This week's readings seemed to continue our transition into ideas of "folk music" from non-Western European countries. I knew nothing about folk music in Finland, Bulgaria, and China, but based on Livingston's model, it seemed that overall, these countries shared similar concepts of “folk music” despite being so geographically and culturally disparate. While a difficult read (partially because it needed a good editor), I thought Degirmenci’s article had several interesting ideas. One of his major assumptions (or what I think he was saying) was that patterns in society contribute or steer artistic production, which in turn directs and creates societal patterns, back and forth in an uneasy and rarely-equal exchange. The links between cultural production and cultural forms are well established at this point, but I had not considered the political implications of these links. Degirmenci suggested that politics (I’m assuming he’s using this in a broader, power-relations sense?) impacts our understanding of the “folk” (49), presuming (or imposing) a unity on people that might not exist in real life. I have often seen this happen with discussions of Appalachian music, and with American folk music more generally (and I wonder if this is linked with the personal and political proclivities of some of the early folk music popularizers?). Harris articulates the perils of such imagined unities in Chinese folk music, so the overall concept seems to hold across some cultures, and I feel Degirmenci is correct to remind us that many of the underlying assumptions regarding “folk music” result stem from Western European ideas about Romantic nationalism (51). These ideas have traveled (for example, with concerns about authenticity and expression in Finnish folk music), and if Livingston is correct (both about folk revivals being a primarily middle-class phenomenon and promoting ideas like “the objectification, commodification and rationalization of various aspects of life, participation in the ‘cult of consumerism,’ an ideology of modernity, and the imagined community of the nation”), can “folk music” exist as a concept without (proto-)globalization? I don’t know if I’m reaching here or am on the wrong bus, but if the ideas underlying “folk music” are rooted in 19th century European thought and have become viable and contested concepts in other nations throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, would they have spread and assumed meaning in other places without forces like politics, trade, mass media, culture industries, etc.? In order words, while Gelbart showed us the roots of these concepts, did the spread both rely on and contribute to globalizing trends?
"Patterns in society contribute or steer artistic production, which in turn directs and creates societal patterns, back and forth in an uneasy and rarely-equal exchange." It's like M. C. Escher's stairs :)
Interesting question. (I think Degirmanci is using politics synonymously with 'the state' at least that was my take)...Yes, I think it both relied on and contributed to globalizing trends...economic and coercive political motivators are strong forces.
This week's readings examine the relationship of nationalism to the folk music of Latin America, as well as question the appropriateness of applying tripartite division of art, folk and popular music into other non-European musical cultures. In Hutchinson's article, he argues that 'tipico' is a concept that does not have an exact parallel in English. He notes that 'voluntary affiliation, and membership in this community of musicians and listeners requires constant reaffirmation by playing old songs and thus acknowledging the music's history, by satisfying audience requests and thus acknowledging its social relations, by singing about the Cibao and thus acknowledging its geography.' The distinction between Tipico and folk music is an interesting one, although from the article I have the impression that Tipico is more of a way in which folk music is understood and practised in that region of the world, rather than a totally new category altogether. On the other hand, the author's remark that the schemata of musical genres used in the academic doens't always correspond to their usage in the real world is thought-provocative. Thus pop music covers more styles to the musicologist than to the layman. I had a similar experience talking to a student of mine. I regarded any non-classical contemporary music as 'pop', but he pointed out that the genre he enjoys is off the mainstream, and hence not 'pop' even though it is current. Are we alright with the tripartite division of pop, folk and classical? Can these labels be reasonably applied to non-Western traditions?
Such diverse topics this week! My questions will be scattered throughout, because I have several of them.
I’ll start with Livingston’s article. I have never given any serious thought to the idea of musical revivals, so this reading was a great introduction for this week. I liked Livingston’s definition of a revival on page 66, in particular his requirement that the musical system being revived must be believed to be disappearing or already defunct. This perception of decline or obscurity is fascinating and I think it could be studied in its own right. In particular, I wonder if there has ever been a musical revival where a musical tradition was believed to be in decline or already relegated to the past but was actually still thriving unknown to those trying to revive it. I think that type of situation (if you could find it) could be revealing about music revivals in general, and of the tension between the original practitioners and the revivalists (although Livingston does talk about how some people view the revivalists as original practitioners in themselves). I’ll bet something like this has happened at some point. Some people thought they were “saving” a dying tradition that was actually still alive and well.
I found the quote from Titon on p. 71 particularly interesting. “If a record was listed in these definitive discographies, it was blues. If not, it wasn’t.” I think this is very revealing about the constructed nature of history, and I think we can find parallels in mainstream musicology all over the place. Influential books like the Grout participate in this sort of shaping of the historical narrative all the time.
I also wonder how musical revivals might differ from the originals if they are heavily based on recordings vs. being based on written materials (as in the Early Music revival et al.). I would think that in general recordings are more “high def” than written materials when discussing music. However, are there any advantages to having written materials? Are there any disadvantages of recordings? (Lack of originality in revival performances, a narrow definition of “authentic” performance practice, etc.) I wonder if there could be a way to study this. I think it would have to involve some very clever methodology, but comparing a revival based on written materials to a revival based on recordings would be interesting to me.
Buchanan’s article on “Democracy or Crazyocracy” talked about “neotraditional genres.” I wonder if these could be examples of the different branches that break off when a revival no longer becomes tradition centered. (Livingston introduced this idea on p. 80).
I found the Degirmenci reading kind of off-putting. His definition of “culture” seemed pretentious and circular. Try as I might, I couldn’t figure out what it meant. I had trouble throughout the article as well, so I hope some class discussion will help me out with this one.
I found it very interesting that Austerlitz said that any band with a drum set was considered a jazz band, and also that the tango was revered as a sort of nationalist music in Finland. He also said that influence was a two-way street on p. 192 regarding new music and old music (or revival and original perhaps). I think this is always the case, but that we often overlook it in our constructions of the historical narrative. I personally like the labels we give music, since it forms a basis for a conceptual framework to think about and contextualize music, but there are problems with them that we have already discussed quite a bit. I wonder if the problem often boils down to these labels creating the illusion that these musics exist separately and do not influence each other.
"any band with a drum set was considered a jazz band" -- I had similar thoughts which got me thinking about essentialism and how we categorize things...I generally like labels too...though I don't always agree with other peoples' labels, I embrace the debate!
I wonder if Scottish music in the 18th C would be an example of "saving a dying tradition that was actually alive and well?" From Gelbart's description, some traditions, like piping, actually suffered from efforts at "preservation."
But I think Livingstone's thinking that the music culture has to be *perceived* as disappearing or threatened in some way is probably the key. Scottish music was seen as being danger of disappearing due to outside influences (since the idea that folk music is always changing to a greater or lesser degree wasn't recognized).
I've also found that revivals (or textbooks, or "best of" lists, etc.) can have a "police" function, where certain kinds of musicking are permitted and encouraged and other kinds aren't. So, with the blues example you mentioned, it seemed like the discography was a way of policing the boundaries of what was accepted in the revival.
"I wonder if the problem often boils down to these labels creating the illusion that these musics exist separately and do not influence each other." Agreed; labels carry stereotypes, which sometimes prohibit people from engaging in other music that they don't like or normally listen to, thus not allowing them to see how different musics have influenced each other.
your comment helps me better understand the musical revival... the requirements of revival(disappearing or defunct) are certainly able to exist in anywhere...however, the result of revival could be very different depends on characteristics of each culture... disappearing would mean not performing in public and defunct would mean not using by people... personally, I think trying to regain the popularity could be a purpose of revival in recent time. Also, the original venue or function of the folk could be changed.
One of the overarching topics presented within the articles this week is the authenticity of folk songs and of the culture/people associated with the songs.
In Buchanan’s article, the Pirin Folk genre is discussed at length, citing it as a blending of different mainstream music/ideals from present-day Bulgarian culture and with historical aspects, notably the lighter, more lyrical pre-WWII Old Urban songs. Because this genre was influenced by old and new songs and styles, could one call the Pirin Folk a revival of Old Urban Songs? I would say yes since the urban song tradition had faded away from the public eye. According to the Livingston article, a revival is not necessary if the music is “alive and well,” which OUS was not. Additionally, the songs harkened back to a more positive time in Bulgarian culture, which may have been seen as a way to provide a bolster of positivity amongst the people for the new Bulgarian political climate.
While she cites the political shift in Bulgaria as one of the main (if not the primary) reasons for the development of Pirin Folk, Buchanan states that the ‘folk’ aspect of P.F. is really what “links the Bulgarian songs of yesterday and today (176).” Based on this idea, could one assume that the people associated with a certain type of folk music are what determines the authenticity of the music, meaning their own culture and ideals form the basis for song lyrics, melody, and harmony? If the people are facing some sort political turmoil or oppression, do they enact revivals of their music in order to bolster resistance to keep their authenticity as a people alive and well?
I think the answer to your last question could be "yes," although I think the effort may fail if the governing powers are strong. I had a Taiwanese professor (Dr. Hung) who said that some Chinese music has "stayed alive" in Taiwan while it was stamped out in China, so if you want to learn those musical traditions, you have to go to Taiwan.
Livingston – on pg. 4 (of 21) she speculates about the reasons for folk revivals. I think one point of her thesis really bears some weight here: that revivals are reactions to subgroups disaffected with the contemporary state of things (usually perceived as a poor state), and we see this especially in today’s culture. At least in my opinion, we have a mainstream subgroup that reacts by embracing what is perceived as not mainstream (sometimes called “hipster,” I think somewhat negatively perhaps, I’m not sure?) But a big part of this is a nostalgic attitude for simpler (perceived as better) times. I think this is the whole idea of folk revivals. I also see the dialectic between subgroup (young people burdened with college debt) and the dominant group (corporate lobby/bankers/corrupt politicians/etc.) that she mentions at play. I guess this is not earth-shattering, but I thought it was insightful Degirmenci: Besides a tendency for unnecessarily complicated sentence structures, an excessive amount of passive voice, and the occasional typo, there were some interesting ideas. I particularly appreciated the comparison between 18th- and 19th century belief systems about nature, and the general history of Turkish music. But then something incomprehensible will follow: “It [culture] can be depicted as a seminal element that brings forth the cultural forms or determines the general framework of the realm of meanings in those cultural forms.” Culture [can be depicted as a seminal element that] brings forth cultural forms or determines [the general framework of the realm of] meanings in those cultural forms. “In its chase for hegemony, any political strategy appropriates different elements from various cultural forms, removes them from their contexts and reprocesses them in the new contexts. The construction of Turkish folk music is an epitome of this process.” I thought all folk music was the epitome of this process—appropriation, recontextualization, etc.? perhaps not? Otherwise we wouldn’t know about it or consider it folk if it hadn’t gone through this process, right? It would just exist out there somewhere, unappropriated and in its original context. Unless this is strictly referring to political appropriation. Austerlitz: I really liked the anecdote about Teppo Repo calling his composition on the boat a “jazz” piece, and then Vaisanen said “uh, no…that’s a scherzo.” It seems so silly, but I think it really shows how consciously aware everyone is of the folk/art distinction. Not only that, but people have such strong opinions about what these two categories should sound like and fail to take into consideration what pieces actually sound like sometimes. I also agree with this idea that folk revival is a misleading term since the traditions are most likely changed or adapted…it always comes back to authenticity. Discussion question: This reading in particular spurred me to read up on essentialism a bit. And it makes sense to me in terms of biology, but I am still a bit unclear of how it relates to more abstract categorizations such as genres and cultures. Do genres and cultures have “substantial” characteristics that lend themselves to categorization, or are these characteristics projected onto them [the genres] by us? Harris: I realize I am already over the word limit so I’ll be brief. I thought this article was so well-written and organized that it was so easy to read. I feel like I got a fairly objective overview of the this copyright situation. It was interesting to see that the pentatonic scale came up again, as it was being projected onto the Chinese folk songs in lieu of their “complex modality.”
P.S. This blogger format is a vast improvement. So much easier to read and comment.
Yeah, the Degirmenci and the Buchanan were... difficult for me to read, mostly because of the writing style/structure, etc. And as proved below and in my comments, usually I'm good with long sentences and passive voice. (yep, horrid of me.)
I actually became a little frustrated by Livingstone's continual search for other reasons (political, attitudinal) for people to be involved in a "folk revival." Or, seeing as how in today's world an oral, illiterate tradition is increasingly rare (connotative definition of "true folk"), her search for political/attitudinal reasons for someone being involved in folk, period. No doubt some of those reasons are valid, but one that was never mentioned was "well, I just like it." From reading that article, it very nearly seemed that if someone had a taste for folk revival music, one had to be middle-class and dissatisfied with life.
Can classical music in general be deemed an ongoing "folk revival?" There's probably less classical music lovers than popular music enthusiasts (well, a lot of us are both here, but just ignoring that for the moment). We've got "original sources;" a "group of followers," "revivalist activities" (Haydn's operas, presentations at AMS on Midway Fair music, etc), and definitely a lot of non-profit and/or commercial enterprises that cater to the classical music market. Or is classical music too big yet, and is deemed "mainstream?" : )
p.s. I WILL agree that the blog it is easier to read...
I've never thought of hip sets as a marginalized group, so that's an interesting thought! And the whole jazz genre is interesting, since it doesn't really fit neatly into the "art-folk" (or even "art-folk-pop") dichotomy.
"...That revivals are reactions to subgroups disaffected with the contemporary state of things (usually perceived as a poor state), and we see this especially in today’s culture...But a big part of this is a nostalgic attitude for simpler (perceived as better) times. I think this is the whole idea of folk revivals." So true!
"Do genres and cultures have “substantial” characteristics that lend themselves to categorization, or are these characteristics projected onto them [the genres] by us?" Looking at and thinking about the different cultural regions in the U.S. (midwest, south, east, etc.), I think genres and cultures do have characteristics (maybe/maybe not substantial) that lend themselves to categorization. The midwest is often associated with a slower and simpler way of life while the east is more fast paced.
"Can classical music in general be deemed an ongoing "folk revival?""
Actually, I think yes! And there are revivals within the revival... historical performance practice, etc. It is perhaps a super-cultivated example of a revival.
Lots of interesting stuff in this week's readings. The two topics that struck me most where the interactions between "folk" music and politics (in Harris, Buchanan, Livingstone, and Degirmenci) and "folk" music moving towards popular music (in Austerlitz especially, but also to some degree in Livingstone, Degirmenci, and Harris it seemed). The state-sponsored “folk” music of China and Turkey (and to a lesser extent Bulgaria) was very interesting. Does it still qualify as being against the mainstream and a cultural opposition when it is being used by the powers-that-be (Livingstone’s definitions of a folk revival)? Or would simply contrasting against Western music in general be enough of an cultural opposition to count? I wasn’t aware that the folk music was being used – or had been used – for political ends in Bulgaria and Turkey so recently, although in retrospect it makes perfect sense. In Finland and Bulgaria, it seems that “folk” music is crossing over more into the difficult-to-define realm of pop; bands are touring, putting out albums, attracting a huge following, and mixing in different styles. Pirin folk was described as “ethno-pop.” Is it just me, or are the lines between folk and pop traditions and cross-pollination between the two in modern times even more fuzzy than the line between art and folk in the Romantic era?
Livingstone and Austerlitz both had the idea, it seemed in the end, that a “folk music revival” was a bit of a misleading term since it tended to transform rather than revive traditions, although Livingstone persisted in putting out some definitions of a “folk revival.” Livingstone had a few problematic assumptions to my mind as well (especially since it was a little shy on the evidence and citation side for me): the idea that a folk music revival was middle class, associated with dissatisfaction with contemporary life, modern vs. traditional, privileging exchange value over use value, objectification, commodification, and rationalization, etc. At one point Livingstone talks about objectification of culture; the argument is that culture has to be thought of as a “thing” so it can be “revived.” I’ve always thought of culture as a noun (maybe being an editor means I tend to think of words as parts of speech) – but can culture be separate from the physical objects it creates in the first place, and even if it can’t, can culture be thought of as entirely an object? Is it really necessary to think of something as an object in order to “revive” it?
Another issue was that a “revival” was over when it separated into different styles or when authenticity wasn’t an end unto itself. I’m not sure that a separation into different styles can mark the end of a revival; regarding “early music,” would the separation into Baroque, Classical, and Renaissance performing styles as the movement progressed be seen as the entire “early music revival” disintegrating? Previously we’ve all questioned whether “folk” and “art” music are still valid terms to use. Now I’m raising the same question with regard to “authenticity,” especially in modern interpretations of folk music. It was a concept I had trouble with in Gelbart; the Austerlitz article says “Challenging the authenticity of ‘invented traditions’ amounts to making a moot point, because as cultural artifacts, traditions are socially constructed by definition. As jazz composer Les McCann asks, ‘gotta make it real compared to what?’….” (Austerlitz p. 17).Is the whole idea of “authenticity” becoming a moot point in today’s constructionist-conscious culture?
p.s. This blogger format had BETTER be a *huge* improvement, it's been a complete pain trying to get email set up, the site to accept my comments, etc.
and building on the issue of politics, it seems that folk music functions differently when the "folk" are contested (like in China or in Turkey), whereas with Finland, these categories seem far more stable.
I think that the idea of different styles emerging in regards to the early music revival could possibly refer to different performance aesthetics. For instance, the Tallis Scholars vs. The Robert Shaw Singers in the performance of Palestrina. Perhaps...
I was also interested about the state-sponsored folk music. would the performances of folk create a huge different atmosphere under the different type of sponsor?? what is the opposite side of state-sponsored folk music?? could I ask its opposite notion?? we could find the example stated sponsored folk music, folk music in democracy, and even sometimes folk becomes sponsored by foreign countries. what is the purpose of sponsorship? using a folk? keeping a folk? learning a folk?
"Is it just me, or are the lines between folk and pop traditions and cross-pollination between the two in modern times even more fuzzy than the line between art and folk in the Romantic era?"
YES ABSOLUTELY! :)
In fact, I think perhaps the most strongly cordoned-off tradition in modern culture is, in fact, art music.
among the other readings the Austerlitz's article makes me think. He argues about the transnational aesthetics. Transnational music would be taken place when the local musicality are interwoven with the notion of nation. Based on this idea could I think the transnational aesthetics would be one of preliminary cultural aspect of late nineteenth century European countries? Austerlitz also points out that oral transmitted rural arts embraced by bourgeois nationalists who dreamed a cosmopolitan. I think this fact shows the important role of mass media even though there was an assumption that mass media deteriorated the original folk. Could people break the limited cultural distribution of aristocracy without mass media. Maybe the transnational musicians were already influenced by mass media before they embarked on the mission of invented tradition. The question about the originality would be more complex. the answer of McCann-(Compare to what? ) toward the originality of folk represents the difficulty of definition of origin as well. people may find its original form more easier when they try to find the invented or accepted factors in their performances.
I also found the relationship between politics and folk very interesting, but it looks like you guys got that covered so I won't talk too much about it. I found the idea of Folklore as a national spirit presented in the Degirmenci article to be a nice approach to the definition debacle that we have been having lately. This article (and my research on Igor Moiseyev) made me think a lot about Folklore in a multicultural society. It seems that the folklore of a nation is reflective on the majority, but is it that easy? For instance, America is home to many different cultures with their own folklore. At what point do we look at folklore that overlaps nationalities as part of our own? or do we just accept the majorities folklore as the folklore of the nation?
Sorry for my late response, everyone, it has been a busy busy busy week!!!
I really loved the discussion of authenticity as discussed in the Livingston. This is an issue we've been going over in our class discussions and so it was nice to finally see it spelled out in a very convincing argument. I was fascinated by his suggestion that revivals are a middle class phenomenon, especially as it related to the "culture industry".... I will be writing my term paper on something related to this! Stay tuned...
The Buchanan article ... SO MANY PARALLELS to American music! I was deeply fascinated by the similarities, while at the same time noticing differences, especially the fact that the music came into existence in response to an oppressive political climate.
The Degirmenci had me thinking about the approach we must take to studying music from an ethnomusicological standpoint. Is our standpoint a scientific one? Do we try to ascertain the most "pure" form of the music, and also try to indicate how it has been "corrupted" by outside forces, quantifying the levels of purity and the levels of outside influence? Or do we take a humanitarian approach, or perhaps a philosophical approach, simply making observations as we are able to as subjective individuals, and try to draw some overarching conclusions based on what we see? Or do we exist somewhere in between science and philosophy???
I hit submit before I was done typing... Alongside with the idea of scientific vs. philosophical... is commercialism a corrupting force? The tone of some ethnographic texts takes that sort of tone when dealing with commercial influences. At times even the Degirmenci took that tone, although for the most part the author dealt with commercial influence in a wonderfully insightful manner. The best quote from this article: "Every cultural form is a composition of meanings, aesthetic traditions, and messages, which together refer to a political discourse."
In fact, the Austerlitz addresses this very question of mine regarding authenticity... "In this interconnected world, the cultural observer cannot discount her own experiences: my status as a Finnish-American clarinetist, for example, is inextricably linked to my study of clarinetists in Finland." I also loved the quote from the jazz player, "You gotta make it real compared to what?" What a frustrating study... like comparing clouds to clouds... spend too much time looking at one, and by the time you've looked back at the other, it's shifted its shape or floated away entirely. She addresses this issue partially in her conclusion.
As I was reading the Harris, I found it fascinating to imagine musical traditions as physical space or property -- specifically, public vs. private property, such as a park. I remember when I was a little girl I lived in a town with a wonderful, large public park with lots of hills and trees and a river. I would play in the woods quite often, and would inevitably end up next to the fence at some point -- the fence that separated the park from the adjacent golf course. The boundary point put up between the park and the golf course was the only signifier of the change from public to private property -- the woods themselves stayed the same, at least for the fifty yards or so until they reached the green of the golf course. I wonder if that arbitrary fence isn't at least a bit like the fence put up between the various musics discussed in this article.
This week's readings seemed to continue our transition into ideas of "folk music" from non-Western European countries. I knew nothing about folk music in Finland, Bulgaria, and China, but based on Livingston's model, it seemed that overall, these countries shared similar concepts of “folk music” despite being so geographically and culturally disparate. While a difficult read (partially because it needed a good editor), I thought Degirmenci’s article had several interesting ideas. One of his major assumptions (or what I think he was saying) was that patterns in society contribute or steer artistic production, which in turn directs and creates societal patterns, back and forth in an uneasy and rarely-equal exchange. The links between cultural production and cultural forms are well established at this point, but I had not considered the political implications of these links. Degirmenci suggested that politics (I’m assuming he’s using this in a broader, power-relations sense?) impacts our understanding of the “folk” (49), presuming (or imposing) a unity on people that might not exist in real life. I have often seen this happen with discussions of Appalachian music, and with American folk music more generally (and I wonder if this is linked with the personal and political proclivities of some of the early folk music popularizers?).
ReplyDeleteHarris articulates the perils of such imagined unities in Chinese folk music, so the overall concept seems to hold across some cultures, and I feel Degirmenci is correct to remind us that many of the underlying assumptions regarding “folk music” result stem from Western European ideas about Romantic nationalism (51). These ideas have traveled (for example, with concerns about authenticity and expression in Finnish folk music), and if Livingston is correct (both about folk revivals being a primarily middle-class phenomenon and promoting ideas like “the objectification, commodification and rationalization of various aspects of life, participation in the ‘cult of consumerism,’ an ideology of modernity, and the imagined community of the nation”), can “folk music” exist as a concept without (proto-)globalization? I don’t know if I’m reaching here or am on the wrong bus, but if the ideas underlying “folk music” are rooted in 19th century European thought and have become viable and contested concepts in other nations throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, would they have spread and assumed meaning in other places without forces like politics, trade, mass media, culture industries, etc.? In order words, while Gelbart showed us the roots of these concepts, did the spread both rely on and contribute to globalizing trends?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Patterns in society contribute or steer artistic production, which in turn directs and creates societal patterns, back and forth in an uneasy and rarely-equal exchange." It's like M. C. Escher's stairs :)
Delete(accidentally deleted this, whoops)
Interesting question. (I think Degirmanci is using politics synonymously with 'the state' at least that was my take)...Yes, I think it both relied on and contributed to globalizing trends...economic and coercive political motivators are strong forces.
DeleteThis week's readings examine the relationship of nationalism to the folk music of Latin America, as well as question the appropriateness of applying tripartite division of art, folk and popular music into other non-European musical cultures. In Hutchinson's article, he argues that 'tipico' is a concept that does not have an exact parallel in English. He notes that 'voluntary affiliation, and membership in this community of musicians and listeners requires constant reaffirmation by playing old songs and thus acknowledging the music's history, by satisfying audience requests and thus acknowledging its social relations, by singing about the Cibao and thus acknowledging its geography.'
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between Tipico and folk music is an interesting one, although from the article I have the impression that Tipico is more of a way in which folk music is understood and practised in that region of the world, rather than a totally new category altogether.
On the other hand, the author's remark that the schemata of musical genres used in the academic doens't always correspond to their usage in the real world is thought-provocative. Thus pop music covers more styles to the musicologist than to the layman. I had a similar experience talking to a student of mine. I regarded any non-classical contemporary music as 'pop', but he pointed out that the genre he enjoys is off the mainstream, and hence not 'pop' even though it is current.
Are we alright with the tripartite division of pop, folk and classical? Can these labels be reasonably applied to non-Western traditions?
I think I read a different week's readings than you did...
DeleteHenry, you've skipped week 5!
DeleteOh dear, I must have misunderstood what you meant by skipping a week...!
DeleteWeek 6
ReplyDeleteSuch diverse topics this week! My questions will be scattered throughout, because I have several of them.
I’ll start with Livingston’s article. I have never given any serious thought to the idea of musical revivals, so this reading was a great introduction for this week. I liked Livingston’s definition of a revival on page 66, in particular his requirement that the musical system being revived must be believed to be disappearing or already defunct. This perception of decline or obscurity is fascinating and I think it could be studied in its own right. In particular, I wonder if there has ever been a musical revival where a musical tradition was believed to be in decline or already relegated to the past but was actually still thriving unknown to those trying to revive it. I think that type of situation (if you could find it) could be revealing about music revivals in general, and of the tension between the original practitioners and the revivalists (although Livingston does talk about how some people view the revivalists as original practitioners in themselves). I’ll bet something like this has happened at some point. Some people thought they were “saving” a dying tradition that was actually still alive and well.
I found the quote from Titon on p. 71 particularly interesting. “If a record was listed in these definitive discographies, it was blues. If not, it wasn’t.” I think this is very revealing about the constructed nature of history, and I think we can find parallels in mainstream musicology all over the place. Influential books like the Grout participate in this sort of shaping of the historical narrative all the time.
I also wonder how musical revivals might differ from the originals if they are heavily based on recordings vs. being based on written materials (as in the Early Music revival et al.). I would think that in general recordings are more “high def” than written materials when discussing music. However, are there any advantages to having written materials? Are there any disadvantages of recordings? (Lack of originality in revival performances, a narrow definition of “authentic” performance practice, etc.) I wonder if there could be a way to study this. I think it would have to involve some very clever methodology, but comparing a revival based on written materials to a revival based on recordings would be interesting to me.
Buchanan’s article on “Democracy or Crazyocracy” talked about “neotraditional genres.” I wonder if these could be examples of the different branches that break off when a revival no longer becomes tradition centered. (Livingston introduced this idea on p. 80).
I found the Degirmenci reading kind of off-putting. His definition of “culture” seemed pretentious and circular. Try as I might, I couldn’t figure out what it meant. I had trouble throughout the article as well, so I hope some class discussion will help me out with this one.
I found it very interesting that Austerlitz said that any band with a drum set was considered a jazz band, and also that the tango was revered as a sort of nationalist music in Finland. He also said that influence was a two-way street on p. 192 regarding new music and old music (or revival and original perhaps). I think this is always the case, but that we often overlook it in our constructions of the historical narrative. I personally like the labels we give music, since it forms a basis for a conceptual framework to think about and contextualize music, but there are problems with them that we have already discussed quite a bit. I wonder if the problem often boils down to these labels creating the illusion that these musics exist separately and do not influence each other.
"any band with a drum set was considered a jazz band" -- I had similar thoughts which got me thinking about essentialism and how we categorize things...I generally like labels too...though I don't always agree with other peoples' labels, I embrace the debate!
DeleteI wonder if Scottish music in the 18th C would be an example of "saving a dying tradition that was actually alive and well?" From Gelbart's description, some traditions, like piping, actually suffered from efforts at "preservation."
DeleteBut I think Livingstone's thinking that the music culture has to be *perceived* as disappearing or threatened in some way is probably the key. Scottish music was seen as being danger of disappearing due to outside influences (since the idea that folk music is always changing to a greater or lesser degree wasn't recognized).
Good point Michelle!
DeleteI've also found that revivals (or textbooks, or "best of" lists, etc.) can have a "police" function, where certain kinds of musicking are permitted and encouraged and other kinds aren't. So, with the blues example you mentioned, it seemed like the discography was a way of policing the boundaries of what was accepted in the revival.
Delete"I wonder if the problem often boils down to these labels creating the illusion that these musics exist separately and do not influence each other." Agreed; labels carry stereotypes, which sometimes prohibit people from engaging in other music that they don't like or normally listen to, thus not allowing them to see how different musics have influenced each other.
Deleteyour comment helps me better understand the musical revival...
Deletethe requirements of revival(disappearing or defunct) are certainly able to exist in anywhere...however, the result of revival could be very different depends on characteristics of each culture...
disappearing would mean not performing in public and defunct would mean not using by people...
personally, I think trying to regain the popularity could be a purpose of revival in recent time. Also, the original venue or function of the folk could be changed.
One of the overarching topics presented within the articles this week is the authenticity of folk songs and of the culture/people associated with the songs.
ReplyDeleteIn Buchanan’s article, the Pirin Folk genre is discussed at length, citing it as a blending of different mainstream music/ideals from present-day Bulgarian culture and with historical aspects, notably the lighter, more lyrical pre-WWII Old Urban songs. Because this genre was influenced by old and new songs and styles, could one call the Pirin Folk a revival of Old Urban Songs? I would say yes since the urban song tradition had faded away from the public eye. According to the Livingston article, a revival is not necessary if the music is “alive and well,” which OUS was not. Additionally, the songs harkened back to a more positive time in Bulgarian culture, which may have been seen as a way to provide a bolster of positivity amongst the people for the new Bulgarian political climate.
While she cites the political shift in Bulgaria as one of the main (if not the primary) reasons for the development of Pirin Folk, Buchanan states that the ‘folk’ aspect of P.F. is really what “links the Bulgarian songs of yesterday and today (176).” Based on this idea, could one assume that the people associated with a certain type of folk music are what determines the authenticity of the music, meaning their own culture and ideals form the basis for song lyrics, melody, and harmony? If the people are facing some sort political turmoil or oppression, do they enact revivals of their music in order to bolster resistance to keep their authenticity as a people alive and well?
I think the answer to your last question could be "yes," although I think the effort may fail if the governing powers are strong. I had a Taiwanese professor (Dr. Hung) who said that some Chinese music has "stayed alive" in Taiwan while it was stamped out in China, so if you want to learn those musical traditions, you have to go to Taiwan.
DeleteLivingston – on pg. 4 (of 21) she speculates about the reasons for folk revivals. I think one point of her thesis really bears some weight here: that revivals are reactions to subgroups disaffected with the contemporary state of things (usually perceived as a poor state), and we see this especially in today’s culture. At least in my opinion, we have a mainstream subgroup that reacts by embracing what is perceived as not mainstream (sometimes called “hipster,” I think somewhat negatively perhaps, I’m not sure?) But a big part of this is a nostalgic attitude for simpler (perceived as better) times. I think this is the whole idea of folk revivals. I also see the dialectic between subgroup (young people burdened with college debt) and the dominant group (corporate lobby/bankers/corrupt politicians/etc.) that she mentions at play. I guess this is not earth-shattering, but I thought it was insightful
ReplyDeleteDegirmenci: Besides a tendency for unnecessarily complicated sentence structures, an excessive amount of passive voice, and the occasional typo, there were some interesting ideas. I particularly appreciated the comparison between 18th- and 19th century belief systems about nature, and the general history of Turkish music. But then something incomprehensible will follow: “It [culture] can be depicted as a seminal element that brings forth the cultural forms or determines the general framework of the realm of meanings in those cultural forms.” Culture [can be depicted as a seminal element that] brings forth cultural forms or determines [the general framework of the realm of] meanings in those cultural forms.
“In its chase for hegemony, any political strategy appropriates different elements from various cultural forms, removes them from their contexts and reprocesses them in the new contexts. The construction of Turkish folk music is an epitome of this process.” I thought all folk music was the epitome of this process—appropriation, recontextualization, etc.? perhaps not? Otherwise we wouldn’t know about it or consider it folk if it hadn’t gone through this process, right? It would just exist out there somewhere, unappropriated and in its original context. Unless this is strictly referring to political appropriation.
Austerlitz: I really liked the anecdote about Teppo Repo calling his composition on the boat a “jazz” piece, and then Vaisanen said “uh, no…that’s a scherzo.” It seems so silly, but I think it really shows how consciously aware everyone is of the folk/art distinction. Not only that, but people have such strong opinions about what these two categories should sound like and fail to take into consideration what pieces actually sound like sometimes. I also agree with this idea that folk revival is a misleading term since the traditions are most likely changed or adapted…it always comes back to authenticity.
Discussion question: This reading in particular spurred me to read up on essentialism a bit. And it makes sense to me in terms of biology, but I am still a bit unclear of how it relates to more abstract categorizations such as genres and cultures. Do genres and cultures have “substantial” characteristics that lend themselves to categorization, or are these characteristics projected onto them [the genres] by us?
Harris: I realize I am already over the word limit so I’ll be brief. I thought this article was so well-written and organized that it was so easy to read. I feel like I got a fairly objective overview of the this copyright situation. It was interesting to see that the pentatonic scale came up again, as it was being projected onto the Chinese folk songs in lieu of their “complex modality.”
P.S. This blogger format is a vast improvement. So much easier to read and comment.
Yeah, the Degirmenci and the Buchanan were... difficult for me to read, mostly because of the writing style/structure, etc. And as proved below and in my comments, usually I'm good with long sentences and passive voice. (yep, horrid of me.)
DeleteI actually became a little frustrated by Livingstone's continual search for other reasons (political, attitudinal) for people to be involved in a "folk revival." Or, seeing as how in today's world an oral, illiterate tradition is increasingly rare (connotative definition of "true folk"), her search for political/attitudinal reasons for someone being involved in folk, period. No doubt some of those reasons are valid, but one that was never mentioned was "well, I just like it." From reading that article, it very nearly seemed that if someone had a taste for folk revival music, one had to be middle-class and dissatisfied with life.
Can classical music in general be deemed an ongoing "folk revival?" There's probably less classical music lovers than popular music enthusiasts (well, a lot of us are both here, but just ignoring that for the moment). We've got "original sources;" a "group of followers," "revivalist activities" (Haydn's operas, presentations at AMS on Midway Fair music, etc), and definitely a lot of non-profit and/or commercial enterprises that cater to the classical music market. Or is classical music too big yet, and is deemed "mainstream?" : )
p.s. I WILL agree that the blog it is easier to read...
I've never thought of hip sets as a marginalized group, so that's an interesting thought! And the whole jazz genre is interesting, since it doesn't really fit neatly into the "art-folk" (or even "art-folk-pop") dichotomy.
Delete"...That revivals are reactions to subgroups disaffected with the contemporary state of things (usually perceived as a poor state), and we see this especially in today’s culture...But a big part of this is a nostalgic attitude for simpler (perceived as better) times. I think this is the whole idea of folk revivals." So true!
Delete"Do genres and cultures have “substantial” characteristics that lend themselves to categorization, or are these characteristics projected onto them [the genres] by us?" Looking at and thinking about the different cultural regions in the U.S. (midwest, south, east, etc.), I think genres and cultures do have characteristics (maybe/maybe not substantial) that lend themselves to categorization. The midwest is often associated with a slower and simpler way of life while the east is more fast paced.
"Can classical music in general be deemed an ongoing "folk revival?""
DeleteActually, I think yes! And there are revivals within the revival... historical performance practice, etc. It is perhaps a super-cultivated example of a revival.
Lots of interesting stuff in this week's readings. The two topics that struck me most where the interactions between "folk" music and politics (in Harris, Buchanan, Livingstone, and Degirmenci) and "folk" music moving towards popular music (in Austerlitz especially, but also to some degree in Livingstone, Degirmenci, and Harris it seemed).
ReplyDeleteThe state-sponsored “folk” music of China and Turkey (and to a lesser extent Bulgaria) was very interesting. Does it still qualify as being against the mainstream and a cultural opposition when it is being used by the powers-that-be (Livingstone’s definitions of a folk revival)? Or would simply contrasting against Western music in general be enough of an cultural opposition to count? I wasn’t aware that the folk music was being used – or had been used – for political ends in Bulgaria and Turkey so recently, although in retrospect it makes perfect sense. In Finland and Bulgaria, it seems that “folk” music is crossing over more into the difficult-to-define realm of pop; bands are touring, putting out albums, attracting a huge following, and mixing in different styles. Pirin folk was described as “ethno-pop.” Is it just me, or are the lines between folk and pop traditions and cross-pollination between the two in modern times even more fuzzy than the line between art and folk in the Romantic era?
Livingstone and Austerlitz both had the idea, it seemed in the end, that a “folk music revival” was a bit of a misleading term since it tended to transform rather than revive traditions, although Livingstone persisted in putting out some definitions of a “folk revival.” Livingstone had a few problematic assumptions to my mind as well (especially since it was a little shy on the evidence and citation side for me): the idea that a folk music revival was middle class, associated with dissatisfaction with contemporary life, modern vs. traditional, privileging exchange value over use value, objectification, commodification, and rationalization, etc. At one point Livingstone talks about objectification of culture; the argument is that culture has to be thought of as a “thing” so it can be “revived.” I’ve always thought of culture as a noun (maybe being an editor means I tend to think of words as parts of speech) – but can culture be separate from the physical objects it creates in the first place, and even if it can’t, can culture be thought of as entirely an object? Is it really necessary to think of something as an object in order to “revive” it?
Another issue was that a “revival” was over when it separated into different styles or when authenticity wasn’t an end unto itself. I’m not sure that a separation into different styles can mark the end of a revival; regarding “early music,” would the separation into Baroque, Classical, and Renaissance performing styles as the movement progressed be seen as the entire “early music revival” disintegrating?
Previously we’ve all questioned whether “folk” and “art” music are still valid terms to use. Now I’m raising the same question with regard to “authenticity,” especially in modern interpretations of folk music. It was a concept I had trouble with in Gelbart; the Austerlitz article says “Challenging the authenticity of ‘invented traditions’ amounts to making a moot point, because as cultural artifacts, traditions are socially constructed by definition. As jazz composer Les McCann asks, ‘gotta make it real compared to what?’….” (Austerlitz p. 17).Is the whole idea of “authenticity” becoming a moot point in today’s constructionist-conscious culture?
p.s. This blogger format had BETTER be a *huge* improvement, it's been a complete pain trying to get email set up, the site to accept my comments, etc.
It's much better, I promise...
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDoes anyone know how to reply to a specific comment, and not just generally to the post?
Deleteand building on the issue of politics, it seems that folk music functions differently when the "folk" are contested (like in China or in Turkey), whereas with Finland, these categories seem far more stable.
DeleteAnd yes, it is absolutely better. I'm guessing you answered your own question (from above?)
DeleteI think that the idea of different styles emerging in regards to the early music revival could possibly refer to different performance aesthetics. For instance, the Tallis Scholars vs. The Robert Shaw Singers in the performance of Palestrina. Perhaps...
DeleteI was also interested about the state-sponsored folk music. would the performances of folk create a huge different atmosphere under the different type of sponsor??
Deletewhat is the opposite side of state-sponsored folk music??
could I ask its opposite notion??
we could find the example stated sponsored folk music, folk music in democracy, and even sometimes folk becomes sponsored by foreign countries. what is the purpose of sponsorship? using a folk? keeping a folk? learning a folk?
"Is it just me, or are the lines between folk and pop traditions and cross-pollination between the two in modern times even more fuzzy than the line between art and folk in the Romantic era?"
DeleteYES ABSOLUTELY! :)
In fact, I think perhaps the most strongly cordoned-off tradition in modern culture is, in fact, art music.
among the other readings the Austerlitz's article makes me think.
ReplyDeleteHe argues about the transnational aesthetics. Transnational music would be taken place when the local musicality are interwoven with the notion of nation.
Based on this idea could I think the transnational aesthetics would be one of preliminary cultural aspect of late nineteenth century European countries?
Austerlitz also points out that oral transmitted rural arts embraced by bourgeois nationalists who dreamed a cosmopolitan. I think this fact shows the important role of mass media even though there was an assumption that mass media deteriorated the original folk. Could people break the limited cultural distribution of aristocracy without mass media. Maybe the transnational musicians were already influenced by mass media before they embarked on the mission of invented tradition.
The question about the originality would be more complex. the answer of McCann-(Compare to what? ) toward the originality of folk represents the difficulty of definition of origin as well. people may find its original form more easier when they try to find the invented or accepted factors in their performances.
I also found the relationship between politics and folk very interesting, but it looks like you guys got that covered so I won't talk too much about it. I found the idea of Folklore as a national spirit presented in the Degirmenci article to be a nice approach to the definition debacle that we have been having lately. This article (and my research on Igor Moiseyev) made me think a lot about Folklore in a multicultural society. It seems that the folklore of a nation is reflective on the majority, but is it that easy? For instance, America is home to many different cultures with their own folklore. At what point do we look at folklore that overlaps nationalities as part of our own? or do we just accept the majorities folklore as the folklore of the nation?
ReplyDeleteSorry for my late response, everyone, it has been a busy busy busy week!!!
ReplyDeleteI really loved the discussion of authenticity as discussed in the Livingston. This is an issue we've been going over in our class discussions and so it was nice to finally see it spelled out in a very convincing argument. I was fascinated by his suggestion that revivals are a middle class phenomenon, especially as it related to the "culture industry".... I will be writing my term paper on something related to this! Stay tuned...
The Buchanan article ... SO MANY PARALLELS to American music! I was deeply fascinated by the similarities, while at the same time noticing differences, especially the fact that the music came into existence in response to an oppressive political climate.
The Degirmenci had me thinking about the approach we must take to studying music from an ethnomusicological standpoint. Is our standpoint a scientific one? Do we try to ascertain the most "pure" form of the music, and also try to indicate how it has been "corrupted" by outside forces, quantifying the levels of purity and the levels of outside influence? Or do we take a humanitarian approach, or perhaps a philosophical approach, simply making observations as we are able to as subjective individuals, and try to draw some overarching conclusions based on what we see? Or do we exist somewhere in between science and philosophy???
I think by "humanitarian" I meant humanistic...
DeleteI hit submit before I was done typing... Alongside with the idea of scientific vs. philosophical... is commercialism a corrupting force? The tone of some ethnographic texts takes that sort of tone when dealing with commercial influences. At times even the Degirmenci took that tone, although for the most part the author dealt with commercial influence in a wonderfully insightful manner. The best quote from this article: "Every cultural form is a composition of meanings, aesthetic traditions, and messages, which together refer to a political discourse."
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the Austerlitz addresses this very question of mine regarding authenticity... "In this interconnected world, the cultural observer
cannot discount her own experiences: my status as a
Finnish-American clarinetist, for example, is inextricably linked to my study
of clarinetists in Finland." I also loved the quote from the jazz player, "You gotta make it real compared to what?" What a frustrating study... like comparing clouds to clouds... spend too much time looking at one, and by the time you've looked back at the other, it's shifted its shape or floated away entirely. She addresses this issue partially in her conclusion.
As I was reading the Harris, I found it fascinating to imagine musical traditions as physical space or property -- specifically, public vs. private property, such as a park. I remember when I was a little girl I lived in a town with a wonderful, large public park with lots of hills and trees and a river. I would play in the woods quite often, and would inevitably end up next to the fence at some point -- the fence that separated the park from the adjacent golf course. The boundary point put up between the park and the golf course was the only signifier of the change from public to private property -- the woods themselves stayed the same, at least for the fifty yards or so until they reached the green of the golf course. I wonder if that arbitrary fence isn't at least a bit like the fence put up between the various musics discussed in this article.