Thursday, February 13, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Week 2: Origins of the Folk Concept
- Thread:
- Gelbart Discussion
- Post:
- RE: Gelbart Discussion
- Author:
- Tyler Alessi
- Posted Date:
- January 14, 2014 2:10 PM
- Status:
- Published
I would argue that music with
complex harmony can also "be felt by all men". I believe that the
popularity of vocal a cappella music is a good example of this. while
their harmonies are not complex by classical standards, they still
incorporate more complex harmonies than ones that we hear in traditional
pop music.
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- Tyler Alessi
- Posted Date:
- January 14, 2014 1:50 PM
- Status:
- Published
I definitely believe that
function is still a focus in music tday, at least some music anyway. I
am thinking in particular of church music which often plays an important
role in the church service. This music, while still beautiful, is meant
to reinforce the sermon and support the message of the day.
Furthermore, there are pieces that are sung every service that
functionas prayer.
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- Tyler Alessi
- Posted Date:
- January 14, 2014 1:49 PM
- Status:
- Published
I definitely believe that
function is still a focus in music tday, at least some music anyway. I
am thinking in particular of church music which often plays an important
role in the church service. This music, while still beautiful, is meant
to reinforce the sermon and support the message of the day.
Furthermore, there are pieces that are sung every service that
functionas prayer.
- Thread:
- Gelbart Reading
- Post:
- RE: Gelbart Reading
- Author:
- Andrew Jones
- Posted Date:
- January 14, 2014 1:20 PM
- Status:
- Published
That is an
excellent question! Initially, I thought the scholar/composer should receive
full credit for his or her new innovation. However, there had to have been
someone or something that inspired them to create something new, so maybe
putting everything that is associated with the creation of the new invention in
a giant umbrella category is the way to go? For instance, Jackie Brenston and
his Delta Cats recording of “Rocket 88” is credited as the birth of Rock and
Roll. But, early R.R. was a culmination of blues, gospel, and rural music
styles, so it might be more relevant to include those genres and musicians as
part of the actual birth of Rock and Roll as well instead of just naming one
sole entity as its creator.
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- Andrew Jones
- Posted Date:
- January 14, 2014 12:44 PM
- Status:
- Published
That is a very
interesting thought regarding the classification of music before and after the
advent of recording. If music historians do re-categorize music based on the
goings on after recording began, I would assume a great deal of new genres and
sub-genres would form and some current ones might even face the chopping block.
In terms of what the meaning of nature pre-1760 is, nature was responsible for
keeping the pace of life steady (I think). It was to show humans how they were
in their simplest form (i.e. pastoral) and was to give them guidance as to how
to live in the world around them.
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- Douglas Easterling
- Posted Date:
- January 14, 2014 12:36 PM
- Status:
- Published
Nicely put! This seems to make
more sense. I think Gelbart described his ideas poorly regarding
function/origin. He should have had you as an editor.
- Thread:
- Gelbart Discussion
- Post:
- RE: Gelbart Discussion
- Author:
- Douglas Easterling
- Posted Date:
- January 14, 2014 12:33 PM
- Status:
- Published
I think that you are probably
on to something regarding popular music. In fact, I think much of the
talk about "natural" music in regards to the style galant has to do with
this accessibility. I think people can be put off by complicated music
(think of Babbitt). However, I think that in our culture rhythmic and
textural complexity, especially in regards to percussion parts of
popular music, might be valued more. I'm thinking especially about
dubstep and mashups, where DJs sometimes work to create rather complex
rhythmic layerings.
However, popular music probably
could not get away with rhythmic complexities along the lines of the
totalist composers (John Luther Adams, etc.).
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- John Hausmann
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 11:35 PM
- Status:
- Published
Building on your critique of
how Gelbart treats the shift from origin to function, I wonder how much
of that also stems from Enlightenment subjectivities that privilege the
individual (at times over the group). I think it is telling that we even
wonder about who created the string quartet genre, which emphasizes a
concept of the person that is creative, adaptive, and reasoning. This
type of person would have been one ideal during the Enlightenment, and
since the shift from function to origin occurs then, I imagine these
narratives are connected. Like most music history, I find I end up
learning as much about us as I do historical audiences.
- Thread:
- Gelbart Discussion
- Post:
- RE: Gelbart Discussion
- Author:
- John Hausmann
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 11:29 PM
- Status:
- Published
To build on your question re
popular genres, I wonder if we can apply 18th century ideas about the
"natural" to a very different historical and social context. Taking for
granted the primacy of melody (as opposed to text, or rhythm, or
arrangement/production, each of which might have a stronger individual
claim to explaining popular music's success), it might help to
understand the process of listening melodically as culturally
constructed. I don't think it has as much to do with nature (the idea
that melodies can have universal appeal) as nurture (the fact that we
find certain types or styles of melodic writing pleasing (Tchaikovsky,
Palestrina, Lennon) might stem from the fact that we have been raised in
a culture that values those types of melodies).
- Thread:
- Week 2 reflection
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 reflection
- Author:
- Brianna Matzke
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 8:56 PM
- Status:
- Published
I completely agree, Gelbart's
initial chapters are sorely lacking in musical examples. In my opinion,
he is too hasty bringing us to the "other side of the divide" -- he
ought to have spent more time explaining his justification for the first
halves of his dichotomies before diving into the second halves. Musical
examples could have shored up some of his initial claims that we are
all finding issue with.
I also agree that he is not
careful enough distinguishing between literary and musical sources, as I
mention in my own response. It does seem that he tends to make blanket
statements, sometimes drawing a conclusion about music that was based on
a non-musically focused source, a tendency that is problematic for
obvious reasons.
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- Brianna Matzke
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 8:35 PM
- Status:
- Published
- earlier today, I was staring at a stack of music books titled "church music," and "wedding music," and most of those books contained a mixture of classical, popular, and folk-ish pieces to use in a very functional way.
An interesting observation... It is my understanding, based on what
we have read thus far in Gelbart's book, that he investigates the
function/origin dichotomy as a means of understanding the divergence of
"folk" from "art" music. In light of the new Enlightenment ideal of the
"self" (a multi-faceted concept), perhaps we can understand the source
of this divergence not as a shift from function to origin, but rather as
as the development of a new function: the function of self-expression.
- Thread:
- Gelbart Reading
- Post:
- RE: Gelbart Reading
- Author:
- Michelle Lawton
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 8:09 PM
- Status:
- Published
Erik Paffett discussed the
idea of attributing a single genre to a single composer in his post,
too. I agree that oftentimes it seems like a composer is simply given
credit for something based on his popularity or the number of
contributions he made to the field (Haydn also is known as the Father of
the Symphony, even though countless composers wrote symphonies
before/at the same time that he did - they just didn't write over a
hundred, many of which then became known all over Europe and Britain).
It is useful, however, to have some sort of attribution, even with qualifiers, when teaching - a nice moniker is usually memorable. It's also difficult to say that something is the culmination of previous traditions/composer's efforts - there is sort of a connotation of the work being described as being the end or the best, and in the case of the song cycle or the symphony, there is a long and rich tradition that follows Beethoven and Haydn as well. Rarely, it seems that a composer should get even get credit for creating a style or genre - Schoeberg and serialism, for instance, or even Chopin and the purely instrumental ballade.
I'm hoping that Gelbart gets around to mentioning the contributions of Herder's contemporaries in later chapters!
It is useful, however, to have some sort of attribution, even with qualifiers, when teaching - a nice moniker is usually memorable. It's also difficult to say that something is the culmination of previous traditions/composer's efforts - there is sort of a connotation of the work being described as being the end or the best, and in the case of the song cycle or the symphony, there is a long and rich tradition that follows Beethoven and Haydn as well. Rarely, it seems that a composer should get even get credit for creating a style or genre - Schoeberg and serialism, for instance, or even Chopin and the purely instrumental ballade.
I'm hoping that Gelbart gets around to mentioning the contributions of Herder's contemporaries in later chapters!
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- Michelle Lawton
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 7:48 PM
- Status:
- Published
I enjoyed the section on
the supposed origins of Scottish music, too - a sort of commonly
accepted fiction that fact is then built on is a major theme
I'm pondering in my research right now. Gelbart had a very clear
synopsis of historical constructionism and manipulation re Scottish
music that was downright humorous to read at times.
I agree about the functional/origin dichotomy issue - earlier today, I was staring at a stack of music books titled "church music," and "wedding music," and most of those books contained a mixture of classical, popular, and folk-ish pieces to use in a very functional way. I also don't think Gelbart's reasoning that "original creative sources are essential criteria in defining art music" (p. 8) works completely either, to flip the issue: there's a lot of annonymous or tenatively attributed medieval and Renaissance music that is courtly and full of art/artifice. It would seem strange to me not to consider some 500+ years of music as separate from the art/classical music tradition just on the basis of lacking an original creative source...
I agree about the functional/origin dichotomy issue - earlier today, I was staring at a stack of music books titled "church music," and "wedding music," and most of those books contained a mixture of classical, popular, and folk-ish pieces to use in a very functional way. I also don't think Gelbart's reasoning that "original creative sources are essential criteria in defining art music" (p. 8) works completely either, to flip the issue: there's a lot of annonymous or tenatively attributed medieval and Renaissance music that is courtly and full of art/artifice. It would seem strange to me not to consider some 500+ years of music as separate from the art/classical music tradition just on the basis of lacking an original creative source...
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- Michelle Lawton
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 7:24 PM
- Status:
- Published
I'm having trouble with the
nature/natural terms through the era, too. I think some of it may be
because there aren't distinctions between the time terms shifted and
where they were shifting first, and how it pertained to music.
I dug this up from Dr. Morrow's nationalism class: "Our recent composers have given themselves over to the reigning fashion, except for a few that still have heart enough to care more about a good, natural melody and touching expression than twisted wit and cute little notions...." (Woechentliche Nachrichten (1767), review of Johann Schwanberger's Sonate per due Violini e Violoncello, translation provided by Dr. Morrow). I don't think "natural" means outdoor camping here, or some sort of natural primitive state - just like you said in your post, I think it refers to a melodic line that was phrased well and didn't modulate strangely or was overly virtuosic. (But it seems the critic thought it was going out of style, instead of becoming a stronger trend in music the further from Baroque fortspinnung, kinda curious). So at least in one review in Germany in 1767, "natural" in reference to music still meant a stylistic distinction. I'd be curious to know when the term "nature/natural" shifted in regard to music in other countries (even though the focus of this book is clearly Germany and Scotland).
I dug this up from Dr. Morrow's nationalism class: "Our recent composers have given themselves over to the reigning fashion, except for a few that still have heart enough to care more about a good, natural melody and touching expression than twisted wit and cute little notions...." (Woechentliche Nachrichten (1767), review of Johann Schwanberger's Sonate per due Violini e Violoncello, translation provided by Dr. Morrow). I don't think "natural" means outdoor camping here, or some sort of natural primitive state - just like you said in your post, I think it refers to a melodic line that was phrased well and didn't modulate strangely or was overly virtuosic. (But it seems the critic thought it was going out of style, instead of becoming a stronger trend in music the further from Baroque fortspinnung, kinda curious). So at least in one review in Germany in 1767, "natural" in reference to music still meant a stylistic distinction. I'd be curious to know when the term "nature/natural" shifted in regard to music in other countries (even though the focus of this book is clearly Germany and Scotland).
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection Final Try After This I Give Up
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 Reflection Final Try After This I Give Up
- Author:
- Brianna Matzke
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 2:53 PM
- Status:
- Published
SUCCESS. (Internet Explorer fails and Firefox wins yet again. Sorry for the technical difficulties, folks.)
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection Final Try After This I Give Up
- Post:
- Week 2 Reflection Final Try After This I Give Up
- Author:
- Brianna Matzke
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 2:53 PM
- Status:
- Published
I will attempt to respond to
this dense text in 500 words or less, but I find myself spinning! First of all,
I must say that I am grateful for my undergraduate classes in Western
Civilization -- having read Rousseau and Locke has proven helpful in dissecting
this text. I am fascinated by the idea of the "mind as a lamp" being
connected to this type of musicological study. My cursory knowledge of
"folk music" study in the 20th century lends me to think that much of
that study was guided by this principle, and I wonder what sorts of
transformations have been undergone in this 21st century age of postmodernism,
or even post-postmodernism... Is the mind still a lamp? Perhaps I am thinking
too hard... However, I do have to wonder how far-reaching this idea of the
"invention" of folk music will prove to be. I look at the composers
of our generation who are just now beginning to come to the fore, who
increasingly show the influence of the gamut of musical genres (popular,
classical, and folk) and often flit between the distinctions with hardly a
second thought.
I want to address a few issues I find with the text. First of all, I would be grateful if the author would have included a section addressing the divisions between the study of TEXT AND MUSIC, the study of TEXT ALONE, and the study of MUSIC ALONE. He cites various sources that encompass all of these categorizations, but he does little to distinguish between them. However, I think that there are important distinctions between the three -- for example, the associated external definitions of textual vocabulary affect how one would interpret the source, while purely musical content may be interpreted as more objective -- that affect the idea of the creation of a evolutionary timeline of the development of art, and these distinctions were certainly noted by the authors Gelbart is citing. Why then, doesn't he acknowledge the differences between the three?
I also wish Gelbart had spent more time making a solid case for the pre-Enlightenment understanding of music as an extension of nature. It is quite easy to understand how Enlightenment thought embraced the creation of musical "rules" as a way to demonstrate human intellectual ability, but I do not think he spent sufficient time defending his conclusions regarding pre-Enlightenment viewpoints.
I want to address a few issues I find with the text. First of all, I would be grateful if the author would have included a section addressing the divisions between the study of TEXT AND MUSIC, the study of TEXT ALONE, and the study of MUSIC ALONE. He cites various sources that encompass all of these categorizations, but he does little to distinguish between them. However, I think that there are important distinctions between the three -- for example, the associated external definitions of textual vocabulary affect how one would interpret the source, while purely musical content may be interpreted as more objective -- that affect the idea of the creation of a evolutionary timeline of the development of art, and these distinctions were certainly noted by the authors Gelbart is citing. Why then, doesn't he acknowledge the differences between the three?
I also wish Gelbart had spent more time making a solid case for the pre-Enlightenment understanding of music as an extension of nature. It is quite easy to understand how Enlightenment thought embraced the creation of musical "rules" as a way to demonstrate human intellectual ability, but I do not think he spent sufficient time defending his conclusions regarding pre-Enlightenment viewpoints.
- Thread:
- Gelbart Discussion
- Post:
- RE: Gelbart Discussion
- Author:
- Erik Paffett
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 2:23 PM
- Status:
- Published
That's a really good question.
Harmony seems more "assembled" or the result of craft while melody
(vocal melody at least) as Rousseau says is closely related to language,
so it's more natural. But I think language is really a construct too. I
agree melody tends to dominate textures and is often the most memorable
part of piece of music, and that my favorite pieces tend to have great
melodies, but, there are times when harmony can take a brutally simply,
boring melody and make it interesting.
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- Erik Paffett
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 2:17 PM
- Status:
- Published
Yea, I don’t really perceive
a difference between natural and nature. If I can remember from Dr. Morrow’s
classes, the idea of ‘natural’ phrasing, melody, etc. as an aesthetic
preference was based on the theory of mimesis, or imitating ‘nature.’ So I
guess it’s kind of an arbitrary thing to say that 2+2 phrases or triadic
melodies, etc imitate nature, because there is a lot of asymmetry in nature. It
seems to imitate more closely architecture from antiquity than ‘nature’ per se,
at least in my opinion.
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- Erik Paffett
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 2:11 PM
- Status:
- Published
I really agree with your
second paragraph. I thought that was the most interesting section in the
book so far. I think he also says that Burney's definition of the term
"national music" from his famous comprehensive History of Music is what
we would consider now folk music. Or something along those lines.
-Erik
-Erik
- Thread:
- Week 2 reflection
- Post:
- Week 2 reflection
- Author:
- Michelle Lawton
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 2:07 PM
- Status:
- Published
Sorry
for the length, folks – but some of this relates to my research
interests closely and I’m having issues with Gelbart’s book. So far the
book is drawing primarily from literary/philosophic/political writers
(many not concerned with the strictly musical) and there are not very
many real musical examples presented to cement Gelbart’s observations in
the practical musical world of the time. I think that the lack of
musical examples may be why I’m having a difficult time buying into some
of Gelbart’s ideas, such as the distinctions over time regarding the
pastoral, “nature/natural,” and nature/natural in relation to
nationalism. “Nature/natural” could mean following the rules of good
taste and harmony, being connected with the outdoors, and some earlier
state of being that hadn’t progressed to being civilized and corrupted –
and it often wasn’t entirely clear what meaning of the term Gelbart was
using. Perhaps that was because “natural” was in flux at the time as
well. Gelbart’s reasoning explained a lot of 18th and 19th
century fascination with Scottish music; yet I’m left wondering how it
would apply to other countries like Italy, whose political national
unity came later but was showing signs of cultural nationalism at this
time, and could have a “national music” that may not be connected to the
“natural” at all. Lack of musical examples/references and perhaps an
overreliance on literary traditions also mean confusing sentences like
“Genre itself, no longer a natural given, became something to stretch
through force of character” (p.51) – apparently in respect to poetry,
but in a book dealing with music the assumption could be that it also
should apply to music. Gebart doesn’t specify a particular time frame
for this decline of genre, and certainly in the mid-Romantic era, the
outer chronological boundary of his study, many (not all) pieces of
music can still be classified by genre fairly easily.
In
regards to the pastoral, the descriptions of literary genres and their
excerpts are fairly convincing, but Gelbart doesn’t discuss other
historical nobles-playing-at-peasants events, even relevant to the time
(Marie Antoinette’s famous idealized peasant farm, for instance, which
would be hard to construe as functionally “teaching literate courtiers
and their like about themselves” (p.43)). That “pastorals” presented to
the nobility were idealized versions of reality does eventually emerge –
but it’s a long time in coming and obscured by statements like
“pastoral was a leveler: it stripped off the veneer to show how all
humans really are or should be as part of nature.” (p.43). I’d suggest
that throughout much of the history of the pastoral, it was simply
replacing one veneer (the courtly) with another (the idealized peasant).
Once again, without musical examples it’s difficult to determine how
much the change in the meaning of the “pastoral” in poetry or philosophy
is affecting music; simply stating that Corelli’s pastoral from the
Christmas concerto and Beethoven’s “Pastoral” symphony are different
doesn’t really work for me, since there are myriads of other reasons why
those two pieces of music are different (nearly 100 years, a different
country, rules, styles, idiom, dialect, and strategic play, for
instance) besides a change in the meaning of the word “pastoral.”
I
think it’s convincing that nationalism helped spur interest in the
concept of “folk” but I find it hard to go the other way: “Like the folk
themselves, national music was conceived as a vestige of music’s
ancient and Eastern roots, but preserved in modern times within the
civilized continent of Europe. (p.60). Once again it’s a blanket
statement made with only one citation that dismisses the rest of the
world that may have been influenced partially by Western music
traditions (i.e., America, Norway, or Russia), and disregards a huge
body of “national” music that may NOT actually relate back to ancient or
Eastern roots (my question about the Italian’s national music comes
back here). I know he gets around to discussing art music and its
national/folk interactions (all three problematic terms) in later
chapters, but the statement above doesn’t seem to set up that discussion
well at all. The later chapters also seem to have moved forward a
little chronologically, and so miss the fact that Herder’s ideas of
“Volk” and a desire to create a sense of German nationalism were
applied, deliberately and practically, by opera composers such as Hiller
and Weisse – sometimes before Herder’s term came about, like the opera Die Liebe auf dem Lande in 1767 (see “Songs to Shape a German Nation,” Joubert, Eighteenth Century Music 3/2, 213-230).
I
also had trouble with the sentence “To claim that original creative
sources are essential criteria in defining art music is perhaps not
contentious, since we tend to think immediately about composers when we
think of this category.” (Gelbart, p. 8) Not true, especially if as a
scholar you deal in the courtly music traditions of the medieval and
Renaissance eras, many of which are either anonymous or only tenuously
attributed. Yet it is difficult to think of the often elaborate courtly
rondeau of the 15th or 16th centuries as not also falling under the category of “art music,” – so Gelbart was wise to state “perhaps
not contentious” (emphasis mine). His emphasis on composers makes more
sense when he limits himself to about 1700-1850 but is really
oversimplifying the case especially in earlier eras, as is the
delineation between function vs. origin in regards to art music. I think
that statement is only partially true, especially when I’m sitting on
the floor of my apartment staring at an almost depressingly large stack
of music books labeled “wedding music,” “church music,” etc.
- Thread:
- Gelbart Reading
- Post:
- Gelbart Reading
- Author:
- Tyler Alessi
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 2:05 PM
- Status:
- Published
There was one section of Gelbart’s The Invention of “Folk Music and “Art Music”
that I found particularly interesting. In chapter three Gelbart discusses
Johann Gottfried Herder and his contribution to “the discourse on folk and art
music” (having been the person who coined the term “folk song or “Volkslied”).
Gelbart goes into great detail on how Herder is both underrated and overrated
which at first I felt was pedantic, but then found to be very interesting.
At the end of Chapter three Gelbart states
that, “The underestimation of Herder is thus partly the underestimation of his
generation…” I found this to be particularly fascinating. It makes me think
that any ideas come from a culmination of the ideas that came before it. This
is where my mind sort of wandered off the topic.
I began to think of how this
relates to the development of any idea or object in history or even today.
Often in education we credit one person with coming up with an idea (i.e
Beethoven’s An die ferne geliebte is
presented in most music history classes as the first song cycle ever written),
but in actuality there was a deeper process, for example, Beethoven’s contemporary
Carl M. Weber wrote Leyer und Schwert which predates An die ferne geliebte by three
years and adheres to many of the traditions of a song sycle. While Weber is not
credited as writing the first song cycle it is clear that the idea of grouping
songs together was not original to Beethoven.
The question that comes to my mind
then is, are we right to award an important idea/achievement to one scholar or
one composer? Or is it more appropriate to state that this achievement (the coining
of the term folk song, composition of the first song cycle etc…) is the
culmination of all the work that predates it?
Maybe this is an obvious question or maybe I may have read into this a bit too
much, but I find it intriguing.
- Thread:
- Gelbart Discussion
- Post:
- Gelbart Discussion
- Author:
- Andrew Jones
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 11:47 AM
- Status:
- Published
In the first half of Matthew Gelbart’s The Invention of ‘Folk Music’ and ‘Art Music’:
Emerging Categories from Ossian to Wagner, the following topic caught my
attention: In chapter two, Gelbart elaborates upon the Rousseau versus Rameau
conflict, that is whether or not melodic (Rousseau) or harmonic (Rameau)
content serves as the basis for deeming works of music as good or bad. He states that harmony was not known to the ancient Greeks and other primitive
peoples and that all music was “natural” and “could be felt by all men.”
Harmony was a “learned” concept and did not happen in a “natural” manner. I
find Rousseau’s belief that the melody will make or break a piece of music as
the more accurate side of the argument.
For instance, without
the age-old, “primitive” melodies from the English countryside, neither Percy
Grainger nor Ralph Vaughan Williams would have been influenced to compose works
such as to Lincolnshire Posey, Shepherd’s Hey!, or the English Folk Song Suite. Additionally, without an innate sense of
melody, Tchaikovsky and his works would not be as well known in popular culture
as they are today. The finely tuned melodies from the Romeo and Juliet overture and The
Nutcracker have been used time after time in film and television to portray
the emotions of different characters. Because of this exposure, they have become
instantly recognizable or “natural” in modern culture and can “be felt by all
men.”
In closing, the music
in the popular genres is (for the most part) simplistic harmonically and melody
driven. Because this musical genre relies on the melody in order for it to come
into full fruition, could one say that its popularity is due to the
aforementioned ideal that it can “be felt by all men” because it has a more “natural”
and simplistic quality to it?
- Thread:
- eunyoung Chung
- Post:
- eunyoung Chung
- Author:
- Eunyoung Chung
- Posted Date:
- January 13, 2014 12:38 AM
- Status:
- Published
Attachment: 
week 2 seminar.docx (12.302 KB)
week 2 seminar.docx (12.302 KB)- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- John Hausmann
- Posted Date:
- January 12, 2014 7:30 PM
- Status:
- Published
The changes expanded upon in
chp. 2 were the most difficult for me to follow, in part because I’ve
never really understood the difference in 18th century thought between
“nature” (where one goes camping) and “natural” (as an aesthetic
category or stylistic descriptor). I know that (with regards to music)
some of this relates back to changes ca. the mid-century currents of the
Enlightenment, meaning that “natural” phrasing and melody were valued
over “artificial” Baroque fortspinnung, but this is obviously not the
focus of the book’s discussion.
Some of this confusion might result from the shifting meanings the word had for contemporary writers, which involved (prior to 1750) conceiving of “nature” as a totalizing system that was made manifest in science and art. Gelbart treats the pastoral genre as an example of what nature means in this time, and I imagine that when he says the pastoral is working in a “genre-dominated artistic world” (42), he is referring back to chp. 1’s discussion of shifting meanings from function to origin? (If not, I don’t understand how the time after 1750 was also not dominated by genre– especially w/r/t his comment on 51 regarding genre being “no loner a natural given”).
It was clear that ca. 1760 nature’s meaning shifts to stand as the opposite of civilization, and that humankind is progressing away from nature/its natural state and towards civilization, urbanization, specialization, etc. I was wondering how this represents changing attitudes towards nature per se, and not simply typical Enlightenment narratives of progress, development, and so on. I understood the 3- or 4-stage development of humanity towards its current form and away from nature, but I am not yet clear about what nature meant before this, like when Gelbart claims it fulfilled “its older role as the basis and overarching framework of civilization” (56). Any insight would be greatly appreciated!
Last but not least, I always love discussing how people categorize music (I loved the first chapter), and I have been thinking lately about the most paradigm-altering change in music consumption, distribution, and aesthetics in all of human history, its mechanical reproducibility. I imagine later music history texts will essentially divide the subject into before and after recordings, but until we get to that point, it seems that contemporary music is still divided into categories indebted to pre-recorded thought patterns and concepts. I have been interested to think about what a re-categorization of music that accounts for this major shift would look like.
Some of this confusion might result from the shifting meanings the word had for contemporary writers, which involved (prior to 1750) conceiving of “nature” as a totalizing system that was made manifest in science and art. Gelbart treats the pastoral genre as an example of what nature means in this time, and I imagine that when he says the pastoral is working in a “genre-dominated artistic world” (42), he is referring back to chp. 1’s discussion of shifting meanings from function to origin? (If not, I don’t understand how the time after 1750 was also not dominated by genre– especially w/r/t his comment on 51 regarding genre being “no loner a natural given”).
It was clear that ca. 1760 nature’s meaning shifts to stand as the opposite of civilization, and that humankind is progressing away from nature/its natural state and towards civilization, urbanization, specialization, etc. I was wondering how this represents changing attitudes towards nature per se, and not simply typical Enlightenment narratives of progress, development, and so on. I understood the 3- or 4-stage development of humanity towards its current form and away from nature, but I am not yet clear about what nature meant before this, like when Gelbart claims it fulfilled “its older role as the basis and overarching framework of civilization” (56). Any insight would be greatly appreciated!
Last but not least, I always love discussing how people categorize music (I loved the first chapter), and I have been thinking lately about the most paradigm-altering change in music consumption, distribution, and aesthetics in all of human history, its mechanical reproducibility. I imagine later music history texts will essentially divide the subject into before and after recordings, but until we get to that point, it seems that contemporary music is still divided into categories indebted to pre-recorded thought patterns and concepts. I have been interested to think about what a re-categorization of music that accounts for this major shift would look like.
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- RE: Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- Douglas Easterling
- Posted Date:
- January 12, 2014 6:38 PM
- Status:
- Published
I agree about the
function/origin complaint. I doubt that we leave out considerations of
function in classifying music today. One genre of music comes to mind
whose name, EDM (Electronic Dance Music), seems to contradict any ideas
that we do not consider function today. The "beat" used in these songs
usually has the same tempo as other songs. When pop songs are
incorporated into this genre, they are sped up/slowed down to this tempo
so that all songs can be played in succession without a break in the
beat at a tempo ideal for what experts call "getting one's groove on."
This beat is really a defining characteristic of this genre. Function
function function.
Similarly, the broader categories of
art music and folk music seem, to me, to have different functions. I
hear folk music at festivals, but in the concert hall it is considered a
novelty. Moreover, folk music may often be used for dancing, whereas
art music is typically not today, unless that dance is performative. But
then again, I think that the categories of art and folk music both
contain so many subgenres that it might become meaningless to speak
about them in general terms, and better to speak about the individual
genres themselves like I did in the above paragraph (even though that
genre is certainly a "pop" genre).
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- Douglas Easterling
- Posted Date:
- January 12, 2014 6:21 PM
- Status:
- Published
In the introduction to The
Invention of “Folk Music” and “Art Music,” Matthew Gelbart introduces his
idea that the conceptual categories of folk and art music did not exist until
the mid 1800s. Gelbart’s main reasoning behind this claim is what he views as a
change in how we categorize music; according to Gelbart, before these
categories emerged, people classified music according to its function, and now
we tend to classify according to origin.This idea fascinates me, but I wonder
if our classification methods are indeed this cut and dry. Do we not conceive
of “folk music” and “art music” (and “popular music” for that matter) today as
having different functions? I agree that we do focus on origin, but is there no
functionality involved in our classifications?
In chapter 1, Gelbart suggests Nationalism as the original
catalyst for this shift from conceiving of musical categories based on function
to conceiving them based on origin. This idea seemed much more convincing to
me; while I am skeptical that today’s musical divisions do not take function
into account, I was convinced that a shift of importance took place, and I
think Nationalism makes sense as its initial stimulus. As the focus shifted
away from ancestral commonalities, anyone trying to unite larger groups of
people had to find cultural
commonalities that more people could unite under. Besides making sense,
Gelbart’s evidence seemed more convincing in this section as well. Particularly
convincing was the replacement of David Rizzio with James I as the “author” of
Scottish songs and musical style. This became even more convincing when Gelbart
said that neither individual is actually responsible for the Scottish style;
the idea of a Scottish author was so important that one was invented.
Similarly, I liked the idea that a folk music category could
emerge because of the view of “nature as Other” (p. 79). Since the idea of
“natural” had taken on “national” connotations, this makes sense; nations
(including the cosmopolitan modern individuals) were bound by a primal origin
which, for the modern individuals within the nation, had now become an Other.
The ideas of what “naturalness” meant in music were also fascinating since we
tend to only gloss over those things when we teach about the Style Galant.
The summary of different views on the origins of Scottish
music in chapter 3 (from trained musicians to bards and eventually to the
people), reminded me of the bias that we all face when writing. It was
interesting to see biases play out over the discourse of a long period of time.
I find it remarkable that Campbell’s “primary scale of
nature” is the same as Thomson’s “national scale,” but Gelbart never mentions
this in support of the idea that “nature” and “national” had shared meanings!
Questions: Do we indeed only focus on origin for musical
categorization today? Or do we still consider function?
Do you agree that popular music lacks the re-fashioning and
re-creation” of folk music, even in today’s digital “Remix Culture”?
- Thread:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Post:
- Week 2 Reflection
- Author:
- Erik Paffett
- Posted Date:
- January 11, 2014 1:05 PM
- Status:
- Published
Folk ramblings
(Erik Paffett)
The
historiography of the various and gradually-changing conceptions of “Scot
music” as well as the development of the folk modality during the eighteenth
century are equally illuminating and perplexing. On one hand, many of the
assumptions that appeared, such as Benjamin Franklin’s theory that gapped
scales resulted from transposing tunes on early Scottish harps and Rousseau’s
theory that melody represents the most “natural” element of music with its
close relation to language, seem obvious enough. While on the other, notions
linking Scottish and Chinese music as well as ideas about a folk or people’s
music originating from a learned tradition of bards and minstrels, seem
outlandish, at least in my opinion. Viewed in light of the outsider
perspective, or primitive othering, and whatever prevalent anthropological
theories may have influenced eighteenth-century thought, these ideas seem more
reasonable, I suppose.
Overall, I
thought Gelbart made a successful argument, treated a great deal of research
and sources, and provided more information here than I could process in a week
(I took copious notes, though). That said, the book is not completely without
problems, in my opinion. Gelbart’s argument that origin-based definitions of
genres seems to imply that they disregard function entirely (though I could be
misstating Gelbart here). While trying to credit a single composer with the
creation of a genre may be a wild-goose chase of sorts, function has always
played a significant role in defining genres. And although bromides such as
“Haydn is the father of the string quartet” may not have any use to scholars,
they may still have good use in music appreciation classes and the non-concert-going
public in general. Also, Gelbart’s tendency to jump around chronologically
caused some confusion. I think if authors stray from a strictly a chronological
presentation, they should be extra clear, at least for hasty readers such as
myself.
I am always
interested in dismantling the progress narrative in music, and it seems that
many of the assumptions originating in the early-nineteenth century, like George
Thomson’s belief that the cultivation of art music, particularly instrumental
music, led to the gradual replacement of the pentatonic scale and just the
general idea that scales gradually became more complex starting with the
pentatonic and eventually leading to chromatic or microtonal scales, are still
lurching here and there in music. I think there are some good examples to
counter these assumptions, especially in this book. For example, Dauney’s
“Skene Manuscript” argued that chromaticism existed in Egyptian music and
microtones appeared in Turkish, Persian and Indian music for a long time. Are
there any other examples that come to mind?
Week 3: Turning Folk Expression into Art Music
- Thread:
- Week 3 thoughts
- Post:
- RE: Week 3 thoughts
- Author:
- Andrew Jones
- Posted Date:
- February 4, 2014 12:02 PM
- Status:
- Published
Some more historical details
relating to the rise of the 18th century German romantic state (e.g. how
and why they came into prominence or why the German's version of "art"
became so popular) would most definitely have been helpful! Dealing with
the authenticity debacle, I am right there with you! I think what he
might be trying to say is that authenticity gets blurred when a composer
composes as a member of the "folk," meaning he or she adheres only to a
specific ethnic musical style and does not add his or her own spin on
things. (Maybe?)
- Thread:
- Interesting Link
- Post:
- RE: Interesting Link
- Author:
- John Hausmann
- Posted Date:
- January 23, 2014 4:37 PM
- Status:
- Published
This is REALLY cool, thanks
for sharing! Notice how Google is constructing/reinforcing canonicity
with their sample album covers (while presenting it as demographics)?
Or, at what point does the canon become "real" in the sense that it
reflects the real experience of people using and listening to the music?
- Thread:
- "Popular vs "Folk/national"
- Post:
- RE: "Popular vs "Folk/national"
- Author:
- John Hausmann
- Posted Date:
- January 23, 2014 4:29 PM
- Status:
- Published
Hi Brianna,
From what I've read, I think some of their material did come from their collections (they do a rousing cover of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean, for example, and I think some German folksongs as well ), but the majority of their music came from slightly older popular songs (via Paul, what we would today call the Great American Songbook, if it wasn't British) and contemporary rock styles (via John and George). They quickly built a fairly large repertoire of songs, and also learned how to stretch things out through solos (one of the reasons so many of George's early solos feature variations on the melody was that he developed this habit when needing to play over a lot of different tunes he really didn't have time to learn) and stage banter (c.f. most of their press conferences pre-"Rubber Soul").
I know this is wholly tangential to the entire course, but the Beatles could be framed as an exemplar of "folk" transmission-musical ideas very much steeped in contemporary culture are transmitted across cultural and generational lines and acquire new significance. It's also weird to picture them standing on stage in the red light district of Hamburg with a copy of the Childs ballads :)
From what I've read, I think some of their material did come from their collections (they do a rousing cover of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean, for example, and I think some German folksongs as well ), but the majority of their music came from slightly older popular songs (via Paul, what we would today call the Great American Songbook, if it wasn't British) and contemporary rock styles (via John and George). They quickly built a fairly large repertoire of songs, and also learned how to stretch things out through solos (one of the reasons so many of George's early solos feature variations on the melody was that he developed this habit when needing to play over a lot of different tunes he really didn't have time to learn) and stage banter (c.f. most of their press conferences pre-"Rubber Soul").
I know this is wholly tangential to the entire course, but the Beatles could be framed as an exemplar of "folk" transmission-musical ideas very much steeped in contemporary culture are transmitted across cultural and generational lines and acquire new significance. It's also weird to picture them standing on stage in the red light district of Hamburg with a copy of the Childs ballads :)
- Thread:
- "Popular vs "Folk/national"
- Post:
- RE: "Popular vs "Folk/national"
- Author:
- John Hausmann
- Posted Date:
- January 23, 2014 4:18 PM
- Status:
- Published
I agree, Michelle, but I'll go
a step further and say that Gelbart doesn't really have any idea about
what he's talking about w/r/t popular music, or at the very least, he
has an exceedingly narrow and circumscribed Adorno-nian vision of
teeming masses of unwashed, uneducated pop fans.
- Thread:
- John Hausmann
- Post:
- RE: John Hausmann
- Author:
- John Hausmann
- Posted Date:
- January 23, 2014 4:14 PM
- Status:
- Published
Hi Michelle,
Absolutely–the idea that these texts are in any way fixed is still very much a modern one (albeit rather deeply entrenched). One of the things I noticed as someone who has played folk music is that each recorded version becomes an ersatz ur-text, and that in many cases it becomes harder to seek out the "original" version, which of course is a fallacy leading back to your second comment. Wheels within wheels!
Absolutely–the idea that these texts are in any way fixed is still very much a modern one (albeit rather deeply entrenched). One of the things I noticed as someone who has played folk music is that each recorded version becomes an ersatz ur-text, and that in many cases it becomes harder to seek out the "original" version, which of course is a fallacy leading back to your second comment. Wheels within wheels!
- Thread:
- Week 3 thoughts
- Post:
- RE: Week 3 thoughts
- Author:
- John Hausmann
- Posted Date:
- January 23, 2014 4:07 PM
- Status:
- Published
This is a problem I ran into
during my comps: what do we call what we're studying? W/r/t American
music, we've tried a range of ideas from highbrow/lowbrow to
cultivated/vernacular to composer/performer music. None of them seem to
work (where does jazz fit in, for example), but we have to call
everything *something.*
- Thread:
- General thoughts on some of your reflection papers
- Post:
- General thoughts on some of your reflection papers
- Author:
- Stefan Fiol
- Posted Date:
- January 22, 2014 8:50 PM
- Status:
- Published
Great
comments on the Gelbart reading this week!! Rather than respond to each
individual comment, I thought I would respond to several themes raised
in your reflections. We can continue to discuss these and other ideas
on Tuesday, but because of the limited time, I thought we could also
continue our discussion in this forum.I do think we're stuck with the terms folk/art/popular, but
that doesn't mean that we shouldn't interrogate them and use them in
more precise ways. I think it's helpful to move our discussions to
specific contexts rather than think about "folk music" or "art music" as
stable entities that have tendencies and trajectories. Gelbart
generalizes a bit too much at times, but I do think
a strength of the book is the way that he places these terms in
dialectical relation within particular historical and cultural contexts.
Theme: Change within Oral Traditions
As Erik noted, it's important to remember that “art music” does not imply a purely written tradition (e.g., Catholic masses), but it's also helpful to remember that “folk music” does not necessarily imply a purely oral tradition (e.g., Sacred Harp singing). The idea of oral tradition has come to play an important role in defining folk music in particular historical junctures, but the two ideas are not co-terminous.
Several of you noted the processes of change and adaptation inherent in "classical music". I would add that change happens in all music, but that it is perhaps more surprising (and disconcerting for some) in art music circles where the stability of a canon is particularly valued. But Sharp and Bartok both left particular musical pieces out of their collections because they were deemed too modern (thus too corrupted) to fit their rather fixed ideas of folk music.
I liked the point about recording technology contributing to our sense of an "ur-text". I think this was John's point. (Again, I don't know if adding "art ur-text" or "folk ur-text" helps us here.) But the desire for fixity may also comes from the particular needs of a performance context: for instance, a ballad performer may try to play the same way because s/he needs to remember a 48-hour long text, or a performer may want to sound like ‘x’ in order to gain prestige, etc.
Theme: Relationship between folk/art/popHenry asked the question: Do you think the preeminence of art music in a society implies that the folk tradition is already in decline? I have the same reaction to this question as I did to his earlier one about art becoming the folk music of the future. Folk and art are interlocking ideas that only make sense in relation to each other within a particular discursive context. I don't think there is any absolute way of measuring the “amount” of folk and art music in a place until we first decide what each of these terms encompass. There is a big jump from saying that style X is in decline, to saying that all folk music is in decline. Also, the discourse of decline is part of the way that intellectuals have thought about folk music at least since Ossian—we'll discuss this when we get to folk revivals--but I think it behooves us to be critical of this discourse, because it often reflects a very circumscribed cultural perspective.
Theme: Change within Oral Traditions
As Erik noted, it's important to remember that “art music” does not imply a purely written tradition (e.g., Catholic masses), but it's also helpful to remember that “folk music” does not necessarily imply a purely oral tradition (e.g., Sacred Harp singing). The idea of oral tradition has come to play an important role in defining folk music in particular historical junctures, but the two ideas are not co-terminous.
Several of you noted the processes of change and adaptation inherent in "classical music". I would add that change happens in all music, but that it is perhaps more surprising (and disconcerting for some) in art music circles where the stability of a canon is particularly valued. But Sharp and Bartok both left particular musical pieces out of their collections because they were deemed too modern (thus too corrupted) to fit their rather fixed ideas of folk music.
I liked the point about recording technology contributing to our sense of an "ur-text". I think this was John's point. (Again, I don't know if adding "art ur-text" or "folk ur-text" helps us here.) But the desire for fixity may also comes from the particular needs of a performance context: for instance, a ballad performer may try to play the same way because s/he needs to remember a 48-hour long text, or a performer may want to sound like ‘x’ in order to gain prestige, etc.
Theme: Relationship between folk/art/popHenry asked the question: Do you think the preeminence of art music in a society implies that the folk tradition is already in decline? I have the same reaction to this question as I did to his earlier one about art becoming the folk music of the future. Folk and art are interlocking ideas that only make sense in relation to each other within a particular discursive context. I don't think there is any absolute way of measuring the “amount” of folk and art music in a place until we first decide what each of these terms encompass. There is a big jump from saying that style X is in decline, to saying that all folk music is in decline. Also, the discourse of decline is part of the way that intellectuals have thought about folk music at least since Ossian—we'll discuss this when we get to folk revivals--but I think it behooves us to be critical of this discourse, because it often reflects a very circumscribed cultural perspective.
- Thread:
- Douglas Easterling
- Post:
- RE: Douglas Easterling
- Author:
- Andrew Jones
- Posted Date:
- January 21, 2014 2:12 PM
- Status:
- Published
Good question; I would say
yes, that melody (or any melody for that matter) could have transferred
from the art to the folk side (or is now shared between the two). One of
the main melodies that I can think of off of the top of my head that
this could have happened to is the intro music for CBS' Sunday Morning,
which is a baroque piccolo trumpet piece titled "Abblasen" thought to
be composed by Gottfied Rieche (Bach's principal trumpeter at Leipzig).
Anyways, the work started out as a baroque solo fanfare but has now
become so synonymous with the Sunday Morning show that most
people (I would think) can hardly imagine it being associated with
anything but the program or played in any other way than how it is
presented in the recording.
- Thread:
- Henry Chow
- Post:
- RE: Henry Chow
- Author:
- Andrew Jones
- Posted Date:
- January 21, 2014 12:26 PM
- Edited Date:
- January 21, 2014 1:21 PM
- Status:
- Published
I
do agree with you that this group of reading was much more interesting
than the first! Also, there is a lot of information presented for what
the author is trying to prove. This, along with his often extremely
dense rhetoric, takes away from the overall argument.
1) I would say yes, societies with a well structured art music realm have a folk music tradition that is falling by the wayside. In comparing the South American countries with the North American ones (namely the U.S.), one will find that the art music "scene" in South America is just starting to come into its own while the folk tradition has been prominent for sometime. In North America however, a very fine art music "scene" has been established for sometime while the folk tradition is still not well known to the public.
2) I do and do not think popular music is fundamentally different than a few centuries ago. It is still primarily a more "simple" music associated with the general populous (i.e. simple songs that reflect an aspect of day to day life, relationships, etc.) but the scale on which the music is recorded, performed, and advertised nowadays is sometimes on a more ridiculous and impersonal level.
1) I would say yes, societies with a well structured art music realm have a folk music tradition that is falling by the wayside. In comparing the South American countries with the North American ones (namely the U.S.), one will find that the art music "scene" in South America is just starting to come into its own while the folk tradition has been prominent for sometime. In North America however, a very fine art music "scene" has been established for sometime while the folk tradition is still not well known to the public.
2) I do and do not think popular music is fundamentally different than a few centuries ago. It is still primarily a more "simple" music associated with the general populous (i.e. simple songs that reflect an aspect of day to day life, relationships, etc.) but the scale on which the music is recorded, performed, and advertised nowadays is sometimes on a more ridiculous and impersonal level.
- Thread:
- Week 3 thoughts
- Post:
- RE: Week 3 thoughts
- Author:
- Douglas Easterling
- Posted Date:
- January 21, 2014 12:00 AM
- Status:
- Published
The more we get into this
class, the more problems I see with the terms "folk," "art," and "pop"
in relation to music, and I already thought that "art" music was a
basically useless classification.
- Thread:
- Week Three
- Post:
- RE: Week Three
- Author:
- Douglas Easterling
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 11:48 PM
- Status:
- Published
Not to mention "Urtext" is a
myth! There are ALWAYS editorial decisions. It's a marketing ploy. Don't
get me wrong: Bärenreiter puts out great editions of scores. They are
clean, attractive, easy-to-read, industry-standard, and they do indeed
show a very accurate re-creation of early sources. But there really is
nothing "ur" about their texts. An editor still had to come in and
decide how to publish it. Unless you're reading from the manuscript or a
facsimile, it's not "ur."
- Thread:
- Week 3 thoughts
- Post:
- RE: Week 3 thoughts
- Author:
- Douglas Easterling
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 11:42 PM
- Status:
- Published
I agree with all of the above,
especially regarding the authenticity bit. I think he was trying to
write a clever-sounding sentence to sum up what he had been saying, but
ended up essentially not saying much that made sense. I think he
probably wanted us to understand something like "The composers wrote in a
style similar to folk music." But this is academia, and there are only
ten words in that sentence. All kidding aside, I do think that is what
he meant: the composers achieved authenticity by imitating a style that
was made authentic by the collective "folk."
- Thread:
- week 3
- Post:
- RE: week 3
- Author:
- Douglas Easterling
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 11:37 PM
- Status:
- Published
I
agree that it is very problematic (and probably really offensive) to
say that there is no "genius" behind popular music. This screams of
conservatory elitism. I also think you are right on the money about
producers. Some of the great producers out there put out some incredibly
impressive music. Even producers for extremely commercial artists like
Mariah Carey or Miley Cyrus or something. I think it is pretty
meaningless for us to say that certain types of music are not "art."
That just does not really mean anything to me. I am also constantly
impressed by DJs and "mash-up artists" who are certainly working in the
pop realm, but are creating music as crafty as clever as much of, say,
Bach's music.
- Thread:
- Interesting Link
- Post:
- Interesting Link
- Author:
- Brianna Matzke
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 11:15 PM
- Status:
- Published
Hi all,
Just
found this new toy on Google... I believe the graphics are created by
searching Google Play user music libraries... Could have some relevance
to this week's discussion.
Enjoy!
- Thread:
- "Popular vs "Folk/national"
- Post:
- RE: "Popular vs "Folk/national"
- Author:
- Brianna Matzke
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 10:12 PM
- Status:
- Published
Regarding Beatles and folk
music... It is my understanding that when the Beatles got their start,
they had to do all-night performances at some shady clubs in Germany. In
order to have enough material to get through the night, they would play
through folk song collections over and over and over. I have heard it
claimed that this "folk" feel is what gave the Beatles their unique
sound in their original music.
- Thread:
- Week 3 thoughts
- Post:
- RE: Week 3 thoughts
- Author:
- Brianna Matzke
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 10:07 PM
- Status:
- Published
I wish I didn't have to miss
class -- I'm really interested in the discussion trying to nail down the
definition of "authenticity"... Gelbart doesn't even TRY to define it!
He definitely skirts the issue.
- Thread:
- week 3
- Post:
- RE: week 3
- Author:
- Brianna Matzke
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 10:03 PM
- Status:
- Published
I agree that introducing
popular music into a classical setting can be problematic -- pop music
will fill seats and engage with new types of people at the same time
that it alienates the more traditional audience. There are really a few
issues at work here... 1) the snobbery of the traditionalists and 2) the
lack of education on the part of the general population. Of course,
there are certain works that bridge the gap between classical and
popular in a highly effective way, creating a product that is BOTH
engaging AND of high artistic quality. The chamber ensemble eighth
blackbird comes to mind as an example of a group that has found an
effective way to invoke pop elements without losing their
credibility/"authenticity" as classical musicians.
In a
way, the division between classical and folk that Gelbart describes in
his book is no longer evolving -- now, the evolution is occurring in the
relationship between classical and pop. This make sense especially when
one considers extra-musical factors: the highly commercialized society
we live in values pop music because it is constantly SOLD to us. Pop
music gains its authenticity from the fact that it is advertised as an
artistic product, and since we engage with the world primarily as
consumers, we are able to understand and to buy into that idea.
Classical music is losing its authenticity for the same reasons pop is
gaining -- it refuses to sell itself, but in doing so, cuts itself off
from the most effective means of engaging with general audiences.
- Thread:
- "Popular vs "Folk/national"
- Post:
- RE: "Popular vs "Folk/national"
- Author:
- Michelle Lawton
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 6:41 PM
- Status:
- Published
Gelbart doesn't spend much
time on popular music, which makes his arguments a little less detailed
and nuanced than his work with relationship between folk and art music.
And I'd agree that he sets popular up vs. everything else rather bluntly
in the beginning; that diagram on p. 257 pits popular music directly
against a combination of art/folk music. I think it may be a failure to
properly set up his argument, though - on pp. 276 and 277, at the very
end of the book, he begins to talk more of the blurring of lines and
categories with scholars of popular music, a greater sense of
flexibility regarding the boundaries of art, and the fact that many
Americans and Europeans use terms like "classic rock."
I think he still tends to, on those last pages, tie "popular music" closer to "art music" than to "folk music" - even though I'd say that if folk music was written for the folk, and popular music is written for the populace and seems to be often performed by people who are not terribly skilled at reading music (thus back to the learning-by-ear oral tradition) - than the lines can be very blurry between those categories as well. It probably relates to some concept of popular music being intended for a wider audience than folk music, with folk music's connotations of cultural or geopolitical boundaries, but once again due to the fact that Gelbart didn't really seem to spend much time on pop, that's not something I can really say for sure in the context of this book.
I think he still tends to, on those last pages, tie "popular music" closer to "art music" than to "folk music" - even though I'd say that if folk music was written for the folk, and popular music is written for the populace and seems to be often performed by people who are not terribly skilled at reading music (thus back to the learning-by-ear oral tradition) - than the lines can be very blurry between those categories as well. It probably relates to some concept of popular music being intended for a wider audience than folk music, with folk music's connotations of cultural or geopolitical boundaries, but once again due to the fact that Gelbart didn't really seem to spend much time on pop, that's not something I can really say for sure in the context of this book.
- Thread:
- John Hausmann
- Post:
- RE: John Hausmann
- Author:
- Michelle Lawton
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 6:20 PM
- Status:
- Published
I like your idea of
comparing "folk work concept" and "art work concept." After all, until
Romantics really began to lay claim to their works and get very specific
about how they were notating the scores, weren't many "art works"
rather freely modified to fit the needs of the performers or audience
expectations? (I'm thinking of changing arias in operas, or improvising
solos during concerts or the cadenzas of concerti, for instance).
But I also agree that now, many of us have a very definite idea of an underlying ur-text to many different types of works, and that modern recording technology, instead of being accepted for the "snapshot" that it is, has also reinforced rigid versions of pieces and made it difficult to challenge premises that may have been largely put forward by upper-class thinkers apart from the reality of practices.
But I also agree that now, many of us have a very definite idea of an underlying ur-text to many different types of works, and that modern recording technology, instead of being accepted for the "snapshot" that it is, has also reinforced rigid versions of pieces and made it difficult to challenge premises that may have been largely put forward by upper-class thinkers apart from the reality of practices.
- Thread:
- Week Three
- Post:
- RE: Week Three
- Author:
- Erik Paffett
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 5:45 PM
- Status:
- Published
That’s a really interesting correlation
you make about modern performers always using urtext editions. Why are we so
concerned with preserving the authorial intentions of the composer in their
most ‘authentic’ and pure form? Even during the late eighteenth century,
improvisation and ornamentation was a common. It’s almost like trying to avoid the
idea of the evolving work and preserving this imagined authentic original in a
museum-like way.
- Thread:
- Week 3 thoughts
- Post:
- RE: Week 3 thoughts
- Author:
- Erik Paffett
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 5:38 PM
- Status:
- Published
I totally agree that some of the
material from chapters 6 and 8 would have been really useful earlier on in the
book.
Also, I wasn’t a hundred percent
on what German folk music was. I think some discussion of what he considers
German folk music would have helped me.
- Thread:
- week 3
- Post:
- RE: week 3
- Author:
- Eunyoung Chung
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 3:54 PM
- Status:
- Published
i agree with your thinking that the pop music would be a part of genuine muical source in recent time.
many number of modern composers quote the melody from the commercial advertisement or popular movies.
those kind of melodies are more catchable and memorable...at least composer coould be free from the obsession which they have to create a new melody.
the problem is the responce toward the pop music at the classical venue maybe different when people appreciate the real classcial music.they would listen and focus on the varing process which is based on the classical convention.
many number of modern composers quote the melody from the commercial advertisement or popular movies.
those kind of melodies are more catchable and memorable...at least composer coould be free from the obsession which they have to create a new melody.
the problem is the responce toward the pop music at the classical venue maybe different when people appreciate the real classcial music.they would listen and focus on the varing process which is based on the classical convention.
- Thread:
- week 3
- Post:
- week 3
- Author:
- Andrew Jones
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 2:29 PM
- Status:
- Published
Based on Gelbart’s table (“Figure 8.1”) on page 257,
“popular” music is a completely separate entity from “folk” and “art” music. The
table shows that “popular” music sits lowest on the artistic spectrum due to its
over commercialization and because there is no true “genius” behind its
creation. While I do agree that popular music is (for the most part) over
commercialized and is geared more towards the general populace, I do not agree
that there is not any sort of creative “genius” behind it and I think that what
we deem now as popular, folk, and art music greatly rely on each other for
existence.
One of the best creative geniuses in popular music
is (to me) the producers behind the artists. For instance, Jack White produced
Loretta Lynn’s latest album, “Van Lear Rose,” to great acclaim. The album was a
total departure from Lynn’s previous more traditional Country music work as it
combined elements of White’s rock musical aesthetic with Lynn’s “salt of the
earth” vocals and songs. These two different styles became one in this album
(some say almost creating a new country music genre) all under White’s “genius.”
The dependency of popular, folk, and art music on
each other in current times is best expressed in the current state of American
symphony orchestras. The general populace grew weary of going to orchestra
concerts because the same staple art music pieces were going to be performed
again for the two-hundredth time; programming became stagnant because it was
geared more towards the symphony patrons, who were for the most part elderly
people. Because of this, a near collapse of the American orchestral institution
ensued. Symphonies are now starting to add in more “pop” music elements to
their programming in order to bring in a more diverse people. For instance, orchestras
will show filmed musical at a concert while the orchestra plays the soundtrack
and more performers from the pop music realm are being brought in to try to
bring in a more diverse crowd and more people in general. This looks good for
the pop music industry as it makes their genre look more cultured and “artful.”
My question then is whether or not art or folk music can survive in modern times
without this kind of help from pop music?
- Thread:
- Week 3 thoughts
- Post:
- Week 3 thoughts
- Author:
- Michelle Lawton
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 2:10 PM
- Status:
- Published
Overall,
I think Gelbart does a fantastic job treating a very difficult subject
and discusses the history of the terms in a highly nuanced manner. I
would have liked to have seen some of the material from chapter 6 and 8 a
lot earlier in the book, though – it would have saved me a lot of
scribbled notes on the side about how there seemed to be a lot of
philosophers views and trends in poetry and literature that didn’t seem
to be immediately affecting actual compositions, for instance. The
diagram in chapter 6 was nice, and helped point out that the sort of
Venn diagram I have in my head of overlapping circles of folk, popular,
art, and national music is definitely a “modern” creation (although the
fact that all of those categories overlap probably speaks to the care
teachers have taken in pointing out categories such as “art” or
“popular” or “Baroque” or “Classical” are constructions we often make to
simply and classify a really quite difficult, diverse field).
I
would have liked to have seen a lot more on the history/economic trends
of the time, though – it seems to me like a lot of the spread of German
“art” music might not have been just based on promotion as “universal”
and the best-of-the-best-of-the-best, but also because of trade,
training, patronage systems tied to a wealth of smaller courts,
political stability at crucial times, political national identity
creation, and yes, just some really talented musicians. Probably those
factors are beyond the scope of Gelbart’s study.
I
had a lot of trouble with the idea of German folk music through much of
the later chapters – it was really stressed, but I didn’t have a very
clear conception of what it really meant musically. Four-part chorales?
Is that why Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” setting could so easily accrue the
connotations it does later? The idea of “folk music” then being created
from “art music” to illustrate cyclic thought (c. p 246) was done really
nicely, and goes a long way to answering the question of “what is
German folk music” – but I’m still a little shadowy on it and what the
composers of mid-19th century in particular would have viewed
as German folk. Putting aside the whole snapshot-in-time dilemma of
folk song collections, when did folk song collections begin in Germany,
and how well-known were they?
Another
fun term was “authenticity.” This is from my notes: p. 223 – “The idea
of quotation sinks to a level so deep that the boundaries between the
folk authenticity and the artist’s individual authenticity dissolve,
leaving only the “authenticity” itself.” ME: HUH?? Lost me there, dude.
What does authenticity mean again? p.
156 – definition of “authenticity”: “Authenticity is basically a term
used only when origins are the crucial factor in determining the
validity of a poetic or musical text; it is the criterion for testing
origins.” So what does it mean now? Completely at sea. - Thread:
- Week Three
- Post:
- Week Three
- Author:
- Brianna Matzke
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 1:28 PM
- Status:
- Published
That buzzword we focused on in
our discussion last week -- authenticity -- came to the fore in this
reading. What a fascinating account of the shift in trust of
authenticity, from Addision in 1711 assuming authenticity in a single
author and purity of oral transmission, and MacPherson later in the
century doubting that anyone except the highly cultured could have
preserved songs and poems through oral transmission, to the
turn-of-the-century authors crediting the "folk" with the creation of a
work over time. Such a significant difference in such a short time! I
wish I knew more about the revolutions that were occurring at that time
(turn of the century), because I could venture a guess that this shift
of trust in authenticity in only "high" sources to trusting authenticity
of works produced by the "folk" may be reflected in the contemporary
shifts of politics and government. I'm sure some of you know more about
that side of history than I do -- can you shed light on the comparison?
Based
on the little I do know about the Enlightenment, it seems to me that
the author is clearly demonstrating how many of the views we hold
regarding authenticity in music -- be it art or folk -- find their roots
in this period of history. I feel that my eyes are being opened to this
in a new way... for example, I would assume that around this time is
when literacy in Europe and America really began to climb, coinciding
with the emphasis on the written word as the ultimate authority -- for
example, music collectors at the time believed that dictation was the
only way to properly "preserve" a tune. Gelbart's Chapter Six delves
into detail regarding the creation of "art" music, and I see a parallel
there regarding placing utmost trust in the notated score as the
authentic art work. This trust in notation, in the written word, has
carried with us into today's classical music culture -- for example,
when looking for a score, performers always consult the Urtext edition,
the one claiming to have preserved in stone for all eternity the "true"
(read: authentic) wishes of the composer, and editions in which the
editor has inserted interpretive markings are often referred to in a
rather derogatory tone. Heaven forbid that the performer might take any
sort of liberties in his or her performance of the work -- any
interpretation that does not follow the score exactly is often met with
gasps of shock or sighs of exasperation. I think that perhaps that sort
of contemporary attitude finds its roots in the time period Gelbart has
discussed.
In Chapter Six, Gelbart delves into
Romanticism, and the idea that Romantic art aims to transcend the
division between art and science -- that the origins of a artist's
genius were mystified for the sake of authenticity. This whole idea of
course calls to mind the idea of the virtuoso, a type of performing
genius whose abilities were often described as unearthly -- for example,
Paganini was accused of having sold his soul to the devil in exchange
for his talent. Virtuosos were seen as performers who could transcend
technical limitations to achieve "pure" or "natural" artistic
expression, bridging the gap between natural art/genius and the learned
technique (science) of playing an instrument. Never before had I
considered virtuosos in this light: that society leaned into Romanticism
because of the gulf created between science and the natural by the
Enlightenment. I think of the monster of Shelley's Frankenstein -- a
man-made man, a monster who embodies the natural world but is created by
science, one who also bridges that gulf, but in a different way. Are
there parallels between the monster of Frankenstein and the Romantic
idea of a virtuoso?
The association of German music
with universalism was a revelation for me (Chapter Seven), and of
course I began to see parallels with the United States in the 20th and
21st centuries. The sort of dominance that American culture takes on the
world stage in contemporary times is paralleled by Germany in the 19th
century -- just as German-produced art was supposedly the only type
allowed to "skip the second step" and go straight to universalism (but
this was done so based on claims staked by German authors), so today
Americans often assume their cultural precedence, but most often with
popular culture (see: Coca-Cola, Michael Jackson, Nike.) I definitely
see a shift occurring in recent times of the status of pop culture --
for example, I can think of many, many contemporary composers who invoke
popular music in their art, and many other classical performers who
have begun to cross the popular/classical divide (Philip Glass, Steve
Reich, Hilary Hahn, Bryce Dessner of the National, Nico Muhly, Kronos
Quartet, etc)... I am fascinated to see how these three terms -- folk,
art, and popular -- will shift in definition in the coming century.
- Thread:
- "Popular vs "Folk/national"
- Post:
- "Popular vs "Folk/national"
- Author:
- Tyler Alessi
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 12:08 PM
- Status:
- Published
Gelbart
asks the question, in the beginning of chapter 5, "But what culture or
whose culture, should "tradition" represent in order to build such a
nation?" (pg 155) Gelbart’s depiction of the evolution of “tradition”
and discussion of “oral tradition” fascinates me. I never thought of the
nuances that can be achieved from the “oral tradition” as opposed to
the strictness of written music. I began to think of how this relates to
our current culture which is so dominated by “popular” music, and it
made me question the real difference between “popular” and
“folk/national” music. It seems to me that Gelbart is biased to the
"high" or highly educated.
I
agree that “popular” music is often commercial and corrupt, but I fail
to see how the published volumes of “folk/national” music Gelbart
describes in chapter 5 do not fall into the same commercial category. On
page 181, Gelbart discusses that there were two kinds of transcription,
simple and elaborate. He states, “…those who published the more
elaborate transcriptions tended to rely on music for their income (as
publishers and entrepreneurs in almost all cases, and as performers as
well in the cases of Corri and Urbani).” Is this not commercialism?
We
have also seen how “folk” music has come out of “art” music (Brahm’s
lullaby, Mozart’s Variation’s in C…) is it not possible that this could
happen with “popular” music? For example, could a song by The Beatles
become a “folk” song? There are already countless arrangements of their
pieces in many different languages. We often see videos on YouTube of
fathers teaching their kids old Beatle’s tunes through “oral tradition”.
Some might say this is a stretch, but I don’t see the real difference
between this and a piece like Mozart’s Variations in C.
Gelbart
makes the point, “Today’s category of “popular” music depended on the
idea of undereducated masses…” (pg 258) This point is a bit confusing to
me since Gelbart makes the claim (through Beattie) that both untutored
shepherds (undereducated masses) and bards (educated masses) are on the
same plane and that “both are creators of national cultural capital;
both represent the collective” (pg 91) So by this logic, shouldn't
"popular" music be on the same plane as "folk" and "art" music?
Gelbart
claims that the the undereducated masses are manipulated by
capitalists. He uses this point to separate the "corrupt" rabble that
listens to "popular" music from the "real folk" that Beattie was talking
about. I do not feel that it is appropriate to lump all of "popular"
music into the "corrupt" rabble category. While there are certainly
pieces that are written to exploit the public and exist simply to make
money, some “popular” music, while commercial, can still become
“folk/national” music.
So
back to Gelbart’s question, whose culture should “tradition” represent?
Should it represent the highly educated, uneducated or both?
- Thread:
- Douglas Easterling
- Post:
- RE: Douglas Easterling
- Author:
- John Hausmann
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 11:57 AM
- Status:
- Published
I think that your question has
the potential to kick over a hornet's nest, since the more we think
about it, the more we realize that large portions of our literate,
educated, (purportedly) higher-class music embody "folk" values and
means of transmission. In art music, these things (like performance
practice, schools of performance and composition, ways of interpreting
notation, etc.) are framed positively as "tradition," but we can just as
easily attack them as ossifications of the genre with regards to
growth, exploration, risk-taking, etc. Such an interpretation is
obviously one-sided, but it does show how people will tend to create
double aesthetic standards (what's "good" in art music is banal in pop,
for example).
- Thread:
- Week 3 thoughts
- Post:
- RE: Week 3 thoughts
- Author:
- John Hausmann
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 11:49 AM
- Status:
- Published
Building on your last point, I
think the terms and concepts are so fully worked into our collective
music listening (and buying) schemata that it would take decades of
sustained effort to replace them, if we could agree on a better concept
with which to replace them.
Moreover (and this is something that I hope comes up in class), we as musicians often use "folk music" very differently than non-musicians. I think that any discussion of what the word means needs to include these other voices, especially since––for us––they are the very folk that we're talking about.
Moreover (and this is something that I hope comes up in class), we as musicians often use "folk music" very differently than non-musicians. I think that any discussion of what the word means needs to include these other voices, especially since––for us––they are the very folk that we're talking about.
- Thread:
- John Hausmann
- Post:
- John Hausmann
- Author:
- John Hausmann
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 11:44 AM
- Status:
- Published
I thought the idea of a “folk
work-concept” to be an intriguing one. Gelbart claims these were “seen
as clusters of related variants forged over time” (163). I thought that
this idea would have been reinforced (and would have reinforced his
larger assumption that the idea of folk and art musics emerged in
similar ways) by delving more into the “art work-concept.” This seems to
predate the “folk work-concept,” and it would have been interesting to
see how the art work idea needed to be adapted for folk texts, which
were (typically) oral, regional, and marked less fixed in both
composition and performance than art works.
It seems that the larger idea underlying both work concepts is that there is a fixed, final version of a work that originated from one individual and exists in a metaphysical, liminal state accessed by those performing the song/piece in the spirit of its creator’s intention. Accepting this premise, the idea of a folk “ur-text,” or that there is one “original” or “correct” version of a folk song, still seems to underlie folk collection, performance, and thought. For example, listening to the “traditional” American tune “Cindy” in versions by the Kingston Trio, Johnny Cash, or arranged for chamber vocalists can all be argued as “authentic” or “real,” since each is a variant on the larger underlying work-idea of “Cindy.” I imagine many of us would argue for one over another, yet I wonder how much we might be justifying our aesthetic preferences by framing them in terms of “authenticity,” “historical value,” and the like. But, even having that argument––which seems to me to be the one I’ve encountered the most when talking about and playing folk music––reinforces the original problematic frame, that there is a folk ur-text.
This issue, then, is largely reinforced by mechanical reproduction, which makes transmission of exceedingly fixed interpretations possible. Before the advent of phonography, it would have been next to impossible to capture these variants without relying on notation. Gelbart does describe a collector who tried to capture folk music as the performers played it, but it strikes me that an such experience is still highly mediated. This illustrates an issue that came up last week, and which raised its head again in this week’s reading: it seems that “folk music” has been largely constructed by urban-dwelling, upper- to middle-class Anglo males, who theorize, collect, and transmit information about a practice that, while real, bears little resemblance to their discussions (ex. pg. 168, re need for scholars to intervene). I wonder how much the entire discourse around folk music has been impacted by technologies that end up reinforcing the underlying premises of the original folk theorists, or that at the very least make it exceedingly difficult to challenge those premises.
It seems that the larger idea underlying both work concepts is that there is a fixed, final version of a work that originated from one individual and exists in a metaphysical, liminal state accessed by those performing the song/piece in the spirit of its creator’s intention. Accepting this premise, the idea of a folk “ur-text,” or that there is one “original” or “correct” version of a folk song, still seems to underlie folk collection, performance, and thought. For example, listening to the “traditional” American tune “Cindy” in versions by the Kingston Trio, Johnny Cash, or arranged for chamber vocalists can all be argued as “authentic” or “real,” since each is a variant on the larger underlying work-idea of “Cindy.” I imagine many of us would argue for one over another, yet I wonder how much we might be justifying our aesthetic preferences by framing them in terms of “authenticity,” “historical value,” and the like. But, even having that argument––which seems to me to be the one I’ve encountered the most when talking about and playing folk music––reinforces the original problematic frame, that there is a folk ur-text.
This issue, then, is largely reinforced by mechanical reproduction, which makes transmission of exceedingly fixed interpretations possible. Before the advent of phonography, it would have been next to impossible to capture these variants without relying on notation. Gelbart does describe a collector who tried to capture folk music as the performers played it, but it strikes me that an such experience is still highly mediated. This illustrates an issue that came up last week, and which raised its head again in this week’s reading: it seems that “folk music” has been largely constructed by urban-dwelling, upper- to middle-class Anglo males, who theorize, collect, and transmit information about a practice that, while real, bears little resemblance to their discussions (ex. pg. 168, re need for scholars to intervene). I wonder how much the entire discourse around folk music has been impacted by technologies that end up reinforcing the underlying premises of the original folk theorists, or that at the very least make it exceedingly difficult to challenge those premises.
- Thread:
- Douglas Easterling
- Post:
- RE: Douglas Easterling
- Author:
- Tat Fun Chow
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 10:30 AM
- Status:
- Published
Your question is a very
interesting one. For instance, the way the ornaments are realised in
theme of the Goldberg Variations by performers is more or less based on
Ralph Kirkpatrick's realisations in the 1950's, including the downward
realisation of the arpeggio sign in bar 11. These minute performance
details seem to have been handed down to our generation much like folk
music, although they are not notated literally in the score. In
well-known classical pieces, it seems that the familiar aural image of
how a piece should go as as much, if not more, 'tradition-forming'
propensities than the score per se.
- Thread:
- Week 3 thoughts
- Post:
- RE: Week 3 thoughts
- Author:
- Tat Fun Chow
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 10:24 AM
- Status:
- Published
I guess the 'tradition' that
Protestants attack Catholics on is about doctrines. The Roman Mass was
indeed something of a 'written' thing since 4-5th centuries...
I also think that the way classical musicians relate to classical compositions affects how they perform, compared to a folk musicinas who is arguably part of the creative process, rather than a conduit through which the divine inspirations of the great composer flows. The latter is a common view among 20th century conservatory teaching...
I also think that the way classical musicians relate to classical compositions affects how they perform, compared to a folk musicinas who is arguably part of the creative process, rather than a conduit through which the divine inspirations of the great composer flows. The latter is a common view among 20th century conservatory teaching...
- Thread:
- eunyoung Chung
- Post:
- eunyoung Chung
- Author:
- Eunyoung Chung
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 10:11 AM
- Status:
- Published
Gelbart mainly argues about
the problem of the oral transmission in chapter 5. Like to Percy’s claim
I think the accuracy of oral transmission is too limited, especially,
when a society became depended on the description. There is the
interesting idea that the oral transmission would take place when the
culture becoming diminished or faded away. People stop writing about the
certain things. However, on the other hand, I think the oral
transmission would have its own merit to transfer the authenticity of
certain cultural relics such as the practice methods which could not be
perfectly explained by literal description.
The notion of “work” includes many progressions toward folk such as varying, polishing, and being censured. The book asserts the variants of folk material are inevitable. Otherwise, the change of origin would represent corruption or distortion of the authenticity.
As a social reaction, the tradition seems to be more open to the possibility of change. The innovation and fixity of performance practice could happen in stable way which not radically changed.
The folk music in late eighteenth century became the new art music by synthesizing of contemporary artificial music. (Interestingly, the book deems the artificial music in the eighteenth century which called the Classical music as an individual authentic music.)The convention demonstrates the trait of cultivated art. In this process, the convention was functioned as a medium which help the folk music becomes a settled musical notion with its own natural characteristic.
In modern westernized world, the popular music corrupted by commercial influence. Its instant popularity and effect is quietly the opposite characteristics of pure music. Against to popular music, “art” music and “folk” music need to keep their authenticity from commerce in recent time. In this process, the attitudes toward classical music and folk music seem to be synchronized in some way. Personally, I think folk music would become thought as the one genre of classical music which performed and educated at the academic venue and be studied by few people who keep the notion of “interests in interestedness” or “ art for art’s sake”.
The notion of “work” includes many progressions toward folk such as varying, polishing, and being censured. The book asserts the variants of folk material are inevitable. Otherwise, the change of origin would represent corruption or distortion of the authenticity.
As a social reaction, the tradition seems to be more open to the possibility of change. The innovation and fixity of performance practice could happen in stable way which not radically changed.
The folk music in late eighteenth century became the new art music by synthesizing of contemporary artificial music. (Interestingly, the book deems the artificial music in the eighteenth century which called the Classical music as an individual authentic music.)The convention demonstrates the trait of cultivated art. In this process, the convention was functioned as a medium which help the folk music becomes a settled musical notion with its own natural characteristic.
In modern westernized world, the popular music corrupted by commercial influence. Its instant popularity and effect is quietly the opposite characteristics of pure music. Against to popular music, “art” music and “folk” music need to keep their authenticity from commerce in recent time. In this process, the attitudes toward classical music and folk music seem to be synchronized in some way. Personally, I think folk music would become thought as the one genre of classical music which performed and educated at the academic venue and be studied by few people who keep the notion of “interests in interestedness” or “ art for art’s sake”.
- Thread:
- Henry Chow
- Post:
- Henry Chow
- Author:
- Tat Fun Chow
- Posted Date:
- January 20, 2014 2:58 AM
- Status:
- Published
I have to confess that I
enjoyed the chapters this week more than last week's! I was especially
drawn by the discussion of the relationship between folk and tradition,
and the various nuanced differences between how different composers
used/transformed folk elements in their 'art' music. What I found
especially interesting was how certain composers like Bartok composed
'as the folk', as well as Mendelssohn's rather adverse reaction to the
folk music he heard in Scotland. The discussion on how Beethoven's music
emerged as the common language with a folk-like centricity to German
identity (and the author's citation of the Ode to Joy as the EU's
national anthem) I think was a good example of my question in class:
would the most well-known of classical music acquire the cultural status
that we accord to folk music some time in the future, and sort of merge
with folk music as one strand, rather than two? This is a point of view
related to the author's discussion of the encounter of folk and art
music with popular music.
The author was wise, I think, to relate the discussion to the Catholic/Protestant views of Tradition versus Scripture. This of course overlooks the fact that Scripture itself was a product of Tradition. Nevertheless I think the association of folk/classical and Catholic/Protestant views has some parallels. I would argue, however, that the early music movement is more on the Catholic (rather than Protestant, as the author suggests) since it argues for interpretations of notation that is NOT part of the 'score' or 'work' itself, but through other channels, in order for a performance to be 'authentic'. This is similar to how Catholics use Tradition to interpret the Scripture 'authentically'.
I still often got the impression that the author was writing a literature review, and the lists of names that he cites could be dizzying. I agree with my classmates that the book is probably too ambitious for its scale. For its length, it would have been more effective if the author gave less specific minute details, or write a thicker book...
My questions are:
1. Do you think the preeminence of art music in a society implies that the folk tradition is already in decline? It seems to me that in societies where indigenous folk music thrives, like Scotland, there is less of an 'art music' tradition. The process of collecting folk music by people like Herder therefore seems to be a 'civilising' act from a society that has lost some of its direct contact with the folk tradition.
2. The author claims that the advent of popular music is a largely modern phenomenon with close ties with commercialism. Do you think popular music of our time is fundamentally different from popular music a few centuries ago?
The author was wise, I think, to relate the discussion to the Catholic/Protestant views of Tradition versus Scripture. This of course overlooks the fact that Scripture itself was a product of Tradition. Nevertheless I think the association of folk/classical and Catholic/Protestant views has some parallels. I would argue, however, that the early music movement is more on the Catholic (rather than Protestant, as the author suggests) since it argues for interpretations of notation that is NOT part of the 'score' or 'work' itself, but through other channels, in order for a performance to be 'authentic'. This is similar to how Catholics use Tradition to interpret the Scripture 'authentically'.
I still often got the impression that the author was writing a literature review, and the lists of names that he cites could be dizzying. I agree with my classmates that the book is probably too ambitious for its scale. For its length, it would have been more effective if the author gave less specific minute details, or write a thicker book...
My questions are:
1. Do you think the preeminence of art music in a society implies that the folk tradition is already in decline? It seems to me that in societies where indigenous folk music thrives, like Scotland, there is less of an 'art music' tradition. The process of collecting folk music by people like Herder therefore seems to be a 'civilising' act from a society that has lost some of its direct contact with the folk tradition.
2. The author claims that the advent of popular music is a largely modern phenomenon with close ties with commercialism. Do you think popular music of our time is fundamentally different from popular music a few centuries ago?
- Thread:
- Douglas Easterling
- Post:
- Douglas Easterling
- Author:
- Douglas Easterling
- Posted Date:
- January 19, 2014 7:50 PM
- Status:
- Published
When I began reading this week, I was struck by Gelbart’s
sort of negative tone regarding the view of all of the “collectors,” who “felt
they were making stable what was dangerously ephemeral.” (p. 162) Not being
involved in oral tradition very much, I became confused by his sort of negative
tone regarding this process. Were the collectors not right? Anything that is
passed by oral tradition must surely change throughout the many tellings and
retellings over many generations. I wondered why Gelbart’s view was somewhat
negative. However, he eventually made it clear that oral tradition’s tendency
to change its content over time is actually considered one of its strengths. I
had fallen into a trap of thinking of all of these oral traditional “works”
from a post-Romantic viewpoint. Yes, the works change over time, but this
change is inherent in the “work” itself. The genre of oral tradition is supposed to change. “Oral ‘tradition’
was not (or certainly not only)
corrupting a single, original text but in fact forming cultural artifacts over time.” (p. 162) I think it is
difficult for most of us, having been trained in a conservatory setting and
having been indoctrinated with this type of “Werktreue” mindset, to keep in
mind that it does not apply to all types of music.
I kept thinking of an article called “Opera as Process”
which described the way that composers and producers of 17th and 18th
century opera often modified their works as they went to new productions.
However, modern-day audiences, conductors, and producers are often so concerned
with presenting an “authentic” version of a piece that they forget that no such
version exists.
This also reminded me of Taruskin’s (I think it was him…)
views of authentic performance practice. No matter how “authentic” we say our
performance is, it will always be informed by our own aesthetic preferences and
it is impossible to give a “perfectly authentic” performance.
Even though Gelbart disagrees with Dahlhaus’s implication
that “Marx considered anything a folk song that ‘live[d] among the folk’ and
‘became its property’” in relation to Beethoven’s 9th, I found this
idea interesting as well. Using this logic, I wonder if we could consider
certain tunes from, for instance, Verdi’s operas folk tunes. I read a story of
a tenor who did not sing a high C in an aria that had become traditional
despite Verdi not having written it. People were outraged. When someone pointed
out that Verdi did not write that C and that the tenor actually performed Verdi’s
version, someone responded in a letter to the editor that “If the high C was
not written by Verdi, then it was a gift to him.”
Question: Could it be that this aria had become a sort of
folk melody, having lived among the folk and having become its property? Does
this happen with other “classical” pieces? This blurring of the boundaries
between the types of music interests me.
- Thread:
- Week 3 thoughts
- Post:
- Week 3 thoughts
- Author:
- Erik Paffett
- Posted Date:
- January 18, 2014 2:24 PM
- Status:
- Published
I found the idea that oral tradition as being associated
with Roman Catholicism interesting. I had always considered folk music primarily
an oral tradition and religious-art-music primarily a literate tradition. That’s why art-music
tends to be the focus of studies, why Grout says a literate tradition is one of
the main four tenets of Western music, blah blah, etc. I always
assumed that since the Mass and other ritual texts had been written down
since the 400s, that this was
primarily a written tradition. But the more I thought about it, since
recreating
manuscripts was such an expensive and time consuming practice, it makes
sense
that most of the transmission of religious texts and rites (outside the
bible) was
done orally. I think this is one of those notions that blurs some
preconceptions that come along with defining folk/art music.
After reading the Mendelssohn section, I thought of another assumption
or misconception that I think gets cast on the folk/art definitions, and that
we could’ve added to our list on the board last week. This was the idea that
folk music is often considered to have ‘rougher’ or ‘unrefined’ element to it and
vice versa for art music (we talked about the folk as a subset of society and
the idea of a vernacular, but I’m not sure we used the terms rough or refined).
This obviously has connotations that associate the two types with specific classes
of society (obviously implied in the term ‘folk’), but I think this muddies the
idea of national and folk music as conceived together.
The summary in chapter 8
of the 18th-, 19th, and 20th- century conceptions
of folk and art was the best part of the book for me. I almost think that
looking back, I wish I had this tripartite framework in my head before reading the
heart of the book rather than after.
After Gelbart’s problematizing of the folk/art
terminology,
do you still think these terms are useful for defining broad categories?
Or do the problems and exceptions associated with their use make them
not useful for us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)