I think the readings of this week keep saying about the existence of folk music and its antiquities. In the different social structure- now there is no " peasantary" as class- folk music became hard to be considered as a part of life style in England. the popularity of song or music would be a main key for making exist the folk music ,also, according to the article it also seems to be very changed. it was interesting that people adapted the folk music as language. The singers were mentally occupied with the word ,"not with the tune without conscious effort ." they intentionally changed the text of folk. i think that means tune would naturally be adjusted in the text and if the tune was beautiful it needed nothing to be reccommended to use many set of words. this could be usual aspect of the oral transmission processing. So, I think people may not be able to gauge the decayness and antiquity of folk music. the surviving of traditioon has inevitable undergone the transformation by popularity which is the taste of society or groups of people. When people get a new text based on their changed lifestyle, the other buried folk music would be redicovered or people could directly observe the existing popular folk music rematches to new set of text.
Nettle Songs and Their Relationships: I find Nettle’s writing style refreshing. I think that academic writing is always in danger of pretension, but I feel that Nettle has something to say and says it clearly.
I found this reading fascinating in its discussion of the differences between a “work” or “piece,” variants of that piece, and other pieces inspired by that piece in a broad sense. I liked that he pointed out that we can have similar (although probably more subtle) manifestations of this problem when looking at “Classical” music. To me, this really speaks to the constructed nature of all of our terms we use to describe and categorize music. As Eric has pointed out several times this semester, I think these terms are helpful. However, I think we have to keep their constructed nature constantly in the front of our minds. The concept of a “work” is just that: a concept. Music does not perfectly fit the adjectives we affix to it; it simply exists as what it is. I think this is similar to scientific laws and theories: these are models for thinking about and understanding the universe, but we have codified these laws. Scientists I think might be a little better at allowing their ideas to change with new evidence than us in the humanities.
I especially liked the proposal of a “sim” scale for similarities and differences between musics. I think an actual reliable use of this type of system would probably be pretty ambitious. In a perfect world it would work, but as Nettle’s discussion of studies that have attempted any kind of scale of comparison showed, this type of comparison is fraught with problems. I think the problem of different versions of the same “work” would complicate this matter much further. If we can’t even tell if something is the same work or a different work, how can we define genres of music strictly enough to do any type of scientific comparison?
Ethnicity and Musical ID: The most interesting part of this article to me was the brief mention of the two-way street of cultural approbation. It is interesting that the Germans took “good” Czech musicians as their own, while the Czechs took Germans within their borders as their own Question: Can you think of contemporary examples of two-way approbation?
Another interesting part of this article was perception of music as exotic or “other” Eastern Slavs thought that Czech folk music sounded German, while Germans thought it sounded exotic. This reminds me of my grandmother, who moved to the US from Japan when she was in her twenties. Her English is still not great and she has a thick accent, but her family in Japan tells her that her Japanese carries a thick American accent. I think these situations speak to the difficulty of gaining native-like “fluency” in a foreign language or music, and relates to the emic/etic tension that we have encountered before. It is incredibly difficult to truly gain an insider’s perspective if you are not one.
Filene: Francis James Childs’s view that ballads “had once been enjoyed by all…but they had become tainted when educated classes had turned their attention to fine-art music, leaving the ballad form to ‘the ignorant and unschooled mass’” reminded me of Cecil Sharps view from last week, which if I am remembering correctly was essentially the same thing. The lower classes had retained these songs while the educated elite had abandoned them.
I had never known that former slaves distanced themselves from spirituals. It makes sense, certainly, but I had never read this before.
Similarly, I never knew about the collection of cowboy songs. We would probably not know the song “Home on the Range” if it weren’t for Lomax’s efforts.
I also found it interesting that Peer did not require songs to be old to be included in what we could call his “canon” of American Folk Song (this in contrast to Sharp/Childs).
The analogy with your grandmother is enlightening.
I agree that the sim scale was enticing at first, but I found myself more deeply critical as I kept reading. I found myself asking if such a scale would lead to comparisons that were quick and facile, without a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the subject matter. I can think of other numbering systems that have lead to this sort of problem; for example, BMI can only tell us certain things about a person's health, but doesn't reveal the whole story of what's going on with a person's body and mind.
I agree, Nettl's writing is a model of excellence for academic writing, in my opinion. I had a lot of the same reactions especially to the idea of the music 'piece/concept.' What about a set of composed variations such as Brahms/Paganini or Rachmaninoff/Paganini?? I think it's safe to say they differ quite a bit, but they are the essentially the same 'piece.' The idea of considering them as the same 'work' or 'concept' would probably agitate a lot of people though.
Yes, Child's view was a lot like Sharp's in some respects - the original creators of the "folk" music they were collecting weren't seen as good stewards for the material they had, and besides, it was dying out and so needed to be rescued (except in Child's case, he was really trying to work with material that was already "dead" - not realizing that some of those ballads were still apparently in the performing tradition...)
I was trying to think of another modern day version of two-way appropriation... but the only thing I can think of isn't terribly modern although it's still a bit of an issue in the Southwest US. When many of the border states became part of the US, families that were traditionally Mexican became US citizens. Many of them still have some loose ties to Mexican culture and are ethnically Hispanic (itself a very difficult term to use). Now, with the bruhaha regarding illegal immigration, many of these people, who have been US citizens for generations now, are being asked if they're legal or when they came over. The response is they didn't come over, the border came over them. I kept thinking of that with this reading; it's really similar to the Czech / S. German issue in a way. But I don't know how it plays out musically - I mean, mariachi and corrido are popular on both sides of the border as far as I know, but I've never looked into it or studied those genres.
Great points. Manuel Pena has written extensively about the Tejano music on the Texas-Mexican border. The same groups are valued differently on different sides of the border and are at times even referred to by different names: conjunto vs. orquesta.
We read in the Nettl about yet another example of the use of music for extra-musical means - in this case, the Germans thinking of German music as "art" and Czech music and musicians as "folk" within the larger battle for cultural hegemony. Of course, the cultural relationships Nettle describes are more nuanced than that, since the cultural battle seems to have played itself out in varying ways according to perspective: "To eastern Slavs, Czech folk music sounded very German, but to Germans, it had its exotic aspects." And of course, as we read, the Sudeten Germans ultimately assimilated into German "fatherland" culture.
I think the description of Jews in Prague identifying as "ethnically musical" is the first we've seen of its kind -- we've encountered cultures in which music is integrated into daily life, certainly, but this is the first case I can think of in which a group of people uses "musicality" in general as a cultural identifier. I would love to hear more about why Mozart was and is so revered in Prague!
The point that Nettl raised in his other article about differences between song variants being aligned with but not exactly the same as different Beethoven performances is a point that has been raised in this discussion previously, but I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this issue. For me, differences between interpretations of standard canonical literature are incredibly important -- for example, the difference between Rubinstein and Horowitz's Chopin nocturnes, or even the differences between Gould's two recordings of the Goldberg variations -- the different interpretations almost become like completely new pieces to my ears! Do you agree with me in this experience? Do you think it has ramifications on a musicological level? On an anthropological level?
Nettl also discusses various models for determining underlying motives of folk song variants, and also various models of classification according to musical content. His story about the father singing to his children brought something to mind - I couldn't help but think of Schenkerian analysis, which (I will grossly oversimplify here) claims that every piece of common practice classical music is an elaboration on a I-V-I chord progression and a simple descending scale from scale degree 8, 5, or 1. Every piece!
In the Filence I was most interested to read about the influence that technology had on the collection process, and also how commercialization both helped and hindered the efforts of revivalists in America. I think that with some of the figures we read about, for example Peer, the area between "pop" music and "folk" music becomes incredibly murky! And how fascinating, too, to read about the birth of hillbilly and race records, knowing now what the recording industry has become.
I've already gone on too long but I wanted to mention that in my undergrad I did a small amount of research on the music program at Haskell Indian Nations University, located in Lawrence, KS. Haskell actually started out in the late 1800s as a boarding school for Native American children to go and be taught "the ways of the white man" so that they could "function" in society, and music program was a huge part of that "cultural education" process. However, until the 1930s or so, the band would go on tour around the country, doing a two part show: the first half of the program the band members would wear "war paint" and dress in costume, playing arrangements made by their band director (also Native American) of "Indian tunes" (really just exotic sounding made-up melodies). Then in the second half the band members would change out of their costumes, wipe off the makeup, comb their hair, and come on stage to perform European classical music. The band was a huge hit, according to the research I did, and made a lot of money for the school. It was interesting to notice a parallel with the spiritual singing groups mentioned in the chapter.
Whoa, that sounds really interesting and absolutely packed with (to us) troubling cultural messages! I know there's a book about musical depictions of the west (Beth Levy's "Frontier Figures"), but from what I remember, she only talks about Western classical depictions of "Indians." This extends that in an interesting way, as those same "Indians" use both "their" music and "our" music to both portray their own cultural identity to white America, and show how they could incorporate white American music into their own culture. Did you uncover why this ended in the 1930s?
There's a great read called Indian Blues by John Troutman (2013) that explores many of these issues, especially the chapter “The Sounds of ‘Civilization’: Music and the Assimilation Campaign in Federal Indian Boarding Schools".
That is very interesting bit of information on Haskell! Yes, I agree with you fully on your experience and I think that it does have ramifications on a musicological level. For instance, the interpretations of the Bach Cello Suites by Yo Yo Ma and Rostropovich are very different to my ears. Rostropovich takes more liberties with tempo and rubato and plays with a much darker sound, while Yo Yo Ma adheres more to what is written and has a brighter sound. So, which interpretation is supposed to represent correct Baroque performance practices, Bach's interpretation, etc?
The reason I majored in music and the reason I am now doing musicology is because of recording technology. I began collecting a lot of classical recordings in 6th grade, and that's really where I learned most of what I know about classical music, at least on a foundational level. Because of this, I think I tend to view recordings as a kind of "text," meaning that I agree with you, Brianna! For me at least, different interpretations of the same "work" are almost different works. Usually I prefer Solti's Mahler 8, but if I'm in an unusual mood, I might listen to Tilson-Thomas. Moreover, the Solti was my first recording, so I think in my mind, that is the "right" way to perform it, since it's so ingrained in my ears. Furthermore, I love to hear the way pop singers change their songs in live performances. It seems like a completely different song.
I enjoyed Nettle’s “On Top of Old Smoky” effect. This idea that songs blended together and evolved into something new is fascinating to me. I wonder if there are any copies of music that can show this effect taking place. I haven’t thought about creativity in this way before, and I have to say it makes a lot of sense. I think that understanding the lineage of something (in this case folk songs) can give a new perspective to the piece that is being studied. This seems pretty obvious, but I never thought of applying this idea to folk songs. This idea shows up in Nettle’s article about ethnicity and musical identity only in this case the blending is occurring with a group of people rather than a song. It is so interesting that this one idea can be applied to such a variety of events. Further, I also think this idea relates to Gelbart’s argument that Herder was the culmination of the work that came before him. In this case the blending was of an idea. As a student I have often looked at music or music history linearly rather than overlapping, or blending. This idea does make music history a little less organized, but I find it far more interesting and organic. Hopefully this makes sense and isn’t something that is super obvious…I also think this idea ties into the article on American folk song. By allowing “folk culture” to be ever changing, scholars were able to extend their reach their vision of the folk. I wonder if looking at things so fluidly could eventually become problematic? Do we need to first develop a linear though process that is full of labels and groupings in order to eventually look at things from this more fluid/overlapping perspective?
I think your last question really goes back to how we try to teach music history. So much of music history - any critical study, really - is, like Nettl stated, examining differences and to a much more limited extent, similarities. But do we really need to make the ideas of different eras so rigid? Yet if we don't, some beginning students may become confused with the differences between an early Baroque opera and a late Classical. Maybe you have to know the properties of different chemicals in order to understand how they're going to combine. On the other hand, maybe it's more basic and you don't have to understand meat and bread separately before enjoying a sandwich! It's a bit of a conundrum.
I think what you described is true of just about everything in life. We use categorization to understand a subject, but really the categories are superimposed and not real, so a true understanding of the subject would lead to a relinquishing of those categories.
At the same time, though, sometimes the subject matter begins to interact with the categorization process -- for example, the commercialization of the concept of "folk" that we have been studying.
Nettl’s reading was very comprehensible. I could imagine a” Tune” as like a human being. (Like the theory of evolution) The article seem to explain the variety of tunes and musical performances technically has a huge-general root and people simply played in different way and keep trying to better known version. I think possibilities of different interpretation would be influential factors of foreign and outsider to a certain tune family. A tune could social interact with its musical acquaintances, vary itself to new life style, and fight and steal. This is a new way of thinking!! Another Nettl’s article, I saw the hegemony of certain country could make a number of subcultures under the regime. I am not against the brilliance of German music; however, the article made me think this musical heritage would have been built up based on variety of subculture. Not focus on the result of musical phenomenon, during the processing, I think the German, Bohemian, Jews, and other ethnics performed their own role in music during 19th century in Czech. (Personally, I am really admired the Jewish performers and even Gybsy musician. I have believed their musicality is more emotionally developed than any other countries’ musicians). I could find no meaning to classify a stereotype or subtype of music in this area. They may have co worked and not abandoned each other till 1945.
I thought it was interesting that German supremacy in music was a conscious one. Schoenberg famously thought that his new system would ensure German supremacy in music for a long time... It is to do wiht nationalism as much as music per se.
Perhaps we all love German music so much simply because we are intimately acquainted with it. What if we had an intimate knowledge of another type of music that is equally complex and emotionally connected?
This weeks articles were the most interesting and easy to digest so far. Nettl observed how different folk songs and variations of the original ones seem to fit into “tune families” and how the measurement of their similarities and differences as well as the relationships between their content and styles determine what family they belong to. This criteria is something gathered, altered, and shaped over time. While this may initially seem to aid in assigning a tune to a specific family, in the end, time actually hinders the assignment process because “the more we know, the less clear the boundaries” become.
Nettl’s next article, which describes the musical and national happenings in Czech Bohemia, also brought up some poignant illustrations, most notably Burney’s idea of calling Bohemia the “Conservatory of Europe.” I think this idea could be expanded even further, calling for all the Czech lands to be included in the “Conservatory of Europe” ideal. For instance, the start of the wind band in America can be traced to the Czech Moravian settlement of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania in the mid to late 1700’s where church bands were formed for entertainment purposes as well as a way to continue their heritage.
Filene’s chapter presented some contrasting information to what I thought I already knew, specifically on the beginnings of hillbilly/country music. Peer and his colleagues were after capital gains (not gains pertaining to America’s heritage) when they started recording rural music in the south. This makes me wonder why the development of modern country music has taken so long (minus the Great Depression and the advent of rock and roll in the 50’s)? If the music was supposedly bringing in all of this revenue, then one would assume the record companies would want to capitalize on it? Could it be related to the divide in working and upper classes, that country music was considered dumb and old fashioned, not new and cosmopolitan like jazz or rock and roll?
Filene’s chapter pointed out some of the things we’ve been talking about in class already such as the collections in Britain and Cecil Sharp’s work. However, from there on it ventured into new territory for me. I was very much struck by the collections done by record companies, though. I have no idea why – even knowing of race record labels – I hadn’t figured that record companies would be in on the folk collecting. The origin of Hillbilly music was completely new to me. I hadn’t realized that so many genres sort of skipped the academic collecting step and went straight to a popular form because of record companies swarming an area and then packing away recordings in dry ice!
Increasingly as I’ve been wading through different variants of the “Edward” ballad, I’ve been wondering about the ways tunes travel and change across cultural boundaries. Nettl’s problematizing of similarities based on what is important musically to a particular culture (text, tune, rhythm, etc.) I think is going to be absolutely crucial to keep in mind. Unfortunately, it also seems like even attempting to figure out the origins and paths that a tune takes, especially through different cultures, always involves deciding what could have been the most important aspects of a tune to a culture – some sort of “emic” consideration. Which, if you’ve got a tune that walked through multiple countries and at least two continents over centuries, seems almost impossible to do. How is one supposed to know what would have been important to keep relatively unchanged in 1800s Finland versus early 1900s American versus current-day Britain? Agghh!
Nettl’s article about Czech and South-German musical and ethnic identity raised some questions for me. Partly it was because of the overall positive view that seemed to dominate the music of Jews, Roms, and Czechs throughout – that despite the fact that these were the musics of cultures/language groups thought to be unlettered or lesser in some way, that the article still portrayed the music as being largely respected. (With some exceptions by German scholars). Collections were undertaken, a general belief that connection with Czech cultures made German-Bohemian music special, etc., all speak to a recognition of value that I didn’t think was that widespread (and I couldn’t help noticing that although Jewish and Czech musical influences were discussed, after a paragraph or so the Rom weren’t mentioned again). The battle to claim Stamitz as German or Czech reminded me of the debate over Chopin’ Polishness, with the added twist that many of these earlier 18th century composers in particular were writing in recognized mainstream European styles and forms. I also want to know more about the traveling musicians, the Musickant. Who were they? Were they from one particular ethnic group in particular, or does it include members of the Rom, Jewish musicians, and Czech musicians? How were they viewed, especially in light of the established court musicians? Were they paid as well? Were Musickant primarily solo acts, like a traveling bard or minstrel, or groups? Would these itinerant musicians have been one of the primary contributors to the sort of unique blend of cultures in Bohemia? There’s only one book listed with a few pages cited in the footnote – anyone in class know any more about this?
Hey, why wouldn't record companies want to cash in on the folk? I never considered this either though. What I thought was interesting was that the record companies often offered a more diverse representation of the folk than academic collectors.
I know! The second I read it, it made perfect sense. One of those, well DUH! moments. And the record companies were marketing to a completely different audience than the collectors, it often seemed like.
"Deciding what could have been the most important aspects of a tune to a culture" is a challenging process to say the least. While there are distinguishing characteristics of certain types of music among some communities, it's very difficult to say that culture X values Y in their music. I would be curious to know what Dr. Nettl thinks about this, but focusing on what the editors/collectors/composers deemed important when they adopted/adapted various ballads would still seem to me like the best course.
The Filene reading I thought was especially thorough and well-organized. It was interesting to see how the different manifestations of American folk—English-ballad, slaves songs, and cowboy songs—all jockeyed for prime position. It was interesting, however, that Filene noted that often the exploitive productions of folk by recording companies had a tendency to better represent African American song than the academic collectors. There were a lot of tie-ins with last week especially with the sections on Child and Sharp, and that previous knowledge fit nicely as a framework for these readings. Also, another aspect that seems a potentially fruitful research topic was the role of gender in the collection of American folksongs. Sharp’s racial ‘indoctrination’ was a bit unsettling.
Nettl’s discussion of the concept of the piece was one of the most logical and clearly articulated chapters that I’ve read. I think this is partially because he has such a broad knowledge of music history in general and in part to his tendency to always use examples to explain concepts. The concept of cataloging variants seems like a dangerous game especially when the originals or the “intermediate versions” of a song are not extant. I though this part was especially clear and got me thinking about the way we categorize things in music history. I agree though, this discernment between similarities and differences forms the heart of what we do, and even if terminology is particularly difficult, as we have seen this semester, there are methods in place. The ‘sims’ idea seems interesting but is probably laden with its own problems of subjectivity.
One theme that I noticed in this week’s readings, that we have brought up time and time again, was the idea of co-opting folk music to promote the image of nation. In Nettl (2002), he states, “by developing icons to represent musically the struggle for political identity” (pg. 275). Nothing new here, but what was really interesting was what he says later in the essay, “Cultural appropriation may work both ways-and each direction has its share of irony” (pg. 285). So my question is: does cultural appropriation work both ways?
I wonder if we can extend your question, and ask if cultural appropriation is happening, doesn't it both subvert the appropriated tradition (taking African-American music and adding it to white musical practices) as well as the appropriating one (since white music cannot be the same thing after the act of appropriation, no matter how thorough or successful it is)?
The sim idea is indeed interesting but the problem of course is that we would be trying to quantify things that are by nature qualitative... I do think that cultural appropriation can work both ways. I thought that Sharp's contention of Appalacian music as being truly English as an example of that.
I would say that it does work both ways and in an uneven manner. It seems that there is usually a dominant culture in appropriation and the weaker one adopts more customs and assets from the other.
Apologies for my late posting, I’m still getting caught up from the Society for American conference this weekend (and saw several cool folk-related papers, if anyone is interested!).
Nettl’s writing is a model of what good writing is supposed to be: clear, direct, precise, informed, and readable (and I think similar thoughts about the Filene). I was most stimulated by his consideration of similarity and difference. Many things (stylistic characteristics, analysis, generic and chronological divisions, etc.) in the field are predicated on understanding and articulating these qualities, and from a musicological background, I can only add that the balance between the qualities has produced shifts in disciplinary thought. For example, earlier periods in music history valued similarity (as an aesthetic preference, as a marker of tradition, because of historical factors influencing performance, transmission, and reception, etc.). As we moved towards the 19th century, however, difference become valued more highly (and tied to originality, expression, authenticity, etc.). As a result, early musicologists and subsequent performers and critics began to value difference and weight it more highly than similarity, which became synonymous with derivative, uninspired music. While there is obviously much nuance missing from my description, situating Nettl’s consideration of similarity and difference in broader historical trends might help place strands of ethnomusicological thought in larger Western discourses. This might allow us to understand and interpret cultural production from non-Western countries in -emic ways (for example, tracing how other societies have valued similarity and difference in their larger atheistic and cultural histories, and then seeing how such values have been borne out in transmission, reception, and performance).
I thought Filene’s placing of early American “folk music” in emerging modern and gendered discourses fascinating. For example, he writes (pg. 17) about the perceived encroachment of industrialization on “disappearing” folk culture, which I believe can be related to earlier and similar trends in England. While I thought he might have overstated the importance of the feminization of folk collecting (especially given the intended audiences of the publications), I wondered how the folk tunes were sanitized and re-packaged for this audience. I wish he had delved more deeply into this idea, especially since such a gendered reading might have added another dimension to his larger argument that our understanding of “roots” music has been influenced by the frames it is presented in.
I agree that Nettl's writing was very readable and thus it was relatively easier to digest his message - although I thought Sharp and Karpeles's style had a poise and lucidity that was characteristic of English writers of Bertrand Russell's generation... Nettl's discussion of the different variants of a 'work' - whatever that might be - as relatives, friends and compatriots corresponds to Galbert's citing of Wittgenstein's 'family resemblance' at the beginning of the semester. The further I go into the semester, the more I feel that the problems involved in designating and categorising ideas such as folk music or a work is really a philosophical one, not musical. While the discussion is directly related to music as a discipline, the 'problem' here is really that of schemata. As musicians we are at an advantage to be able to dissect the issues at hand better than a sociologist or a philosopher, but at the end of the day, this seems to be an issue that is interdisciplinary. I also feel that one of the reasons that we still find designating appropriate terms in music difficult is because, whether we like it or not, we still carry nineteenth-century notion of a piece as 'the work'. If we translate the discussions we have been having to something more commonplace and less 'sacred' like food, the issue doesn't seem to quite carry the same gravity. What is the 'ur-Beef Bourguignon'? Did Elizabeth David capture the 'authentic' French country cooking? What is the relationship between haute cuisine and provincial cooking? This may seem ridiculous at first sight, but I do think that there is an exact parallel between the two models, and seeing parallel questions in a different realm may free up some of our most cherished beliefs as well as relativise the complication of the issues at hand. Nettl's discussion of the changing relationships between Czech/German and folk/art music was also interesting. As the article points out, German dominance in music was chronologically rather recent - but deeply imbedded in the current culture of Classical music. The fact that the relationships between Czech and German folk and art music were not set, but variable, suggests that the definition of such categories had extra-musical causes (culture, status quo, etc.) that one might otherwise overlook.
The food analogy is fascinating! I wonder if we could turn it around though, and try historically "accurate" cooking. I gave tours five and a half years at a historic home in Tennessee. At large events, ladies would come and cook in period clothing over a fire. The implication was "this is how they ate back then." Of course, as with performance, there is no such thing as perfect historical accuracy or performance practice. Not only is it determined by aesthetics (or in the case of food, the cooks' tastes), but we are also limited by our modern technology. Those ladies did not grind their own grain, and they did not grow their corn on the property. But no one cared about all of that, which I think proves your point!
Given the fact that there was little time for discussion during Nettl's visit, I thought we might discuss impressions/thoughts in the blog. What were your impressions of the presentation?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think the readings of this week keep saying about the existence of folk music and its antiquities. In the different social structure- now there is no " peasantary" as class- folk music became hard to be considered as a part of life style in England. the popularity of song or music would be a main key for making exist the folk music ,also, according to the article it also seems to be very changed.
ReplyDeleteit was interesting that people adapted the folk music as language. The singers were mentally occupied with the word ,"not with the tune without conscious effort ." they intentionally changed the text of folk. i think that means tune would naturally be adjusted in the text and if the tune was beautiful it needed nothing to be reccommended to use many set of words. this could be usual aspect of the oral transmission processing. So, I think people may not be able to gauge the decayness and antiquity of folk music. the surviving of traditioon has inevitable undergone the transformation by popularity which is the taste of society or groups of people. When people get a new text based on their changed lifestyle, the other buried folk music would be redicovered or people could directly observe the existing popular folk music rematches to new set of text.
This should actually be posted under week 9, not week 10. Perhaps you'd like to delete and repost?
DeleteNettle Songs and Their Relationships: I find Nettle’s writing style refreshing. I think that academic writing is always in danger of pretension, but I feel that Nettle has something to say and says it clearly.
ReplyDeleteI found this reading fascinating in its discussion of the differences between a “work” or “piece,” variants of that piece, and other pieces inspired by that piece in a broad sense. I liked that he pointed out that we can have similar (although probably more subtle) manifestations of this problem when looking at “Classical” music. To me, this really speaks to the constructed nature of all of our terms we use to describe and categorize music. As Eric has pointed out several times this semester, I think these terms are helpful. However, I think we have to keep their constructed nature constantly in the front of our minds. The concept of a “work” is just that: a concept. Music does not perfectly fit the adjectives we affix to it; it simply exists as what it is. I think this is similar to scientific laws and theories: these are models for thinking about and understanding the universe, but we have codified these laws. Scientists I think might be a little better at allowing their ideas to change with new evidence than us in the humanities.
I especially liked the proposal of a “sim” scale for similarities and differences between musics. I think an actual reliable use of this type of system would probably be pretty ambitious. In a perfect world it would work, but as Nettle’s discussion of studies that have attempted any kind of scale of comparison showed, this type of comparison is fraught with problems. I think the problem of different versions of the same “work” would complicate this matter much further. If we can’t even tell if something is the same work or a different work, how can we define genres of music strictly enough to do any type of scientific comparison?
Ethnicity and Musical ID: The most interesting part of this article to me was the brief mention of the two-way street of cultural approbation. It is interesting that the Germans took “good” Czech musicians as their own, while the Czechs took Germans within their borders as their own Question: Can you think of contemporary examples of two-way approbation?
Another interesting part of this article was perception of music as exotic or “other” Eastern Slavs thought that Czech folk music sounded German, while Germans thought it sounded exotic. This reminds me of my grandmother, who moved to the US from Japan when she was in her twenties. Her English is still not great and she has a thick accent, but her family in Japan tells her that her Japanese carries a thick American accent. I think these situations speak to the difficulty of gaining native-like “fluency” in a foreign language or music, and relates to the emic/etic tension that we have encountered before. It is incredibly difficult to truly gain an insider’s perspective if you are not one.
Filene: Francis James Childs’s view that ballads “had once been enjoyed by all…but they had become tainted when educated classes had turned their attention to fine-art music, leaving the ballad form to ‘the ignorant and unschooled mass’” reminded me of Cecil Sharps view from last week, which if I am remembering correctly was essentially the same thing. The lower classes had retained these songs while the educated elite had abandoned them.
I had never known that former slaves distanced themselves from spirituals. It makes sense, certainly, but I had never read this before.
Similarly, I never knew about the collection of cowboy songs. We would probably not know the song “Home on the Range” if it weren’t for Lomax’s efforts.
I also found it interesting that Peer did not require songs to be old to be included in what we could call his “canon” of American Folk Song (this in contrast to Sharp/Childs).
The analogy with your grandmother is enlightening.
DeleteI agree that the sim scale was enticing at first, but I found myself more deeply critical as I kept reading. I found myself asking if such a scale would lead to comparisons that were quick and facile, without a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the subject matter. I can think of other numbering systems that have lead to this sort of problem; for example, BMI can only tell us certain things about a person's health, but doesn't reveal the whole story of what's going on with a person's body and mind.
I agree, Nettl's writing is a model of excellence for academic writing, in my opinion. I had a lot of the same reactions especially to the idea of the music 'piece/concept.' What about a set of composed variations such as Brahms/Paganini or Rachmaninoff/Paganini?? I think it's safe to say they differ quite a bit, but they are the essentially the same 'piece.' The idea of considering them as the same 'work' or 'concept' would probably agitate a lot of people though.
DeleteYes, Child's view was a lot like Sharp's in some respects - the original creators of the "folk" music they were collecting weren't seen as good stewards for the material they had, and besides, it was dying out and so needed to be rescued (except in Child's case, he was really trying to work with material that was already "dead" - not realizing that some of those ballads were still apparently in the performing tradition...)
DeleteI was trying to think of another modern day version of two-way appropriation... but the only thing I can think of isn't terribly modern although it's still a bit of an issue in the Southwest US. When many of the border states became part of the US, families that were traditionally Mexican became US citizens. Many of them still have some loose ties to Mexican culture and are ethnically Hispanic (itself a very difficult term to use). Now, with the bruhaha regarding illegal immigration, many of these people, who have been US citizens for generations now, are being asked if they're legal or when they came over. The response is they didn't come over, the border came over them. I kept thinking of that with this reading; it's really similar to the Czech / S. German issue in a way. But I don't know how it plays out musically - I mean, mariachi and corrido are popular on both sides of the border as far as I know, but I've never looked into it or studied those genres.
Great points. Manuel Pena has written extensively about the Tejano music on the Texas-Mexican border. The same groups are valued differently on different sides of the border and are at times even referred to by different names: conjunto vs. orquesta.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe read in the Nettl about yet another example of the use of music for extra-musical means - in this case, the Germans thinking of German music as "art" and Czech music and musicians as "folk" within the larger battle for cultural hegemony. Of course, the cultural relationships Nettle describes are more nuanced than that, since the cultural battle seems to have played itself out in varying ways according to perspective: "To eastern Slavs, Czech folk music sounded very German, but to Germans, it had its exotic aspects." And of course, as we read, the Sudeten Germans ultimately assimilated into German "fatherland" culture.
ReplyDeleteI think the description of Jews in Prague identifying as "ethnically musical" is the first we've seen of its kind -- we've encountered cultures in which music is integrated into daily life, certainly, but this is the first case I can think of in which a group of people uses "musicality" in general as a cultural identifier. I would love to hear more about why Mozart was and is so revered in Prague!
The point that Nettl raised in his other article about differences between song variants being aligned with but not exactly the same as different Beethoven performances is a point that has been raised in this discussion previously, but I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this issue. For me, differences between interpretations of standard canonical literature are incredibly important -- for example, the difference between Rubinstein and Horowitz's Chopin nocturnes, or even the differences between Gould's two recordings of the Goldberg variations -- the different interpretations almost become like completely new pieces to my ears! Do you agree with me in this experience? Do you think it has ramifications on a musicological level? On an anthropological level?
Nettl also discusses various models for determining underlying motives of folk song variants, and also various models of classification according to musical content. His story about the father singing to his children brought something to mind - I couldn't help but think of Schenkerian analysis, which (I will grossly oversimplify here) claims that every piece of common practice classical music is an elaboration on a I-V-I chord progression and a simple descending scale from scale degree 8, 5, or 1. Every piece!
In the Filence I was most interested to read about the influence that technology had on the collection process, and also how commercialization both helped and hindered the efforts of revivalists in America. I think that with some of the figures we read about, for example Peer, the area between "pop" music and "folk" music becomes incredibly murky! And how fascinating, too, to read about the birth of hillbilly and race records, knowing now what the recording industry has become.
I've already gone on too long but I wanted to mention that in my undergrad I did a small amount of research on the music program at Haskell Indian Nations University, located in Lawrence, KS. Haskell actually started out in the late 1800s as a boarding school for Native American children to go and be taught "the ways of the white man" so that they could "function" in society, and music program was a huge part of that "cultural education" process. However, until the 1930s or so, the band would go on tour around the country, doing a two part show: the first half of the program the band members would wear "war paint" and dress in costume, playing arrangements made by their band director (also Native American) of "Indian tunes" (really just exotic sounding made-up melodies). Then in the second half the band members would change out of their costumes, wipe off the makeup, comb their hair, and come on stage to perform European classical music. The band was a huge hit, according to the research I did, and made a lot of money for the school. It was interesting to notice a parallel with the spiritual singing groups mentioned in the chapter.
DeleteWhoa, that sounds really interesting and absolutely packed with (to us) troubling cultural messages! I know there's a book about musical depictions of the west (Beth Levy's "Frontier Figures"), but from what I remember, she only talks about Western classical depictions of "Indians." This extends that in an interesting way, as those same "Indians" use both "their" music and "our" music to both portray their own cultural identity to white America, and show how they could incorporate white American music into their own culture. Did you uncover why this ended in the 1930s?
DeleteThere's a great read called Indian Blues by John Troutman (2013) that explores many of these issues, especially the chapter “The Sounds of ‘Civilization’: Music and the Assimilation Campaign in Federal Indian Boarding Schools".
DeleteThat is very interesting bit of information on Haskell! Yes, I agree with you fully on your experience and I think that it does have ramifications on a musicological level. For instance, the interpretations of the Bach Cello Suites by Yo Yo Ma and Rostropovich are very different to my ears. Rostropovich takes more liberties with tempo and rubato and plays with a much darker sound, while Yo Yo Ma adheres more to what is written and has a brighter sound. So, which interpretation is supposed to represent correct Baroque performance practices, Bach's interpretation, etc?
DeleteThe reason I majored in music and the reason I am now doing musicology is because of recording technology. I began collecting a lot of classical recordings in 6th grade, and that's really where I learned most of what I know about classical music, at least on a foundational level. Because of this, I think I tend to view recordings as a kind of "text," meaning that I agree with you, Brianna! For me at least, different interpretations of the same "work" are almost different works. Usually I prefer Solti's Mahler 8, but if I'm in an unusual mood, I might listen to Tilson-Thomas. Moreover, the Solti was my first recording, so I think in my mind, that is the "right" way to perform it, since it's so ingrained in my ears. Furthermore, I love to hear the way pop singers change their songs in live performances. It seems like a completely different song.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Nettle’s “On Top of Old Smoky” effect. This idea that songs blended together and evolved into something new is fascinating to me. I wonder if there are any copies of music that can show this effect taking place. I haven’t thought about creativity in this way before, and I have to say it makes a lot of sense. I think that understanding the lineage of something (in this case folk songs) can give a new perspective to the piece that is being studied. This seems pretty obvious, but I never thought of applying this idea to folk songs. This idea shows up in Nettle’s article about ethnicity and musical identity only in this case the blending is occurring with a group of people rather than a song. It is so interesting that this one idea can be applied to such a variety of events. Further, I also think this idea relates to Gelbart’s argument that Herder was the culmination of the work that came before him. In this case the blending was of an idea. As a student I have often looked at music or music history linearly rather than overlapping, or blending. This idea does make music history a little less organized, but I find it far more interesting and organic. Hopefully this makes sense and isn’t something that is super obvious…I also think this idea ties into the article on American folk song. By allowing “folk culture” to be ever changing, scholars were able to extend their reach their vision of the folk. I wonder if looking at things so fluidly could eventually become problematic? Do we need to first develop a linear though process that is full of labels and groupings in order to eventually look at things from this more fluid/overlapping perspective?
ReplyDeleteI think your last question really goes back to how we try to teach music history. So much of music history - any critical study, really - is, like Nettl stated, examining differences and to a much more limited extent, similarities. But do we really need to make the ideas of different eras so rigid? Yet if we don't, some beginning students may become confused with the differences between an early Baroque opera and a late Classical. Maybe you have to know the properties of different chemicals in order to understand how they're going to combine. On the other hand, maybe it's more basic and you don't have to understand meat and bread separately before enjoying a sandwich! It's a bit of a conundrum.
DeleteI think what you described is true of just about everything in life. We use categorization to understand a subject, but really the categories are superimposed and not real, so a true understanding of the subject would lead to a relinquishing of those categories.
DeleteAt the same time, though, sometimes the subject matter begins to interact with the categorization process -- for example, the commercialization of the concept of "folk" that we have been studying.
I agree Michelle. I think it is important to start teaching the fundamentals before you can break down the categorizations.
DeleteNettl’s reading was very comprehensible. I could imagine a” Tune” as like a human being. (Like the theory of evolution) The article seem to explain the variety of tunes and musical performances technically has a huge-general root and people simply played in different way and keep trying to better known version. I think possibilities of different interpretation would be influential factors of foreign and outsider to a certain tune family. A tune could social interact with its musical acquaintances, vary itself to new life style, and fight and steal. This is a new way of thinking!!
ReplyDeleteAnother Nettl’s article, I saw the hegemony of certain country could make a number of subcultures under the regime. I am not against the brilliance of German music; however, the article made me think this musical heritage would have been built up based on variety of subculture. Not focus on the result of musical phenomenon, during the processing, I think the German, Bohemian, Jews, and other ethnics performed their own role in music during 19th century in Czech. (Personally, I am really admired the Jewish performers and even Gybsy musician. I have believed their musicality is more emotionally developed than any other countries’ musicians). I could find no meaning to classify a stereotype or subtype of music in this area. They may have co worked and not abandoned each other till 1945.
I thought it was interesting that German supremacy in music was a conscious one. Schoenberg famously thought that his new system would ensure German supremacy in music for a long time... It is to do wiht nationalism as much as music per se.
DeletePerhaps we all love German music so much simply because we are intimately acquainted with it. What if we had an intimate knowledge of another type of music that is equally complex and emotionally connected?
DeleteThis weeks articles were the most interesting and easy to digest so far. Nettl observed how different folk songs and variations of the original ones seem to fit into “tune families” and how the measurement of their similarities and differences as well as the relationships between their content and styles determine what family they belong to. This criteria is something gathered, altered, and shaped over time. While this may initially seem to aid in assigning a tune to a specific family, in the end, time actually hinders the assignment process because “the more we know, the less clear the boundaries” become.
ReplyDeleteNettl’s next article, which describes the musical and national happenings in Czech Bohemia, also brought up some poignant illustrations, most notably Burney’s idea of calling Bohemia the “Conservatory of Europe.” I think this idea could be expanded even further, calling for all the Czech lands to be included in the “Conservatory of Europe” ideal. For instance, the start of the wind band in America can be traced to the Czech Moravian settlement of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania in the mid to late 1700’s where church bands were formed for entertainment purposes as well as a way to continue their heritage.
Filene’s chapter presented some contrasting information to what I thought I already knew, specifically on the beginnings of hillbilly/country music. Peer and his colleagues were after capital gains (not gains pertaining to America’s heritage) when they started recording rural music in the south. This makes me wonder why the development of modern country music has taken so long (minus the Great Depression and the advent of rock and roll in the 50’s)? If the music was supposedly bringing in all of this revenue, then one would assume the record companies would want to capitalize on it? Could it be related to the divide in working and upper classes, that country music was considered dumb and old fashioned, not new and cosmopolitan like jazz or rock and roll?
Filene’s chapter pointed out some of the things we’ve been talking about in class already such as the collections in Britain and Cecil Sharp’s work. However, from there on it ventured into new territory for me. I was very much struck by the collections done by record companies, though. I have no idea why – even knowing of race record labels – I hadn’t figured that record companies would be in on the folk collecting. The origin of Hillbilly music was completely new to me. I hadn’t realized that so many genres sort of skipped the academic collecting step and went straight to a popular form because of record companies swarming an area and then packing away recordings in dry ice!
ReplyDeleteIncreasingly as I’ve been wading through different variants of the “Edward” ballad, I’ve been wondering about the ways tunes travel and change across cultural boundaries. Nettl’s problematizing of similarities based on what is important musically to a particular culture (text, tune, rhythm, etc.) I think is going to be absolutely crucial to keep in mind. Unfortunately, it also seems like even attempting to figure out the origins and paths that a tune takes, especially through different cultures, always involves deciding what could have been the most important aspects of a tune to a culture – some sort of “emic” consideration. Which, if you’ve got a tune that walked through multiple countries and at least two continents over centuries, seems almost impossible to do. How is one supposed to know what would have been important to keep relatively unchanged in 1800s Finland versus early 1900s American versus current-day Britain? Agghh!
Nettl’s article about Czech and South-German musical and ethnic identity raised some questions for me. Partly it was because of the overall positive view that seemed to dominate the music of Jews, Roms, and Czechs throughout – that despite the fact that these were the musics of cultures/language groups thought to be unlettered or lesser in some way, that the article still portrayed the music as being largely respected. (With some exceptions by German scholars). Collections were undertaken, a general belief that connection with Czech cultures made German-Bohemian music special, etc., all speak to a recognition of value that I didn’t think was that widespread (and I couldn’t help noticing that although Jewish and Czech musical influences were discussed, after a paragraph or so the Rom weren’t mentioned again). The battle to claim Stamitz as German or Czech reminded me of the debate over Chopin’ Polishness, with the added twist that many of these earlier 18th century composers in particular were writing in recognized mainstream European styles and forms.
I also want to know more about the traveling musicians, the Musickant. Who were they? Were they from one particular ethnic group in particular, or does it include members of the Rom, Jewish musicians, and Czech musicians? How were they viewed, especially in light of the established court musicians? Were they paid as well? Were Musickant primarily solo acts, like a traveling bard or minstrel, or groups? Would these itinerant musicians have been one of the primary contributors to the sort of unique blend of cultures in Bohemia? There’s only one book listed with a few pages cited in the footnote – anyone in class know any more about this?
Hey, why wouldn't record companies want to cash in on the folk? I never considered this either though. What I thought was interesting was that the record companies often offered a more diverse representation of the folk than academic collectors.
DeleteI know! The second I read it, it made perfect sense. One of those, well DUH! moments. And the record companies were marketing to a completely different audience than the collectors, it often seemed like.
Delete"Deciding what could have been the most important aspects of a tune to a culture" is a challenging process to say the least. While there are distinguishing characteristics of certain types of music among some communities, it's very difficult to say that culture X values Y in their music. I would be curious to know what Dr. Nettl thinks about this, but focusing on what the editors/collectors/composers deemed important when they adopted/adapted various ballads would still seem to me like the best course.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Filene reading I thought was especially thorough and well-organized. It was interesting to see how the different manifestations of American folk—English-ballad, slaves songs, and cowboy songs—all jockeyed for prime position. It was interesting, however, that Filene noted that often the exploitive productions of folk by recording companies had a tendency to better represent African American song than the academic collectors. There were a lot of tie-ins with last week especially with the sections on Child and Sharp, and that previous knowledge fit nicely as a framework for these readings. Also, another aspect that seems a potentially fruitful research topic was the role of gender in the collection of American folksongs. Sharp’s racial ‘indoctrination’ was a bit unsettling.
ReplyDeleteNettl’s discussion of the concept of the piece was one of the most logical and clearly articulated chapters that I’ve read. I think this is partially because he has such a broad knowledge of music history in general and in part to his tendency to always use examples to explain concepts. The concept of cataloging variants seems like a dangerous game especially when the originals or the “intermediate versions” of a song are not extant. I though this part was especially clear and got me thinking about the way we categorize things in music history. I agree though, this discernment between similarities and differences forms the heart of what we do, and even if terminology is particularly difficult, as we have seen this semester, there are methods in place. The ‘sims’ idea seems interesting but is probably laden with its own problems of subjectivity.
One theme that I noticed in this week’s readings, that we have brought up time and time again, was the idea of co-opting folk music to promote the image of nation. In Nettl (2002), he states, “by developing icons to represent musically the struggle for political identity” (pg. 275). Nothing new here, but what was really interesting was what he says later in the essay, “Cultural appropriation may work both ways-and each direction has its share of irony” (pg. 285). So my question is: does cultural appropriation work both ways?
I wonder if we can extend your question, and ask if cultural appropriation is happening, doesn't it both subvert the appropriated tradition (taking African-American music and adding it to white musical practices) as well as the appropriating one (since white music cannot be the same thing after the act of appropriation, no matter how thorough or successful it is)?
DeleteThe sim idea is indeed interesting but the problem of course is that we would be trying to quantify things that are by nature qualitative...
DeleteI do think that cultural appropriation can work both ways. I thought that Sharp's contention of Appalacian music as being truly English as an example of that.
I would say that it does work both ways and in an uneven manner. It seems that there is usually a dominant culture in appropriation and the weaker one adopts more customs and assets from the other.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteApologies for my late posting, I’m still getting caught up from the Society for American conference this weekend (and saw several cool folk-related papers, if anyone is interested!).
ReplyDeleteNettl’s writing is a model of what good writing is supposed to be: clear, direct, precise, informed, and readable (and I think similar thoughts about the Filene). I was most stimulated by his consideration of similarity and difference. Many things (stylistic characteristics, analysis, generic and chronological divisions, etc.) in the field are predicated on understanding and articulating these qualities, and from a musicological background, I can only add that the balance between the qualities has produced shifts in disciplinary thought. For example, earlier periods in music history valued similarity (as an aesthetic preference, as a marker of tradition, because of historical factors influencing performance, transmission, and reception, etc.). As we moved towards the 19th century, however, difference become valued more highly (and tied to originality, expression, authenticity, etc.). As a result, early musicologists and subsequent performers and critics began to value difference and weight it more highly than similarity, which became synonymous with derivative, uninspired music. While there is obviously much nuance missing from my description, situating Nettl’s consideration of similarity and difference in broader historical trends might help place strands of ethnomusicological thought in larger Western discourses. This might allow us to understand and interpret cultural production from non-Western countries in -emic ways (for example, tracing how other societies have valued similarity and difference in their larger atheistic and cultural histories, and then seeing how such values have been borne out in transmission, reception, and performance).
I thought Filene’s placing of early American “folk music” in emerging modern and gendered discourses fascinating. For example, he writes (pg. 17) about the perceived encroachment of industrialization on “disappearing” folk culture, which I believe can be related to earlier and similar trends in England. While I thought he might have overstated the importance of the feminization of folk collecting (especially given the intended audiences of the publications), I wondered how the folk tunes were sanitized and re-packaged for this audience. I wish he had delved more deeply into this idea, especially since such a gendered reading might have added another dimension to his larger argument that our understanding of “roots” music has been influenced by the frames it is presented in.
Thank you for the information about similarity/difference throughout history. What a fascinating timeline.
DeleteI agree that Nettl's writing was very readable and thus it was relatively easier to digest his message - although I thought Sharp and Karpeles's style had a poise and lucidity that was characteristic of English writers of Bertrand Russell's generation...
ReplyDeleteNettl's discussion of the different variants of a 'work' - whatever that might be - as relatives, friends and compatriots corresponds to Galbert's citing of Wittgenstein's 'family resemblance' at the beginning of the semester. The further I go into the semester, the more I feel that the problems involved in designating and categorising ideas such as folk music or a work is really a philosophical one, not musical. While the discussion is directly related to music as a discipline, the 'problem' here is really that of schemata. As musicians we are at an advantage to be able to dissect the issues at hand better than a sociologist or a philosopher, but at the end of the day, this seems to be an issue that is interdisciplinary.
I also feel that one of the reasons that we still find designating appropriate terms in music difficult is because, whether we like it or not, we still carry nineteenth-century notion of a piece as 'the work'. If we translate the discussions we have been having to something more commonplace and less 'sacred' like food, the issue doesn't seem to quite carry the same gravity. What is the 'ur-Beef Bourguignon'? Did Elizabeth David capture the 'authentic' French country cooking? What is the relationship between haute cuisine and provincial cooking? This may seem ridiculous at first sight, but I do think that there is an exact parallel between the two models, and seeing parallel questions in a different realm may free up some of our most cherished beliefs as well as relativise the complication of the issues at hand.
Nettl's discussion of the changing relationships between Czech/German and folk/art music was also interesting. As the article points out, German dominance in music was chronologically rather recent - but deeply imbedded in the current culture of Classical music. The fact that the relationships between Czech and German folk and art music were not set, but variable, suggests that the definition of such categories had extra-musical causes (culture, status quo, etc.) that one might otherwise overlook.
The food analogy is fascinating! I wonder if we could turn it around though, and try historically "accurate" cooking. I gave tours five and a half years at a historic home in Tennessee. At large events, ladies would come and cook in period clothing over a fire. The implication was "this is how they ate back then." Of course, as with performance, there is no such thing as perfect historical accuracy or performance practice. Not only is it determined by aesthetics (or in the case of food, the cooks' tastes), but we are also limited by our modern technology. Those ladies did not grind their own grain, and they did not grow their corn on the property. But no one cared about all of that, which I think proves your point!
DeleteGiven the fact that there was little time for discussion during Nettl's visit, I thought we might discuss impressions/thoughts in the blog. What were your impressions of the presentation?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete