Nettl discusses the the role of archives in the work of ethnomusicologists and the associated concept of preservation within the field. While preservation is essential for research and studies following a scientific method there remains a confusing disparity between methods of collecting and archiving these pieces selected for preservation. With the variation in methods of data & song collection (i.e. transcription & recordings) there is no easy or established means of compiling a mass archive of everything. This makes overarching comprehensive comparative research difficult which may be why there has been an increase in specialized in terms of genres or categories rather than an attempt to make a single archive. This movement towards practicality coincides (or is rather directly related to) a 1950s movement labeled "urgent anthropology" which seeks to preserve cultures and traditions deemed to be in danger of extinction.
Nettl describes two roles of ethnomusicologists: "to study what actually happens" rather than try and interfere or to accept that "preservation [...] is a surpreme good and must be encouraged at the expense of others." He suggests finding a means of preserving the concept used in process of preservation rather than preservation itself. With a concept established, preservation itself is assumed to follow as an inevitable byproduct, systematized and standardized by a preserved concept, which may make the "systematic sampling of the infinite musical universe" slightly easier. I believe this is a valid stance because music has been proven to be a very difficult concept/entity to categorize (based largely on our debates and discussions in the readings) - rather than try to standardize music itself, we may standardize a process by which we choose to preserve and go from there in a more general (and less exclusive) direction.
I believe a standardized process of preservation would be beneficial in the sense that everything that is archived will be preserved in the same way, making any later study a bit more efficient. I do question, on the other hand, how this standardized process of preservation will apply to every single genre/type of music. What may end up happening in the process is a loss of some aspect of a music that is unique to that particular music. A more customized form of preservation can eliminate this potential loss by examining each type of music in its own context and determining the most appropriate method of preservation.
ReplyDeleteI think this is very true, and Nettle even mentions it on page 165. He says that collections of transcriptions undergo a lot of filtering and are systematically preserved with keeping certain select things, while an anthropologist might have recorded a whole performance not looking for anything specific, or something an ethnomusicologist would have looked for. I think it all depends on the reason and goal as to why something is being recorded or transcribed and to which later effects how it is archived.
DeleteI agree that, ideally, a standardized process of preservation would be beneficial but find it to be unrealistic. There are so many different forms of music in the world with a wide variety of styles that it would be impossible to try to pigeon-hole them into specific categories. We would end up running into conflicts of "is this even music?" or "how exactly is this music similar to this but not that?" and so on.
DeleteYou forgot one of the most interesting points of the chapter! Nettle brings up the point that a lot of cultures which utilize oral tradition are constantly changing their music, so in fact preserving something considered 'old' and valuable would really not be representative of that culture. Then again it all depends on the 'why?' aspect for even recording.
ReplyDeleteThis is applicable to my project because I just saw a documentary where one of the musicians stated that he believed a single song has three different forms: the one in his head as he wrote it, the recorded version produced for others to hear, and the live version which is always changing to accommodate different players and parts. This brings up the question as to which one is the 'real' version. I would answer that all are, but which one should be preserved and if the answer is all then how should they be categorized? As all the same song or as live vs recorded.
do you have a link to that documentary (or a title perhaps)? The concept of the various forms of a single song sounds intriguing. I think it can apply to various forms of music but works well with music of the the oral tradition (i.e. blues).
DeleteIn my opinion oral tradition is not a very effective way of preserving a culture. It's like playing telephone back in elementary school. It starts with one person saying one thing and it getting whispered to someones ear and passed on and on and at the end of it, something completely different is said.
DeleteI believe oral tradition isn't really an effective way preserving culture. However, I think that if researchers were some how able to find out how music changed through oral tradition, it would a really great way of understanding the cultural changes through that time period. In regards of a standardization preservation process, I think it is still possible to apply that to oral tradition. Of course it wouldn't be accurate to say that this is this is the music that the exact way it was years ago. However, if you take note that this type of music was orally passed down, I feel like that is preserving the culture of the music. It preserves the idea that this culture passes down music orally. Although, we may not know what it sounded like years ago, we know that it could have been similar and that oral tradition was important to them
DeleteI have to disagree that oral tradition isn't an effective way of preserving culture. Oral tradition doesn't effectively tell us how exactly a culture was in the past, but the oral part of tradition is a PART of the culture. That in itself says that the culture is meant to be change and develop and not be a static entity. I think that the study of these cultures should evolve as they change and that perhaps preservation of the exact culture at any singular point in time isn't truly representative of oral culture.
DeleteI agree with Brent on this one. Oral tradition appears to be more "true" to me. Not only is it presumably a key part of the culture but it gives us a truer taste of where the culture is at now. The use of a oral tradition continues on the many practices associated with carrying on the oral tradition. If part of the culture is some philosophy that promotes growth and adaptation to the change of times, then the oral tradition goes exactly hand in hand with that and a time frozen, written preservation goes against it.
DeleteThis chapter raised a lot of concerns involving practicality. While it would be more practical for there to be some systematic preservation process, this, in and of itself, can be impractical. To begin, we would need to somehow enlist other institutions engaging in ethnomusicological research to agree to, and also use these methods, which also runs into the concern Nettl raised about how some nations do not have the access to the top of the line technology that ours does.
ReplyDeleteI plan on sampling as many overhead recordings (for my study on retail music) and interviewing as many people as possible, but I am anticipating needing to change my method as I go. At the store I worked at, no one thought it was odd for me (well, they may have thought it was odd, but no one asked me to leave) to stand near the service desk (where I know there's a speaker and other than that it is relatively quiet) with my phone and make note of every song that played for a half hour, but I think other stores may take exception to that so I may have to be more subtle so that they don't think I'm up to something shady.
I believe that we are better off now in terms of preserving music. With things like iTunes and YouTube music is being preserved for us. It will always be in the database if ever needed to be studied. Although categorizing music to a specific genre is hard you can assign songs sub-genres so when you type the genre in on iTunes it pops up.
ReplyDeleteA standardized process of preservation would be beneficial but I find it to be unrealistic. There are so many different forms of music in the world with a wide variety of styles that it would be impossible to try to pigeon-hole them into specific categories. We would end up running into conflicts of "is this even music?" or "how exactly is this music similar to this but not that?" and so on.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, how would one be able to find a specific "file" (for lack of a better term)? What would they search for? Would there searches have to be so ultra-specific that it would make the process of standardized preservation inefficient and essentially useless?
I have to disagree with the idea that a standardized process of preservation would be beneficial for all the reasons that everyone has said it would be unrealistic. The variety of the many cultures of the world doesn't really allow for a truly standardized process and to create one would exclude certain cultures that don't fall into that process. As I've seen most everyone say a culture has to be studied in its own context and taking that to be true, it therefore defies a standardized process.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point. There really is too many cultures to take into account when standardizing a way to record and archive their music. As you mentioned earlier, cultures that have oral tradition is a prime example. Recording their culture takes away from their tradition of passing down music, stories, etc.. thus, cutting off an aspect of their culture.
DeleteI agree with everyone else that a standardized process would be unrealistic. In addition to the more procedural complications this would entail, doing so would inevitably fail to portray many aspects certain cultures and thus, fail in successful preservation. Trying to squeeze everything into a 'one size fits all' type of process would no doubt lead to loss of cultural meaning/values instead impart ethnocentric values.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that musics with oral traditions are constantly evolving, standardized methodologies for preservation would not work in this situation. As many of the others who have already commented, it is unrealistic and the fact that there are so many different cultures and subcultures with own variations, interpretations, and styles of music that they would be too difficult to accurately categorize - let alone devise a very time consuming process to categorize them all.
ReplyDeleteI find it similar to music theorists who attempt to analyze every intricacy of the sonata form in classical music. They have categories and names for every tiny detail, theme, motive, and whatever else you may encounter that it tries to encompass all of the pieces utilizing sonata form over the course of the classical era. The three main composers of that time: Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven all have very different styles and approaches to composition simply as a result evolution of the music within that time period. Musicians and composers are always trying to find innovations within their music. Perhaps this allusion wasn't the best of references since Western art music is the most documented and was and still is used as the base for comparison of all other musics.