Chapter 17—The Meat-and-Potatoes Book: Musical Ethnography
This chapter is mostly about the act of actually
communicating what we learn studying in thefield work to our target (usually
native) society. Nettl starts with a working definition of ethnography; it
originally meant a description but has come to sort of absorb the old term,
ethnology, which included and allowed for interpretation and extrapolation.
The paragraph that I found most interesting in this chapter
was the one about McAllester. Nettl summarizes what he thinks McAllester is
talking about as follows, “it is concept and behavior that reflect culture, and
if one is to study music as culture, one does so primarily through these
components of music and much less through sound.” (p. 236). This made me stop
and think. Now, at first reading, I thought it was more of a revelation than I
do after considering it longer. I think that we first hope to understand music
through listening to it because that is how we have been trained to rationalize
music, but it makes sense that that is not entirely practical or possible.
When an ethnomusicologist goes into the field, he or she is
trying to grapple with questions such as why the music sounds the way it does,
what role music plays within the society, how music is viewed and created etc.
By studying the music of a society, in order to really understand it, these
questions have to be considered, and I think that these directly relate to the
point McAllester made. By studying the music, especially from a musician, the
fieldworker is learning at least something about how at least that individual conceptualizes
music and their practices toward music.
This related again to communicating what we are learning. A
lot of what we are observing may be hard to articulate because we are learning
it in the form of byproducts of other information we are seeking. We learned
before in the chapter about transcription how a lot of the skill is in deciding
what is necessary to be recorded and what can be omitted without harming the overall
comprehensiveness (or attempt at) and this is no different.
So, I have this question to pose: I know they are all very
interrelated, and we run into dangerous chicken v. egg territory, but, to what
degree does the music itself affect societies’ attitude toward it, or how does
societies’ view influence the music? Can we learn anything about these
questions through listening to the music?
As is the case in the chicken vs. the egg question, I would say that there is an answer to your first question. Music is an expression of the musician in one form or another. The expression of the musician may be a reflection of an infinite number of things, one being society. The music produced by the musician can therefore be influenced by a society's view/attitude toward the music itself. In turn, the society develops an attitude in response to the produced music. The process may seem like a never-ending cycle, but there technically is a beginning. Without the music, the society cannot have an opinion/attitude towards the music. Realistically speaking, however, the music affects society's views to the same degree that society's views affect the music because once the process is started, it is difficult to imagine an end point.
ReplyDeleteI have a question about this. If we go back to the very beginning of that societies history for music, wouldn't you say that the start of a society's music is based off the opinion and reflection of a different societies music? In which shapes their own music? Because if that is the case then the beginning of this everlasting chain is based on a societies opinions and perceptions of another society's music. I do not know if I worded this right to make sense.
DeleteEven though music may be influenced by the music of another society [maybe as a starting or kicking-off point], I don't think that a society would accept that their music is more influenced by a different society's music than their OWN society's influence. The people ultimately creating the music seem to be the ones determining just how the music is influenced and whether it is by another society's music, the person is the one who is first influenced, which is then transferred to music - so in this [sort of] chain of influence, the music still seems to ultimately be influenced more by the society that is producing it. Like Eric said, I think music has to have ahd a starting point, and that starting point was Society --> Music. But from that point on, it seems to be a cyclical relationship, though one that is still largely determined by the influence of society on the individual [or group] making music.
DeleteI agree that it is somewhat of a never ending cycle, the relationship between music and society. However, I do think that society's influence on the music produced is greater than that of music on society. Much of music can be attributed to the needs of society. For instance, music can be used as a form of communication. I don't mean emotional communication, but literal communication such as so-and-so is approaching and whatnot. This music was produced in response to the necessity of this communication. In terms of music lyrically influencing a society's attitude, I think it often incorporates what a musician values as important. Every musician grows up in some sort of community with societal values, and this upbringing must affect the music produced in some way. The music produced stems from some sort of societal background to then affect the society that listens. If there is a musician that lives a life outside society, well, there is no society to listen to that music anyways.
ReplyDeleteThat question opens up a can of worms that no one can put a lid on.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, you can be sure that society has an influence on the music that is produced. It influences artists in their expressive styles (i.e. lyrics or tone). On the other hand, an artist (particularly one of great stature and/or popularity) can have an influence over the society that he/she lives in.
Sometimes we can observe both sides of the coin with just one artist. Take John Lennon for example. One of my favorite John Lennon tracks, "Working Class Hero", is clearly influenced by the society at the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU
Nearly all of the lyrics have to do with societal influence (I won't paste them here to save space but they can be found in the information on the youtube link above).
Needless to say, Lennon and the Beatles had a MASSIVE effect on the society they were living in. Young women were going crazy for them and men were all getting the bowl haircuts to look like them.
I think, in regards to your question, that music is something of a reflection of society. Music fulfills a purpose within the society and it can very well influence it, but when it does it is, usually, more so as a vehicle for delivering change as opposed to being the source of change. Music creating a change in society of its own accord seems a much rarer occurrence. Influences, like the ones Armand pointed out, I feel are more, again, a result of the figures attached to the music rather than the music itself. In my eyes, music can increase the influence of other ideas and figures, but those ideas and figures are born out of the society itself.
ReplyDeleteArman makes a really good point with the relation to the Beatles and their influence on society, and also how a few of their songs were influenced by society. The music itself and its popularity can also play a very large role in how it affects its own perceptions within society. Take for example, western classical music. It is typically associated with sophistication and wealth for many reasons: The venues they perform in are concert halls and the attire is the typical concert attire, not your everyday clothes of jeans, a shirt, and maybe a sweater (though I would not be surprised if I saw attire like this here at a UCSD performance), the instruments are also very expensive, and there is a long tradition of performance and virtuosity attached to it since the romantic era of music. This music has had a tremendous influence on society and vice versa, as during those years it was the "pop" music of the time.
ReplyDeleteTo look at some of these more "obscure" musics that aren't the popular ones in today's society - western classical, pop music, rock, etc. it is difficult to say to what degree the music will affect society's attitudes towards it. At least for me anyway. Almost everyone I will ever talk to will not know what Taiko drumming is - until I tell them I hit the really big drums you see in martial arts movies. Even if I were to explain to them that it is "Traditional japanese drumming," they probably would only think of it as being exotic and cool because it looks like all I'm doing is hitting a really big drum with flashy moves (which it can be just that). In that sense, taiko drumming does not really alter the perceptions of society of its attachment to exoticism. Now, for the music within taiko itself can be heavily influenced by society. Sure, there are your typical "traditional" songs, but then there are songs that draw so much influence from society and other musics out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhcdw0XhUJU
Clearly taking influence from swing other forms of music, this shows how the music is influenced by external forces. But then again, this is a collegiate group, and universities are a very very large melting pot of different cultures and musics (moreso than one might find outside a university) so this hybridity in music is expected as a result I find. I love this song myself though, so there's no complaints from me.
To me, I feel like it is individuals who produce music, and society influences individuals. It makes sense that music influences society too. But I think what it comes down to is that individuals are the ones creating it. The most well known music of a culture is associated with the individual that makes it. So I think it is important to study the maker of the music and understand what influenced him or her.
ReplyDeleteWhat is an individual in this respect though Tammy? How does an individual relate to society (conceptually)? (or, to put in another way, what do you mean, particularly, by the word "influence"). Are they separate things (society and the individual)? Or is it possible that society (among other things) constructs an individual? That an individual is of society?
Delete"The most well known music of a culture is associated with the individual that makes it." Is this true? In all or even most cases?
Arman makes a great point. I think society affects what music is written, music influences society, but it is society that chooses what music will influence them. If I was writing music, my views and experiences in society would affect what I write. But it would be society's choice whether or not they would listen to and act on what they hear.
ReplyDeleteI think that is also part of the reason some music is not appreciated till years after it is created or other music is still loved even after the creators die. Beethoven told a critic of his last symphony that the music wasn't written for him but those in the years to come ho would understand it. The Beatles wrote songs that still apply to life today. THese are totally different types of music but they still have some influence on society.