Nettl starts off with the statement that the field of ethnomusicology has, in the past, neglected the individual in non-Western music due to the misconception that said music is largely homogenous until influenced by Western cultures. He then examines three different approaches to studying the individual in music: biography, personal repertory, and personal performance practice. Nettl also mentions that it is important to examine the great, the mediocre, and the ordinary musician in each society and/or culture to fully understand the musical thinking within that society/culture.
I found this chapter particularly interesting because Nettl's point that the ordinary musician is important to understanding a particular musical thinking is one that I have never considered. We often study influential musicians in our music courses here at UCSD, but rarely is the normal, everyday musician examined. Influential musicians play a role in shaping a society's music, but that music is exemplified best in what the mass recognizes as the society's music. The mass consolidates the music of the greats and forms an identity for the music.
I was also rather taken with the notion that the everyday, "typical" musician has a lot of information, and possibly more representative information that an ethnomusicologist can learn. As a society, we would like to showcase our best and brightest because we would like to take credit for their achievements because we somehow influenced/aided/allowed their greatness and that means that we deserve a share in their glory. (My thoughts went very much to the Olympic games when I typed that). Yet, these select superstars are outliers within a culture, not the norm. They may show what we would like to achieve, in a perfect world, but they do not show what the real, everyday person gets out of music.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting, the section in which Nettl talked about the informant he had spoken with who called himself "the best" even though he was no where near what we would consider "the best" but that the only way to be considered valid and worthwhile as a musician in that culture was to be in the superlative category. It made me consider if competitiveness is a widespread commonality in musicians. Certainly it is very present in western culture, but I wonder if other cultures also seek to use musical talent as a way of outdoing one another, or if it has a more cooperative nature elsewhere.
Since my project deals primarily with prerecorded music, and I doubt musicians set out with the goal in mind, "Oooh, I hope my record is the best mellow soccer mom in a department store candidate for overhead speakers everywhere!" the competitiveness I was talking of before comes from the stores, or contracted third party, themselves. They are trying to outdo other music programmers in order to create the best possible environment and culture that encourage spending and repeat shopping. Whether that goal is to stand out as playing "hip and fun" music, or to be considered a calming and relaxing way to spend a couple of hours, they are using music in order to accomplish it.
DeleteI agree that as a society we would like to showcase the best, but when studying the cultue it seems most accurate to deal with what the majority of those people are. It was also mentioned in another chapter that this was why informants were kept anonymous, so that their word could be representative of the whole culture.
DeleteI am curious as to why your performances are going to be since youre doing department store music haha also I always wondered this but how big is the expanse of companies that make and arrange mixes for department stores? Sorry this is better suited as a question for your blog :/
Alex, I would have never even have thought of using the Olympics as an example but it works so well! I cannot see any reason as to why one would not look closer at the 'normal, everyday' people - but I don't think this has ever been the case where the only means of measuring a culture has been through a study of the best and brightest.
DeleteWhat might make an ethnography in the sense of asking a multitude of people skewed is that there is a possibility for those who are the 'greats' to speak very highly about themselves and their culture because they are greats and they know it and will take every opportunity they can to glorify themselves to some extent - especially if there's money involved. But then again, this could be case for any musician, especially in societies where the drive for competition and greatness is not as profound.
I think this topic of studying the "best" is actually really interesting. I agree that we need to understand the overall majority and what is common. But if you think about it, what really defines the "best?" The "best" is defined by what the majority people from a culture believe in. It is something that the majority of the culture wants to achieve. So I think it is really important to understand what is the best and why it is that way. Of course it is also important to understand how common people practice the music. I think there definitely needs an equal balance
DeleteThe ordinary is a really useful thing to study. Yes, we do often regard musical greats to contribute to turning points in musical history, but it is the ordinary musicians that provide the momentum for these changes. If only the outlier musician performed in his/her style, regardless of how great he/she is, it cannot persist without being carried forth by other musicians.
ReplyDeleteI recently spoke with a djembe drummer from Senegal for my African music project. I took a djembe drumming class with him and he taught us two rhythms for dhomba, a great ceremony/festival that occurs annually in Africa in the various communities. I asked him if these rhythms would be recognized as used for dhomba. He said no, they are different for every drummer. It is because of the ordinary musician that this is a characteristic of dhomba music.
I was glad to have read this as I also felt that different types of musicians should be considered. In my project, it's my goal to be able to talk to those who are: established (professors), upcoming (graduate students), mediocre (undergraduate music students), ordinary (perhaps non-majors), and even non-musicians (some concert-goers). This is, of course, a gross estimation, but in order to best study a culture, one must look at all or as many aspects of the relationships, associations and influences before they can paint a picture.
ReplyDeleteI've always wondered why we only study musicians that make these turning points in music. Why don't we study musicians that helped make this change? A new genre of music is formed today from something that has already existed, but just needed to become popular. An example of this would be the Harlem Shake. It was originally popular 1981, but just recently became popular again. Why is this? What brought this back up again?
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I've never thought to look at ordinary musicians when thinking about music. I think that stems from the fact that I personally listen to high quality music (IN MY OPINION!). When I think of musicians, I therefore look at musicians at the peak of their powers, those who have great influence in society. However, I think this chapter will be a massive help to my project. I can now extend my focus to mediocre and everyday blues musicians in addition to the professionals and historians (i.e. teachers in my case).
ReplyDeleteLike almost everyone else here, I think the study of ordinary musicians is a really neat idea. For my project, there are not any exceptional musicians as far as I know. I never even considered the idea of a division of ordinary and exceptional musicians in capoeira until now. There is a difference in skill between me and the more experienced capoeira participants, but that's more of a lack of exposure and practice on my part. I think that once someone gets to a certain level and experience in capoeira, they will be in a position to learn every other song easily. One of the other students told me about how she was able to go from academy to academy, even across countries, and learn the songs easily.
ReplyDeleteSomething I've noticed is that often times what people consider to be the 'best' musicians and music are actually the ones who are deviating from the norm. In the bluegrass scene there are many bands that sound relatively the same, but the ones that stand out and that people talk about are the ones who often deviate from the so called 'standard' bluegrass music. So, I think that studying all levels of musicians is a very important thing to do, but also to look at how the 'best' musicians, in turn, influence that practices of the average musician and the culture itself. An example in bluegrass being the mandolin player Jesse McReynolds, seen as the pioneer of cross picking on the mandolin, he has influenced many ever day bluegrass musicians with his cross picking style and given them a technique to incorporate into their music. While not every mandolin player uses this technique, I've heard many who incorporate it into their regular playing style.
ReplyDeleteI think the study of 'great' or 'exceptional' musicians in the majority of our music education goes with the 'Great White Man' accounts of history which ends up simplifying a RICH and DENSE history into a few identifiable figureheads who are supposedly either representative, or somehow more worthy of note than others for sensationalist narratives. While they may serve to make our education seemingly more 'interesting' and 'easy' to remember, it completely devalues the everyday musician as being discussed in this chapter.
ReplyDeleteMost of the people in my own study were probably more in line with the 'exceptional' [graduate students from conservatories and faculty members] but I also spoke with some of the more 'ordinary' musicians such as the undergraduates, basically my peers. Most of us are just amateur musicians hoping to maintain skills we learned & love, and I often found that these were the people who were more realistic about music & their lives as musicians. The people who are extraordinary or 'elite' do not provide an accurate representation of the field as a whole - they are just notable characters whereas the broad realm of the Western Art Music tradition is LARGELY comprised of amateurs like myself. The state & survival of WAM is probably more represented by the 'ordinary' folk than the extraordinary, who will stand out more as 'extraordinary' amongst people in general, rather than 'extraordinary' in music specifically. Because I think there are many extraordinary people in music who never get noticed.
But the story of an undergraduate who has incredible talent [more than MANY other musicians] but plans on going to medical school for practical reasons is far less interesting than the Beethoven who went deaf & was rather bonkers, or the tragic Schubert, the prolific composer who died so young. Of course they were brilliant composers, but they were not the only ones. They just happen to be the ones we are told are worth remembering.