Silk Road Travelers, etc.
Lucas Ledbetter
languages at Long Island University and currently live in Kalamazoo,
Michigan. I am currently involved in three projects that I hope will
interest some of you. At the smallest level, I am writing a thesis on
South Indian music in the U.S., with an angle toward mridangam
performance. Using the research for the thesis, I am arranging to
lead workshops which will explore the South Indian music culture
through writing and discussing poetry. My first scheduled workshop is
at a mental health institute in Canton, Ohio next week. Even this
project is within the context of a larger one: I am creating a
for-profit educational venture called “Silk Road
Travelers” intended to allow Americans to explore and get
related to Asia in engaging settings such as workshops, seminars,
festivals and more, here in the U.S.
I am seeking individuals and groups who would be interested in
discussing or contributing to these endeavors. Please contact me on
this forum or at my email account lucas_l...@hotmail.com or my
home phone number 269.372.2403 if you are such a person. Of immediate
benefit to this project would be musicians, musicologists,
ethnomusicologists, afficionados, music event/festival organizers, and
any members of the Indian (and especially South Indian) community in
the U.S. or India or elsewhere, who would be interested in discussing
some pointed subjects relevant to the aforementioned projects by
telephone or email.
The workshop next week will introduce people to the mridangam, South
Indian classical music, and some general aspects of South Indian
culture and daily life. I will keep you all posted as to how this
project goes.
Shree
"Lucas Ledbetter" <lucas_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c25bb8bf.03041...@posting.google.com...
> My name is Lucas Ledbetter. I am a student of ethnomusicology and
> languages at Long Island University and currently live in Kalamazoo,
What is "ethnomusicology" and how is it different from plain musicology?
Surprise, we don't have any Indian universities offering courses on
ethnomusicology!!
--Shree
Warren Senders
>
Ethnomusicology is the study of the ways in which music relates
to the culture(s) of which it is a part. It differs from "plain musicology"
in that the latter field is concerned with the study of musical theory,
structures, behavior and history, but not with the interaction of the
art with its cultural context. Thus, there can be various musicologies
which are dependent on their musical content for context -- Hindustani
musicology, Carnatic musicology, Arabic musicology, WCM musicology, etc.
There is nothing in the term "ethnomusicology" which makes
it explicitly the study of music from cultures outside the
Western European sphere of influence; in earlier years the field
was known as "comparative musicology" and
concerned itself with the study of "exotic" or "primitive" musics --
criticism of Ethnomusicology on this basis is a little like criticizing
the discipline of Chemistry because of the phlogiston theory. Several
good ethnomusicological studies of Western classical music and
pedagogy have been published; Bruno Nettl's "Heartland Excursions"
is a fine ethnomusicological study of a major American conservatory's
internal culture. All ethnomusicologists I've ever met and talked with
agree that this is an encouraging trend.
Some tributaries of ethnomusicology focus more on the details of
musical structure; those ethnomusicologists who are principally concerned
with the musics of the Indian classical tradition are particularly prone
to this (Jairazbhoy, Levy, Qureshi, Wade, etc.). There are other
branches of the field concerned with larger theoretical issues having
to do with global culture-music relationships (cf Mark Slobin's "Micromusics:
Musical Subcultures of the West" and quite a few others I could mention).
The relationships between music and culture are multivariate,
richly complex, full of fodder for speculation, intellectually challenging
and often surprisingly beautiful in ways that are hard to predict. Since
human behavior is endlessly changing, this means that "ethnomusicology"
is a "soft science," one perhaps more akin to a form of "storytelling,"
as Neil Postman puts it in his fine essay "Social Science as Moral Theology."
Many of the important texts in contemporary ethnomusicology make
fascinating reading; Steven Feld's "Sound and Sentiment," Chernoff's
"African Rhythm and African Sensibility" (which is beautifully conceived
and written; an inspiring and thought-provoking tour-de-force),
Neuman's "Life of Music in North India" and Berliner's "Thinking in
Jazz" (another ethnomusicological study of a tradition originating in
the West, BTW).
>Surprise, we don't have any Indian universities offering courses on
>ethnomusicology!!
If it's true that Indian universities don't offer courses on ethnomusicology,
that's too bad, isn't it? There are plenty of Indian ethnomusicologists;
some studying Indian musics, some studying other traditions. Perhaps
they'll penetrate the Indian academic bureaucracy and get some courses
started.
There is a first-rate ethnomusicological research centre in Delhi with
a large library of books, recordings and other source material. While
the bulk of the collection is of Indian origin, other traditions are
also represented, which everyone agrees is as it should be.
The tone of Shree's second sentence suggests a reflexive
rejection of the discipline, based (I can only assume) on a
negative response to the connotations of the root word "ethno."
Granted that the word "ethnic" was and is overused by people who
don't think adequately about its meaning, it is regrettable that a
perfectly good term is unnecessarily disparaged because of
semantic distortions introduced to the popular imagination by
marketing forces. Rajan's somewhat snide use of the term in posts
past (referring to Western classical artists -- "the ethnic composer
Chopin," for example) is apropos -- but "ethnic" is a generic; a proper
attribution should denote nationality/cultural group/ancestry/training/etc.
Cheers,
Warren
Rajan P. Parrikar
Indian music in the West, this brilliant expose by
Rajiv Malhotra is highly recommended -
http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=218625
There are, of course, important differences - political
and intellectual - between the many Indology thugs embedded
in the professoriate and the nugatory droppings of
the ethnopimps (elaboration of which my currently slow
Internet connection inhibits).
Warm regards,
r
Warren Senders
>the ethnopimps
If it's not too much trouble, Rajan, could you elaborate
a little on the "pimp" part of this neologism? Pimping
implies prostitution, no? Just what, exactly, are you
suggesting here...and who, exactly, is making all the
money? Or is "ethnopimp" just a soundbite selected for
its phonetic qualities and dismissive flair?
WS
Warren Senders
>> to the culture(s) of which it is a part. It differs from "plain musicology"
>> in that the latter field is concerned with the study of musical theory,
>> structures, behavior and history, but not with the interaction of the
>> art with its cultural context. Thus, there can be various musicologies
>> which are dependent on their musical content for context -- Hindustani
>> musicology, Carnatic musicology, Arabic musicology, WCM musicology, etc.
>
>
>
>http://www.hawaii.edu/uhmmusic/pmusicol.htm
>http://www.hawaii.edu/uhmmusic/pethno.htm
>
>In large sections of Western academia, Ethnomusicology == "world music".
>
>The university I studied at in the US has a top ranked music
>school, but Ethnomusicology is taught by the "Department of
>Folklore and Ethnomusicology".
Yeah, well, the discipline is still in the process of figuring out what
it is; the course classification criteria of university administrations
are not necessarily the best way to figure out where an academic
field is heading. Lots of places are still stuck in phlogiston thinking,
I'm afraid. Criticism of outmoded definitional structures is absolutely
necessary to effect the change, but the mills of academia grind
exceeding slow, as anyone who's battled existing structures can
attest.
WS
Shree
not completely map on to the real world meaning/usage of the term
"ethnomusicology". All my encounters of the term so far have only led
me to believe that ethnomusicology is synonymous to non-Western music
as studied in the "West" (including New Zealand and Australia in the
"East").
I am even confused by the usage of the word "world music"; if WCM is
separate from world music, then is the "West" not a part of the
"World"? Well, all such questions are mere rhetoric, I guess. I can
only hope and wish that the interpretation of ethnomusicology as in
your explanation became more prevalent.
--Shree
Warren Senders
>not completely map on to the real world meaning/usage of the term
>"ethnomusicology". All my encounters of the term so far have only led
>me to believe that ethnomusicology is synonymous to non-Western music
>as studied in the "West" (including New Zealand and Australia in the
>"East").
Yup - this is the interpretation favored by academic administrations,
who need a place to put their "cultural diversity" offerings.
>I am even confused by the usage of the word "world music"; if WCM is
>separate from world music, then is the "West" not a part of the
>"World"? Well, all such questions are mere rhetoric, I guess.
This question was the focus of my attention when I taught a
"Perspectives in World Music" course for two years at a college
in Boston. Examples of my approach included presenting widely
separated genres of music which were related by function ("Music
to entertain the ruling classes," "Music for conveying historical/
geneological information," etc.), and in one instance (it was
Valentine's Day), playing a whole selection of songs inspired
by the Layla-Majnun epic, ranging from Azerbaijani ballad singing
to Eric Clapton.
I'd hardly call those questions "mere rhetoric;" they are at the heart
of the matter.
>I can
>only hope and wish that the interpretation of ethnomusicology as in
>your explanation became more prevalent.
I've never met an ethnomusicologist worth her/his salt who didn't
feel that way; frustration with administrative classification schemes
is virtually universal in the profession.
WS
r.d. golub
You are absolutely right, of course the terms West and East are
completely useless, especially since they are mutable-- our middle
East is also our West Asia, for instance.
Put "Ethno-musicology" next to "Anthro-pology", both using greek
etymology to define the cultural contextualisation of the Ology. What
is the difference between Sociology and Anthropology? Anthro-, in
that case, essentially indicates a non-white subject. Similarly,
"World" or "Ethnic" music designates, for the Assimilated American or
European, NON-WHITENESS. It's quite simple. It carries far too much
cultural and linguistic baggage, most of it exotic and misconceived,
patronised. On the other hand, love is love, whatever the urge
springs from.
If the average Assimilated type were aware of one other culture to
some extent, they would perhaps be more interested in probing their
own context. But most are not.
David Byrne wrote a fantastic article in the NY Times Arts & Leisure
in perhaps August or September of 1999 called "Why I hate world music"
which very publicly challenged the World-Music bins of NYC music
stores.(*)It's not about the language, it's about the roots, the
concepts behind language.
But No one listens. And as much as many of us despise the concept of
World Music-- it's not just a title-- it is one of the only things
that enables us to bring artists here regularly, to establish a
circuit, and that is crucial not only to maintaining classical arts of
countries with large numbers of immigrants to the Americas and Europe,
but to eventually opening people's ears and hopefully minds to other
cultures.
*in fact, forgive me for self-promotion, my letter on the same subject
("What is Classical?")was printed on October 31 of the same year,
actually in response to another respondee who had completely
misunderstood the point Byrne was making.
Warren Senders
>that case, essentially indicates a non-white subject.
What anthropology have YOU been reading? I have
articles and books dealing with every culture in the
world including many of the "white" European cultures;
I would suggest a google search on the term "nacirema"
to locate one of the most important teaching texts in the
field.
>If the average Assimilated type were aware of one other culture to
>some extent, they would perhaps be more interested in probing their
>own context. But most are not.
And this is hardly the fault of anthropologists or ethnomusicologists --
more of it is due to the profoundly powerful ethnocentrism embodied
in the mass media. A college student wrote a letter to the Boston
Globe recently in which he said the following: "Why should I care
what some native in a country I've never even heard of thinks
of America?" He followed with this assertion: "America may have
its problems, but it is still the best place in the world. Where else
can you get a Slurpee at 3:00 in the morning?" HIS view was clearly
that of the Fox network or their clones, I guess.
It's an uphill battle, folks!
Warren
Warren Senders
>>that case, essentially indicates a non-white subject.
>
>What anthropology have YOU been reading? I have
>articles and books dealing with every culture in the
>world including many of the "white" European cultures;
>I would suggest a google search on the term "nacirema"
>to locate one of the most important teaching texts in the
>field.
>
>>If the average Assimilated type were aware of one other culture to
>>some extent, they would perhaps be more interested in probing their
>>own context. But most are not.
>
>And this is hardly the fault of anthropologists or ethnomusicologists --
>more of it is due to the profoundly powerful ethnocentrism embodied
>in the mass media.
I had to run out to be part of a panel discussion at NEC this
morning, so didn't get to complete the thought...so here I am
again.
The idea that
>>Anthro-, in
>>that case, essentially indicates a non-white subject.
may in fact be representative of "anthropology" as a discipline --
but only in the minds of those who haven't studied anthropology
(be they students or administrators). Anthropologists, whether
physical, historical or cultural, don't think that way. One of the
functions of "introduction to <fitb>" courses is to disabuse entering
students of mistaken notions about the nature of the discipline;
any ethnomusicologist who's taught an "introduction to ethnomusicology"
has had to make this clear to students who conceive the word as
referring to the study of musical cultures other than their own.
So whose definition will you use? Those who know the field,
or those who are ignorant of it? I've had students whose
definition of ICM is derived from having listened to Shakti
records. Doesn't mean that *that* is *that,* if you get that the
first 'that' is just "that," that the second and third 'thats' are
ICM and Shakti (in whichever order suits you) and that the fourth 'that'
is just 'that,' and that all subsequent 'thats' are reiterations of the
first four. And that's that.
Cheers,
Warren
Abhik Majumdar
> to the culture(s) of which it is a part. It differs from "plain musicology"
> in that the latter field is concerned with the study of musical theory,
> structures, behavior and history, but not with the interaction of the
> art with its cultural context.
Not true. Much of mainstream musicological scholarship (if I may use
that term) has been devoted to studying music in its larger social,
political and historical context. The following examples have been
culled out purely at random from issues of the Journal of the American
Musicological Society
*Marie Frolova-Walker, "National in Form, Socialist in Content" JAMS
1998 (2) p. 331 (a study of music in the Eastern Bloc)
*Philip Weller, "Frames and Images: Localising Music in Cultural
Histories of the Middle Ages" JAMS 1997 (1) p. 7
*Richard Crawford, "Edward MacDowell: Musical Nationalism and an
American Tone Poet" JAMS 1996 (3) p. 528
> There is nothing in the term "ethnomusicology" which makes
> it explicitly the study of music from cultures outside the
> Western European sphere of influence
Agreed, you are right there. Nevertheless, little of this work has
been on the so-called "high traditions" of the West. One may find tons
of papers on Romanian gypsy fiddlers, Shetland Island bagpipe
traditions, or even New Orleans Jazz, but hardly any on Bach or
Beethoven. The point I am trying to make is, ethnomusical research on
a particular genre seems to be inversely proportional to its
prominence or significance to Western culture (or at least, "high"
culture) as a whole.
> Several
> good ethnomusicological studies of Western classical music and
> pedagogy have been published; Bruno Nettl's "Heartland Excursions"
> is a fine ethnomusicological study of a major American conservatory's
> internal culture.
Actually, Nettl is the only ethnomusicologist of significance I have
come across who has worked on WCM. A search of all non-region-specific
ethnomusicological journals (e.g. Ethnomusicology, Yearbook of
Traditional Music a.k.a. ICTM Yearbook etc.) yielded exactly one
article, viz. Nettls's "Mozart and the Ethnomusicology of Western
Culture" (1999 ICTM Yearbook p. 1).
> Granted that the word "ethnic" was and is overused by people who
> don't think adequately about its meaning
A question here: How would *you* construe the meaning of the word?
> There is a first-rate ethnomusicological research centre in Delhi
Gurgaon, actually. I happen to work there.
The reason I mention this is, surely no one can accuse me of being
unreasonably biased against something on which I depend for my bread
and butter. Yet at the same time, I'll be intellectually dishonest if
I claim all is hunky dory with the discipline.
What perturbs me the most is what I'd term the "outsider question". In
Ethnomusicology, does one need to be a cultural outsider to the music
one is studying? Granted, several ethnomusicologists have worked on
the music of their own cultures - Nazir Jairazbhoy, L G Tewari and
Gayathri Kassebaum are but three examples. But such people seem to be
in a minority. Moreover, afaik, very few
*Western* scholars have worked on their own traditions, especially (as
I said) their high traditions.
Yes, Nettl can be cited as an exception. Or can he? The following
passage is from Page 2 of the aforementioned ICTM Yearbook article:
"This summary may be a guide to the kinds of things that a perfect
stranger in Western art music culture might note and investigate. In
teaching courses in the anthropology of music, one of my favorite
figures is an "ethnomusicologist from Mars" who has the task of
discerning the basics of Western art music culture as manifested by
the denizens of a fictitious (well, maybe not so fictitious) Music
Building. Would his experiences be like mine in a Blackfoot
community?"
This begs the question: Is the need to be a cultural outsider so
compelling as to even make ethnomusicologists resort to the ridiculous
device of hypothetical fictitious Martian when studying their own
cultures? And that too, someone like Bruno Nettl, one of the greatest
scholars the field has produced? Pretty vexing, I'm sure you'd agree.
Cheers,
Abhik
Warren Senders
> Ethnomusicology is the study of the ways in which music relates
>> to the culture(s) of which it is a part. It differs from "plain musicology"
>> in that the latter field is concerned with the study of musical theory,
>> structures, behavior and history, but not with the interaction of the
>> art with its cultural context.
>
>Not true. Much of mainstream musicological scholarship (if I may use
>that term) has been devoted to studying music in its larger social,
>political and historical context. The following examples have been
>culled out purely at random from issues of the Journal of the American
>Musicological Society
>
>*Marie Frolova-Walker, "National in Form, Socialist in Content" JAMS
>1998 (2) p. 331 (a study of music in the Eastern Bloc)
>
>*Philip Weller, "Frames and Images: Localising Music in Cultural
>Histories of the Middle Ages" JAMS 1997 (1) p. 7
>
>*Richard Crawford, "Edward MacDowell: Musical Nationalism and an
>American Tone Poet" JAMS 1996 (3) p. 528
You are correct, Abhik. My definition needs refinement. I would try
for a fine-tuning if I had more time (I'm rebuilding a house and have
to buy lumber and build window-sills today). The examples you give
are paralleled by pieces of Hindustani musicology which place particular
artists or gharanas in their larger context, and by pieces of jazz history,
etc.,
etc., etc. I would posit that such publications could be used as source
material by hermeneutically-inclined ethnomusicologists, and that in
some way the business of ethnomusicologists has to do with a combination
of context and analogy -- with meta-context, if you will. But this is more of
a "mild assertion" than a definition with any force.
>> There is nothing in the term "ethnomusicology" which makes
>> it explicitly the study of music from cultures outside the
>> Western European sphere of influence
>
>Agreed, you are right there. Nevertheless, little of this work has
>been on the so-called "high traditions" of the West. One may find tons
>of papers on Romanian gypsy fiddlers, Shetland Island bagpipe
>traditions, or even New Orleans Jazz, but hardly any on Bach or
>Beethoven. The point I am trying to make is, ethnomusical research on
>a particular genre seems to be inversely proportional to its
>prominence or significance to Western culture (or at least, "high"
>culture) as a whole.
True enough. I suspect and hope that the trend over the next decades may
change this a bit. Ethnomusicology as a discipline is still finding its
definitional niche (as our discussion shows), and it is certainly something
of a weaker step-sibling to Western academic focus on Western "high"
culture (as I am continually reminded in my own tenuous academic
situation, where students who are interested in non-Western
traditions cannot follow their inclinations because they've gotta pass
their Music-History 101 examinations this semester).
>> Several
>> good ethnomusicological studies of Western classical music and
>> pedagogy have been published; Bruno Nettl's "Heartland Excursions"
>> is a fine ethnomusicological study of a major American conservatory's
>> internal culture.
>
>Actually, Nettl is the only ethnomusicologist of significance I have
>come across who has worked on WCM. A search of all non-region-specific
>ethnomusicological journals (e.g. Ethnomusicology, Yearbook of
>Traditional Music a.k.a. ICTM Yearbook etc.) yielded exactly one
>article, viz. Nettls's "Mozart and the Ethnomusicology of Western
>Culture" (1999 ICTM Yearbook p. 1).
I stand corrected, with the caveat that I recall Nettl citing some other
work in "Heartland." I'll look it up at some point (after 11 windowsills
and casings, so it's going to be a while).
>> Granted that the word "ethnic" was and is overused by people who
>> don't think adequately about its meaning
>
>A question here: How would *you* construe the meaning of the word?
Oooooh! I first read your post the day it appeared, and I've been thinking
about this one ever since (in between bouts of windowsillage). I was
faced with the realization that I'd never really thought adequately about
its meaning myself, while responding negatively to those who reflexively
defined it as referring to "non-white," "non-Western," or somehow "other."
As it rests in my mind (and I've resisted the temptation to seek refuge in
the OED), the term refers to an amorphous mishmash of cultural and genetic
background: one's parents, one's upbringing, one's context, one's self-
definition, one's definition by larger social elements. Again, scarcely an
adequate definition, but certainly more accurate (by virtue (if you will) of
its non-specificity) than the reflexive conception of "other" (whether
construed as a function of xenophilia, as in "I just LOVE ethnic food!" or
pejoratively, as it has been by some folks earlier upthread in this
discussion).
>> There is a first-rate ethnomusicological research centre in Delhi
>
>Gurgaon, actually. I happen to work there.
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I know that, and I must attribute
my geographical faux pas to two contributing factors: first, that on this
side of the globe, "Delhi" can serve metonymically for anywhere within
a fairly large radius from the city (just as when I'm in India, I have a house
in "Boston," but when I'm in Boston, I live in Medford) -- and second, that
I haven't yet been to Gurgaon, and so my mind's eye still pictures the
building in Defence Colony when ARCE is mentioned. And as you know,
I was one of the earliest contributors to ARCE's archive...and hope to add more
in the months and years to come!
>The reason I mention this is, surely no one can accuse me of being
>unreasonably biased against something on which I depend for my bread
>and butter. Yet at the same time, I'll be intellectually dishonest if
>I claim all is hunky dory with the discipline.
You are entirely correct. My own rush to the defense (defence?) was
motivated perhaps by a need for just this sort of substantive discussion
within rmic; reflexive "ethnopimpage" is too often the order of the day.
>What perturbs me the most is what I'd term the "outsider question". In
>Ethnomusicology, does one need to be a cultural outsider to the music
>one is studying? Granted, several ethnomusicologists have worked on
>the music of their own cultures - Nazir Jairazbhoy, L G Tewari and
>Gayathri Kassebaum are but three examples. But such people seem to be
>in a minority. Moreover, afaik, very few
>*Western* scholars have worked on their own traditions, especially (as
>I said) their high traditions.
This is really in some ways the central question of ethnomusicology,
isn't it? What is it, if not the study of the "other?" And what is the
"other," as our contexts are broadened and reshaped? How can one
be an outsider and an insider at once? The Neil Postman article
I mentioned earlier has relevance in this respect. Ye gods, I wish I
had more time (this is WAY more interesting than building windowsills).
>Yes, Nettl can be cited as an exception. Or can he? The following
>passage is from Page 2 of the aforementioned ICTM Yearbook article:
>
>"This summary may be a guide to the kinds of things that a perfect
>stranger in Western art music culture might note and investigate. In
>teaching courses in the anthropology of music, one of my favorite
>figures is an "ethnomusicologist from Mars" who has the task of
>discerning the basics of Western art music culture as manifested by
>the denizens of a fictitious (well, maybe not so fictitious) Music
>Building. Would his experiences be like mine in a Blackfoot
>community?"
>
>This begs the question: Is the need to be a cultural outsider so
>compelling as to even make ethnomusicologists resort to the ridiculous
>device of hypothetical fictitious Martian when studying their own
>cultures? And that too, someone like Bruno Nettl, one of the greatest
>scholars the field has produced? Pretty vexing, I'm sure you'd agree.
>
As a long-time science-fiction reader, I don't know if I'd agree that it's
a ridiculous device. Note that Nettl explicitly puts this in the context of
"teaching courses in the anthropology of music." The thing about
working with students (well, undergraduates) is that almost all of
the time, they don't know the subject yet, and often have to have
a lot of conceptual barriers broken down before real learning can
begin. A "martian anthropologist" is an easy tool to get students
moving outside their own cultural set. The "nacirema" article is another.
I have used both in my own classes, along with dozens of other
tricks to get my students generating analogies a little more freely.
My real work, and the work of anyone teaching the subject responsibly,
is to create a context for "cultural outsidership." The issue of
outsidership in the Western academic setting is of particular relevance
to me, because that's where I teach...but it's just as fascinating when
I see and hear it happening in non-academic contexts; much of the
past century's greatest music has come from these places, from those
people who through some stroke of good fortune (for us, anyway)
have occupied "outsider" positions even within the cultures which
shaped their upbringing.
Gotta go now; 200 board feet of poplar and 120 board feet of white
oak await me at the lumberyard -- and after I bring it home, it's ho! for
many hours crouched over razor-sharp knives whirling at 25,000 rpm.
I'll post more on the subject later...if I still have all my fingers.
Cheers,
Warren
Abhik Majumdar
> side of the globe, "Delhi" can serve metonymically for anywhere within
> a fairly large radius from the city (just as when I'm in India, I have a house
> in "Boston," but when I'm in Boston, I live in Medford)
Point taken.
> defense (defence?)
Is that merely an Anglicisation (-zation?) of the word or a reference
to the erstwhile location of ARCE?
> reflexive "ethnopimpage" is too often the order of the day.
Again, point taken.
> This is really in some ways the central question of ethnomusicology,
> isn't it? What is it, if not the study of the "other?"
Is it? I thought you said it is the study of the ways in which music
relates to the culture(s) of which it is a part? Does mean, therefore,
that one has to necessarily look at music from an "outsider"
perspective in order to appreciate its links with its cultural
context? I definitely have a problem with that.
> As a long-time science-fiction reader, I don't know if I'd agree that it's
> a ridiculous device.
I was weaned on Asimov and Clarke myself. I used that term in a very
specific context, that is, to illustrate the almost compulsive need to
invest with an "otherness" the subject of any ethnomusical study.
My question is, why?
Secondly, and this is the more serious one, do you not feel that this
"outsider" approach actually blunts the scholar's appreciation of the
musical genre he is studying? From whatever little familiarity I have
with Hindustani classical music, I'd say that to comment on it at any
depth, one has to first develop a *love* for it. And till one does so,
his understanding or appreciation of the form will remain shallow,
superficial. Consequently, so will his scholarship. The point I'm
trying to make is, at least as far as HCM is concerned, love for music
and its scholarly appreciation (i.e. the cerebral and the emotional)
share a symbiotic relationship. And the latter component stands
vitiated if one adopts an "outsider" standpoint.
Let's take the example of, say, shrutis (I was going through Praful
Kelkar's very solid postings this very morning, which is how I thought
of it). An outsider may document different pitches used for the same
note, he may use software analysis techniques and write his paper, but
till such time he internalises the ethos of, say, Marwa and Pooriya,
he'll be not one bit the wiser as to *why* performers use a higher
shruti of Rishabh for the former and not the latter. To be precise, he
won't get the *feel* of why this is done. And let's face it, till he
does so, I don't think his research will be worthwhile in any
substantive sense of the term.
Cheers,
Abhik
Ashok
>
>> As a long-time science-fiction reader, I don't know if I'd agree that it's
>> a ridiculous device.
>
>I was weaned on Asimov and Clarke myself. I used that term in a very
>specific context, that is, to illustrate the almost compulsive need to
>invest with an "otherness" the subject of any ethnomusical study.
>Abhik
I think Warren had Ray Bradbury in mind--at his best, a far more
sopisticated and serious a writer than Asimov/Clarke.
Ashok
Abhik Majumdar
> sopisticated and serious a writer than Asimov/Clarke.
Maybe.
Abhik
Warren Senders
>
>Is that merely an Anglicisation (-zation?) of the word or a reference
>to the erstwhile location of ARCE?
Yes.
>> This is really in some ways the central question of ethnomusicology,
>> isn't it? What is it, if not the study of the "other?"
>
>Is it? I thought you said it is the study of the ways in which music
>relates to the culture(s) of which it is a part? Does mean, therefore,
>that one has to necessarily look at music from an "outsider"
>perspective in order to appreciate its links with its cultural
>context? I definitely have a problem with that.
I would say that there are at least two ways in which one can
appreciate music's links with its cultural context. An "intra-cultural"
approach is to observe those links and associations which are
themselves articulated by the participants in the culture -- as
a function of participation in the culture. Note that this implies
a conscious expression of the components of tradition...which
is in some ways introducing an "outsider-ness" even at this
level -- since a tradition needs no explaining for those who are
"inside" it. Since someone who is already "inside" the culture
may not need any explanation beyond "we do it this way
because this is the way we have always done it," this approach
to any cultural pattern is resistant to the participation of
"outsiders." To the extent that one needs an explanation of
anything, one is an outsider, no? There are of course *degrees*
and *qualities* of "outsider-ness," as the discussion on Mirasi
ancestry in the current Kirana thread demonstrates.
An "inter-cultural" approach is one in which analogies can be made
with links as they are found in other cultural contexts. The power
of analogies is that they don't work precisely, and therefore force
continual reconsideration of the patterns under scrutiny. For example,
I make an analogy between the following two aspects of music/culture
patterning:
The essentiality of learning the associated dance movements
to proper understanding of West African drumming music...
and
The essentiality of learning correct daad-giving behavior
to proper understanding of Hindustani music.
Now nobody (least of all me) is going to argue that shaking one's
hips is the same thing as saying "wah!" Nor for that matter is the
relationship between a hip-shake and a drum pattern the same thing
as the relationship between an approbative exclamation and a
nicely executed bol-alap. But the fact of the many differences between
these patterns throws something else into bold relief when understood
in this analogical light: the notion that there are elements of a musical/
performance situation which are not specifically "musical," but which
the context culture deems essential if the performance is to have
"quality."
I'm a teacher by profession, and I am continually making analogies
for and with my students. Their learning can be a function of the
failure of their analogies as well -- an analogy which only works a
little, or which works poorly in ways which become evident under
closer scrutiny, is a very powerful catalyst for learning. The danger
for those who attempt "inter-cultural" understandings of music/culture
linkages is that they will become infatuated with particular analogies
which don't work in every situation -- Maslow's remark that "to a person
whose only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" is
apposite here. Hofstadter's work with "fluid analogies" has been
a source of some inspiration for me; some of the patterns he demonstrates
in his book on the subject in fact correspond exactly with aspects of
my taan practice!
>> As a long-time science-fiction reader, I don't know if I'd agree that it's
>> a ridiculous device.
>
>I was weaned on Asimov and Clarke myself. I used that term in a very
>specific context, that is, to illustrate the almost compulsive need to
>invest with an "otherness" the subject of any ethnomusical study.
>
>My question is, why?
First, and noting the suggestion downthread that I was referring to
Ray Bradbury, let me say this about that. Asimov and Clarke have
fine ideas. Their writing is terrible; clunky, uneuphonious, stilted.
Bradbury writes all too often like a bright 8th grader who has just
discovered adjectives. Among classic SF writers I find Frederik Pohl's
work particularly absorbing both from a stylistic and conceptual
point of view, and I have recently been enjoying many of David Brin's
books, especially those in the "Uplift" series.
Now, to business.
As I remarked above, the very act of inquiring about a subject creates
a distinction between the inquirer and the one to whom inquiry is made.
While the inquirer is not necessarily *ignorant* of the subject under
examination (Socratic dialogue being a case in point), the creation of
any dialectical structure is inherently the formation of an "otherness."
"Otherness" is not a singularity, but a relationship, and a relationship
is something that works in many directions. When I first began learning
with Devasthalibua, I had already put in almost ten years of study of
khyal. But he, a truly gifted teacher, was intrigued by my "otherness"
-- just as intrigued as I was by khyal's "otherness" in my first exposure
to the genre a decade before. The mistakes I made in my learning were
not the mistakes which would have been made by a lifelong cultural
participant, and therefore required different corrective strategies --
the problems of American English phonetics and their influence on the
perception of Braj pronunciations being just one case in point. But because
Devasthaliji was intrigued by *my* otherness, we were able to work
together (whereas Bhimsen Joshi, for all his genius as a performer, was
able only to say "you are singing wrongly," but not to articulate *how*
or *where* the wrongness was to be found).
If I relate to another person on the basis of a stereotype, I am, it's true,
investing him/her/them with an "otherness." But if I relate to another
person in a true and honest way, is this not also an "otherness" -- one
which asks questions, listens to and thinks about the answers, and answers
truly and thoughtfully any questions asked? William James said
"How can I know what I think until I hear myself say it?" and this
suggests that self-understanding may be at least in part a function of
our interaction with others; those who are incapable of successful
interaction with others are not generally recognized as successful
members of society!
>Secondly, and this is the more serious one, do you not feel that this
>"outsider" approach actually blunts the scholar's appreciation of the
>musical genre he is studying? From whatever little familiarity I have
>with Hindustani classical music, I'd say that to comment on it at any
>depth, one has to first develop a *love* for it. And till one does so,
>his understanding or appreciation of the form will remain shallow,
>superficial. Consequently, so will his scholarship. The point I'm
>trying to make is, at least as far as HCM is concerned, love for music
>and its scholarly appreciation (i.e. the cerebral and the emotional)
>share a symbiotic relationship. And the latter component stands
>vitiated if one adopts an "outsider" standpoint.
Do you suggest, therefore, that only those who "love" something
are able to make valid comments on it? That's of course absurd.
But more to the point, different people have different entry points
to the music, and depending on what one wishes to learn, one takes
different things from it. A jazz musician may learn a little bit of HCM
and in so doing transform aspects of her approach to improvisation,
but never become deeply familiar with the idiom. Does this mean that
her comments about HCM improvisation are "shallow, superficial?"
Hardly; a skilled jazz improvisor may have very salient things to
say about HCM improvisation which would not occur to a cultural
"insider" -- because to an "outsider," things which are obvious to an
"insider" aren't so apparent, and vice versa.
A scholar of voice production may be able to make pertinent comments
about HCM vocal practices which are not a function of her or his
"love" for the idiom, but rather a function of her or his love for another
subject entirely, which might be understood as "inquiring about the
beauties and varieties of the voice." When an opera singer who was
studying with me heard Latafat Hussain Khan, she commented about
the positioning of the larynx which such a timbre required, and asked
if there was specific training directed at that muscular alignment. A very
thought-provoking 90 minutes of timbral study ensued -- but I don't
think she *liked,* much less *loved,* Latafat's sound (which, granted,
can be something of an acquired taste).
The notion that love for something and a scholarly appreciation of
it share a symbiotic relationship is entirely correct. But the notion that
this symbiosis is vitiated by an "outsider" viewpoint is mistaken; a
symbiosis is after all something that happens between two or more
beings -- beings which are not identical, and which have different
requirements, anatomies, perceptual mechanisms, etc., and which are
therefore "outsiders" to one another. Analogy: a marriage. My wife
and I share a deep symbiosis; we complete one another's sentences,
have a deep fund of common references to the extent that a single
word or syllabic intonation can evoke a huge flood of shared understandings...
but my love for her (and, I would hope, hers for me) is just as much
a function of the degree to which I find her endlessly surprising as it
is a function of the degree to which we are "two minds with but a
single thought."
>Let's take the example of, say, shrutis (I was going through Praful
>Kelkar's very solid postings this very morning, which is how I thought
>of it). An outsider may document different pitches used for the same
>note, he may use software analysis techniques and write his paper, but
>till such time he internalises the ethos of, say, Marwa and Pooriya,
>he'll be not one bit the wiser as to *why* performers use a higher
>shruti of Rishabh for the former and not the latter. To be precise, he
>won't get the *feel* of why this is done.
Or to be more precise, he won't get the "feel" of why performers
*say* this is done. Is it, really? I'm not sure; Praful's steady assertions
of intonational consistency may or may not be borne out by actual
measurement. If the measurement is done, and it turns out that
the Rishabh of Marwa and that of Puriya are statistically equivalent
to one another in intervallic space, that doesn't change the *fact* that
the two raags have very different ethoses (horrible plural -- sorry; I couldn't
think of the right form). It just suggests that the distinction resides in
some *other* quality of the Rishabh, or of the relationship between
the Rishabh and the other notes of the raag...and there's another piece
of research just waiting to be done!
If your hypothetical scholar *does* the research, there will inevitably
ensue a transformation of her/his relationship to the subject material. One
cannot spend two years carrying out statistical analysis of Rishabh
waveforms in hundreds of performances of Marwa and Puriya and
still have the same emotional responses one had before! His/her sense of
the raag's emotional qualities may in fact have been vitiated by the
process -- but ANY serious study of a subject will vitiate its initial
appeal for a time. A beginning music student whose ears ring with
pretty melodies may find a propadeutic immersion in scales
and paltas to be a strong countermotivation!
>And let's face it, till he
>does so, I don't think his research will be worthwhile in any
>substantive sense of the term.
Whether our scholar's work is worthwhile depends less on her/his
"love" for HCM than on his "love" for *something.* Think of a
researcher who is exploring the phenomena of intonation
in music in multiple cultures -- a person who is infatuated with,
obsessed by, the ways humans address themselves to motion
and stasis in the tonal continuum. It is (at least to
me) self-evident that his/her conception of the "feel" for an
intervallic usage in HCM will be conditioned by exposure
to other flattened second degrees in other contexts elsewhere in
the world, and that this variance in conception will necessarily
mean that she/he "understands" Marwa/Puriya in a way
which is very different from the way that, say, Amir Khan
did. Does that mean that the research isn't "worthwhile?"
It may not be "worthwhile" to Amir Khan, or to a contemporary
khyaliya who just wants to sing. To me, it's interesting, because
I like learning new things and acquiring new perspectives. I never
know when I'll stumble across an insight which will transform my
approach to the material *I* love, which I why I read voraciously
and try and keep an ill-informed outsider's finger in as many pies
as possible, and why I seek ways to use my experience in any situation
to enhance my life in music. Once I took up hammer and saw to
begin rebuilding my ghar, I found the experience changed my
understanding of my gharana.
....and in this regard, it's noteworthy that the length of this post
is a function of the fact that a MAJOR piece of the job was
completed day before yesterday, and that I have a few moments
of liberty to write and think before taking up tools against a sea
of troubles once again.
Best wishes,
Warren