ethnomusic" or something of the sort) has led to what I believe the commercialization, popularization, and stereotyping of this genre. As with any type of music, the companies behind the recording and publication need to make a profit. In modern day, after many recordings of many different traditional musics exist, with some more popular than others *Irish/Celtic music* and overtime they have become increasingly stereotyped to sound one way or the other - usually much less traditional than the average listener would think - that is not to say that it doesn't sound good or is completely disregarding traditions but it is an attempt to make the music more popular and generate profit.
An example of this would be from the Irish/Celtic music tradition:
More traditional - A collection of Reels and Jigs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3xeTpgLP5o
Less traditional but perhaps more stereotypical:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPr8v67-CW4
Just type in 'celtic music' in youtube and you'll find countless examples of this.
Bringing it back to the Bohlman article, ethnomusicology greatly evolved in both practice and technologies as the field itself became an "anthropology of music", observing the cultural and aesthetic elements that music has towards a society. The type of music that we consider 'world music' today, comes from its classification by ethnomusicologists for public consumption as well as historical and archival purposes. Without the desire to spread the knowledge and appreciation of this music - and also in some respects to profit from it, an appreciation for these musics and their respective cultures may not be as well received as they are now within our society.
-- I'm not sure I've done this reading response correctly since there were really no arguments in this set of articles as it is all history of the growth of what is Ethnomusicology. With that being said, I took liberties in the response because of the lack of argument within the article. I had fun in writing the post though; perhaps I will also be relating this concept of recording technologies and the commercialization of these musics in their relation to popular music.
- Jordan
aye, that's great Jordan, thanks—as I mentioned, those first readings are the most dry and hard to get your teeth into. Let's see what everyone else has to say.
ReplyDeleteThis particular reading was frustrating for me, not so much in that it was dry, but because it touched on what sounded like very interesting topics but then just went on to the next step in history rather than go more in-depth...Alan Merriam's tripartite model (music, behavior, & conceptualization) & the sociopolitical context of ethnomusicological studies...
ReplyDeleteIn response to what Jordan wrote about the transition prompted by changing recording practices (from academic to more commercial), I agree with what he says about 'world music' becoming increasingly accessible for the general public to appreciate. But I also had a question about whether the intent behind ethnomusicology is the same, especially when commercialization gets involved. In other words, is the music provided by ethnomusicologists a good representation of 'world music' or have there been selective processes in order to record, produce, and distribute musics that would be more comprehensive for the public? One of the other readings refers to Alan Lomax who made many recordings of blues artists who may otherwise have never been heard or remembered, but at the same time folklorists & blues ethnomusicologists seem have systematically selected songs by artists who are more marketable or more in line with the norm. This would mean that other artists whose styles are NOT deemed 'real' or 'marketable' folk/blues/etc (by whose standards?) would not be heard, leading to a generalization of what the music sounds like when there are actually many more styles & nuances.
The issue of inclusivity seems to crop up often in terms of different ethnic music practices but also within the practices & genres themselves. This leads to another question I have (maybe unrelated so much to the reading & rather more out of personal interest): does ethnomusicology include the analysis of music within single cultures or is specifically a comparative study between cultures/ethnicity? I'm particularly fond of British music (post-WWII onwards, basically) & always found the trajectory of styles extremely fascinating, especially when compared to the concurrent sociopolitical climates. This will probably be something I'll just research on my own but I was just wondering whether this type of study can be included in 'ethnomusicology' as well?
I agree with both Jordan and Eunah. As I was reading this I too got a "good few winks of z's" as Jordan puts it. Eunah I completely feel you as well though. As I started to become interested in one particular topic he jumps on to another and another and another. It's as if right when you begin to get a glimpse of something hes like and on to the next topic. I wish he would have gone a little more in depth into some of these topics. It was very dry.
ReplyDeleteIm not a very good at being thrown dates at and expected to get into what people are saying. I like to be told a story. I like to know why he is talking about this, how it was used, what its for.
I'm the same way myself, hopefully these'll be the only readings that really feel that way.
DeleteOne of the things that I took note of in this article, which relates, albeit a bit loosely, to your subject of commercialization, Jordan, was the paragraph relating concerns regarding "whose music was subjected to ethnomusicolobical study; by whom and for whom; to what ends..." I know there are extensive regulations regarding ethics when psychological or sociological studies are done, but are there similar parameters regarding ethnomusicology? Now, logically, the performers probably knew they were being observed, and that some sorts of notes were being taken away, but I doubt they had any idea about how readily available the information would one day be to the general public of so many cultures.
ReplyDeleteThrough a purely capitalistic lens: does anyone really have a right to make money from commercial use of a traditional melody that, in that culture, may have been the property of the individual or region? Should it be restricted by country in originated in? By nationality of the original transcriber?
Jordan is right about the reading being a little exhausting to get through, especially since it is history. But what I found interesting about it was that as technology advanced and ways the record the music advanced, we see a change in the way we study and perceive music from different cultures. But even then to me the way music should be understood is within its own cultural context. It should be studied along side with studying the culture, and the own culture's interpretation and understanding of their music. Not so much looking for universals between musics.
ReplyDeleteI think Alex brings up an interesting point on the ethical boundaries of ethnomusicology as I can't think of hearing much about them as of right now. I think the quote Alex used really highlights the question that Eunah brought forward of who is the one deciding on the 'real' and 'marketable' musics and who they will be marketed to. So, while the general community might be able to access a wider variety of musics and it does raise an awareness of and about other musical cultures there is also the pitfall that someone else is defining what other musical cultures are. As in the example Eunah used, with the blues, a select number of people decided what 'real' blues was and marketed that as such, and so the general populace understood the interpretation presented to them as being the one true and real interpretation, which as we know wasn't in fact the case.
ReplyDelete