After reading Nettle's chapter on fieldwork I feel a bit more prepared for doing more fieldwork on my own subject. Nettle writes about the developments of fieldwork in the history of ethnomusicology and how overtime the focus shifted from observer to participant and from taking select samples and assuming homoegeneity of the culture, that larger samples should be collected and learned from within the culture. I feel that this suits the study of musics from other cultures as it places the ethnomusicologist in a very unique place of being both outsider and insider, becoming a part of the culture but also being able to see and hear it from the outside.
Nettle also writes about the relationship between the researcher and the consultant of the musical style being researched. This part in particular I found interesting, because I'll be having an interview with a bluegrass musician soon and forming, even a short term relationship, with this person is important, however I do know that some of his ideas glorify bluegrass beyond its actual historical relevance. I heard him state that he believed bluegrass was an origin for several types of music that I know were born out of earlier styles, mainly the blues. I was hesitant on how to proceed and decided to make no mention of this to him as I want his unfettered opinion and to start off without a hostile interaction. As Nettle writes on page 146, "Purposely, or from ignorance, they may give what their compatriots might think is misinformation, but even the selection of this misinformation on their part may tell us something about the culture."
The most important part of this chapter that I strongly agree with is in the last two paragraphs on page 147. It is too extensive to quote here, but the general gist is that there are many different approaches to studying a music and the culture it is a part of. There is no one right way that leads to a definitive study that encompasses all parts of a culture, obviously so, as cultures are far too complex to be able to be understood in their entirety by any single individual, even if that individual collects information from a large number of people. In particular his point that one cannot consider a culture to be researched from a single study is one that drives home the enormity of the field of not just ethnomusicology, but also other social sciences and how important each study can be to contribute to the understanding of culture as a whole.
I completely agree with you on your last paragraph; there is so much out there within the cultures of music we wish to study that there is simply no study that can provide us with all the information and be able to call it researched. Everyone's own interpretations on the culture and the research they gather will be different from individual to individual as it is almost a given that the same informants will not be used over and over again.
ReplyDeleteTemporal and Geographical locations are also very important to consider in ethnographies, as they are specific to those two factors and evolve over time. Though I acknowledge this, I am frustrated perhaps because I want to know everything about the culture because I enjoy it so much and would like to know more simply to be able to spread the history and its subtle nuances to everyone; however, I realize that this is probably not possible - unless I have both: a time machine, and a very very large amount of money - both of those things I lack.
Continuing off your points, I think the closest one could get to understanding a culture as a whole would be to expose oneself to a variety of research materials from several different fields. Often times a particular perspective in, say, anthropology, will contradict with sociology (this is simply an example). Just by the simple notion of being exposed to this contradiction, one has a wider view of the topic at hand. I guess my main point is this: do as much research as humanly possible in several different fields and you will be on the right path to understanding a culture as a whole.
DeleteI find it interesting that you personally chose not to stop the interviewee when he began talking about something that you perceived to be false. Was it something that was factually incorrect or an obscure opinion? I'm wondering how the conversation would have gone if you had expressed some kind of opposition (playing devil's advocate). It might turn them off or irritate them, but it can also bring about an exchange of ideas that you might not have envisioned prior to the confrontation. I'm only asking because I'll be interviewing several blues musicians myself and I know that there will be some things which I disagree with. I might even use different strategies depending on the interviewee (read the room based on the personality). Either way, I think the line you quoted from Nettl is an excellent analysis of what can be gained from situations like this.
ReplyDeleteI was going to ask the exact same thing. I know that as I was interviewing one of my subjects I mentioned something that someone else had mentioned that was completely different than what he had just told me. He went off on a tangent on how he was right and how that person didn't know what they were saying.
DeleteThis is interesting especially as I considered the Iranian tar player Nettl mentioned in chapter 13 - the one who says that he is "the best tar player" even though Nettl said it was clear that he was not but decided not to argue with this.
DeleteIt's a tough balance to accept what you know is untrue and to suggest otherwise as you don't want to upset your interviewees. Depending on the situation, you can ask why they may think the way they do rather than 'correct them' as that may come off presumptuous or perhaps incorrect itself. Seeing their thoughts on such matters would hopefully provide more insight or one could also just accept it as Nettl did and use that as insight.
I think I would also have been very hesitant to contradict or disagree with the interlocutor when I had asked for their insight in the first place. I understand why Brent would have chosen not to stop him. Also, someone with such an opposite or seemingly 'false' view can be far more interesting and insightful than someone who seems to align with everything you already thought in the first place. I think it may be important to make clear what your opinion is afterwards so that the interviewee may get some sense of how the research is structured or where you as an ethnomusicologist may be coming from.
DeleteRather than disrupting any interview flow I think it is important to take what an interviewee says and then afterwards perhaps discuss the validity of the statements they may have made. Of course there are multiple ways to interview people [as the others have mentioned] and it is up to the interviewer to use discretion & tact when dealing with interviewees, especially when discussing something that is sensitive in nature, like the culture of an individual.
There is no one way to interview a person and be able to get all the information that you may want. For example I interview two people and they both talked about something that was similar and had completely different opinions about it. One person approached it one way and the other person approached it another way.
ReplyDeletefirst comment i wanted to make goes back to the idea of the ethnomusicologist and both and outsider and an insider. i suppose it makes sense in that as someone who is actively trying to get multiple perspectives of a culture one is going to try and appear as a part of every "side" ... nevertheless, it is hard for me to believe that one can truly be both an outsider and an insider. one can be an insider trying to get an outside perspective or an outsider aiming to get an inside scoop - but to exist as both seems contradictory to me. in regards to your interview situation, i agree with your decision to let him speak without interruption. in a way, to contradict and try to correct someone you are interviewing goes back to the conversation we had in class about the position of the ethnomusicologist to the music he or she studies and the power dynamic relationship one has to the scene and those in it. as a "scholar" and member of "higher academia" does one have, in a sense authority over those he or she is studying in that he or she may or may not have better access to "truth" and history? or is its possible that there may be a perspective within the culture that is more importantly held and believed within that bubble? ... i.e. how important really is the "truth" of the matter in regards to the formation of culture and tradition and how do we know what we think or believe is more true than anothers?
ReplyDeleteI think so too. Of course studying more people would make your generalizations more accurate, but it is impossible to study everyone. But I think it really helps to narrow down the areas of topics that people study.
ReplyDelete