An interesting theme in this
chapter is that of an Ethnomusicologist’s worth. Especially prior to the
invention of recording devices, transcription was a critical skill for the preservation
of music which was a primary ethnomusicological goal. Nettl makes a comment
questioning the usefulness of transcription in summarizing the music and
culture it is in, yet, nevertheless, it is still of critical importance.
I found it particularly interesting
that Nettl observed ethnomusicology as one of the few fields in which machines
were not taking over, and were in fact being resisted despite the potential
benefit in reduced human labor. Machines, while they may be more accurate in
their diagnoses lack the ability to escape their programming should something
unexpected occur, or something not conventionally notable. While a machine
could more accurately record pitch (although I wonder if it would be able to
account for a performer going sharp as the environment changed without
modulating) and rhythm theoretically, it would be unable to perceive mood or
impressions in place of actual occurrences.
This shortcoming of machines again
places worth on human ability because a human can apply discretion concerning
what is valuable to include, as opposed to what can be omitted since Nettl
acknowledges that a completely comprehensive transcription is impossible as
well as impractical because it would be so complicated to discern after the
fact. Humans will also know their intended audience’s background knowledge (be
it scholarly in the style, in a different style, or native musicians) which
would further dictate what was necessary to include and what would be assumed.
Even with the easy access to
recordings today, transcription is still necessary. Listening to a piece of
music, there is no way that I would be able to discern nearly as much as
someone highly trained in that style would be able to, but viewing a transcription
made by that person can start to give some insight as to how they would go
about analyzing it. It is also highly personal, however. What I think may sound
like it is of the utmost importance, they may disregard as a performance
choice, or as typical practice. That being said, Nettl conveys how insulting it
can be to have a transcription of yours criticized. It makes sense—to be told
your transcription is incorrect is tantamount to being told your logic and
perception, and background knowledge are flawed, which is one thing for a
student to hear, but quite another for an expert.
Transcription is also very malleable
based on what is being transcribed. Nettl told how Strumpf used to transcribe
based on many renditions by a live performer to create a sort of “average”
which was supposed to be more representative of the music itself as opposed to
the particular performer or performance and remove errors that could occur in a
recording that was only done once. There are an awful lot of decisions to be
made in regards to transcription, but it definitely leaves a lot of room for
interpretation, and error, especially if it is based on a style that western
notation cannot easily be applied and an essentially new method of representing
the music has to be utilized.
Even if transcription is beneficial to learning a piece of music, what about music traditions that never had been notated (i.e. Omaha + Fillmore's attempts to transcribe their music & encountering pitch difficulties)? For all the formal analysis I have done in my education as a Music Major, I can't help but think that some songs/pieces may not have been following a strict formula. Most of the songs we've been taught to analyze don't necessarily follow a strict formula anyway & yet we are analyzing them based on a given set of rules. What if there was a tradition of flat-out solo improvisation? Even if one may argue there is a certain form to it, is it impossible that someone may have just spontaneously produced music & had it become a tradition?
ReplyDeleteAttempts to objectively/mechanically measure & describe all types of music in ethnomusicology almost seems like an effort that may go beyond the basic nature & purpose of music (whatever that may be). Personally music is an emotional process before I think of it as a technical process but transcription & its implications seems to prioritize the technical aspect of music...
I believe that transcription is great for some types of music. I believe that it is great to be able to follow a piece of music that has been transcribed a certain way so that when played it always sounds the same and uses the set of given rules. I believe that musicians should also be given the opportunity to improvise though. You can't write out and improvisation for a soloist.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with what Nettl states that machines aren't taking over Ethnomusicology. It's going to be hard for a machine to be able to identify a way that a player sounds. It's definitely something that I can see happening in the future, but not anytime soon.
I think that the value of transcription will depend on the person and/or the culture they are studying the music in. Transcription to Western notation by itself would seem to almost force a comparison of the music to Western music, which may or may not be useful on some level, but this also removes certain musics from the cultural context that is needed to study them. For music that is transmitted orally I feel like to really understand the music and how it operates in the culture one has to learn through the culture that the music was developed in. That being said transcriptions and recordings are helpful in the world of academia where records of research are pretty much required and transcriptions and recordings are a part of making records of research.
ReplyDeleteThe standard western methods of transcription that everyone associates music with can be very hard to capture the emotional and other forces behind the performance of the music just as it is difficult to capture those qualities with technologies and machines. In that respect I agree with Nettl in that machines are not taking over the field, as music is such a subjective medium that it is often hard to describe music objectively - especially when talking about performance practice and the subtleties that make a culture's music truly unique and beautiful.
ReplyDeleteWhat about experimental and new music though? I have seen a handful of their scores and they are attempting to bridge that gap between the ink on paper and the actual actions a performer does. But.. then again, these scores are almost always produced by a composer and not a transcriber. It would be far too difficult to transcribe some of the music I've heard here at UCSD, especially while trying to analyze it for the sake of musicological purposes.
I pretty much agree with everyone else. Transcription is a tricky subject. It is, of course, never going to completely capture a musical style, tradition, or culture. After all, it merely is a representation. Nevertheless, it as a vehicle through which one can learn to better understand a foreign musical practice, I believe is useful. It is, as stated above, more of a "Western" practice (and almost "need") to document and classify everything (particularly foreign "things"). Some may even argue that initially there might have been more of a "colonialistic" approach of cultural heirarchy and prejudice that may have existed (i.e. "learning" new cultures with the motive of "discovering" that "ours" is better than "yours"). That aside, its existence and use as a tool for learning is undeniable. Whether or not what is learned is useful or accurate - that depends i suppose.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone's response for the most part too. In particular, Brent's response resonated well with me. Transcription has its merits in certain musics, but for some traditions, it doesn't seem like it would be very helpful at all and it may even be better to not use it at all. For example, I don't think transcriptions would be very helpful in an oral and improvised music such as freestyle rap. I don't see transcriptions really being of much use at all here. Here, it'd be better to understand and take part in the culture.
ReplyDeleteI don't think transcription is necessary, but can certainly be helpful in understanding SOME music. I was beating myself up earlier this week as I was to do a presentation of Nancarrow's Study for Player Piano No. 6. Nancarrow wrote the piece by punching piano roll. He was focused on a more mathematical approach to music. My teacher said he then later transcribed the music to written score so that it could be copyrighted. Of course, I looked at the score and the music suddenly made sense to me, but this was never Nancarrow's intent! I would have, of course, preferred to study the actual piano roll, but this was not easily accessible to me so I had to settle for the score. In a way, I felt like I cheated.
ReplyDeleteTranscription, although not necessary, can be a valuable tool in getting a point across. In certain musical genres (i.e. classical), it is important for a composer to illustrate a certain idea through his transcription. It could be in the form of extended notes, change in tempo, or even the way it should be played (i.e. allegro).
ReplyDeleteThis idea does somewhat breakdown when dealing with music passed down through oral tradition. Many (if not all) of the Armenian songs I've learned throughout my life have been through someone passing it down to me without any sort of transcription.
What is the difference between a transcription and a score? Between prescription and description?
ReplyDeleteA score should be more the idealistic representation of what is being heard, whereas a transcription is what actually happened (with some margin of error/omission). A score can never (or almost never) be a 100% true representation of the actual music because there is too much in music that can be interpreted, some aspects even subconsciously. Tempos and dynamics are one of the first things that come to mind that can be exaggerated in the heat of an energized performance. The f on the page could easily become a fff at the end of a final movement of a symphony if the lead trumpet and brass section lead an overenthusiastic crescendo and the orchestra follows suit. Neither transcription nor scores can perfectly represent music, and each has its advantages and limitations.
Delete