There were a few things I thought were interesting about the Titon article. I get the impression from this and our past readings that modern ethnomusicology is all about the participant-observer dynamic and is concerned with the balance field research has to strike between the two. The consistent warning is to always be self-aware, because "your very presence as an observer alters the musical situation...In many situations you will actually cause less interference if you participate rather than intrude as a neutral and unresponsive observer." (Titon, 2) But if there is such an emphasis on interfering as little as possible, why do modern fieldworkers believe they must "give back to the people?" By acting as a cultural and musical advocate, don't you change the musical situation even further by adding even MORE observers? I think what that does is freeze the group in a place and time and wall it off from the natural changes it would have gone through had an ethnomusicologist not acted as an advocate.
The introductory and instructive way the Titon article is constructed forces is it to make a few simplifications and generalizations. He says "ethnomusicologists say..." or "fieldworkers think..." as if there is a consensus among them. An instance he uses this is when he talks about cultural advocacy: "It is humankind's advantage to have many different kinds of music, they believe. For that reason, they think advocacy and support are necessary..." To me, this sounds like even more intervention and touches on a debate I've encountered in other classes about globalization and homogenization.
If forces were at work to make music "sound alike" the world over, is that a bad thing? Does a musical culture ever willingly accept one of these homogenizing forces, or is it imposed upon them? I think there are some really interesting parallels with language. When students in other countries learn English, do they have agency? One could argue that they make a conscious decision to learn it, but others would argue that Anglo-American power structures necessitate the adoption of English. If an indigenous language dies out as a result of this, whose fault is it?
I hesitate to argue that the death of musical cultures is just the way things work, but musical cultures and languages have been disappearing and being replaced by new ones ever since people have been making music. Does being a cultural preservationist mean you're opposing the "march of history?" (I hate saying that).
But returning to the idea of observing as opposed to participating, Barz brought up something I didn't really think about when he mentioned that taking field notes was a performative act. But so is being in a musical group. When I am in my samulnori ensemble, I go through a series of rituals throughout the rehearsal that people expect of me. Photographing, tape-recording, and taking field notes would require me to deviate from these standard rituals and norms. If you are a participant in a string quartet, for example, and you whipped out a notebook during rehearsal, that's just weird. What if you just recorded things without them knowing?
Titon emphasizes that you need to make sure you have consent. I wonder if a more genuine observation of a group would arise if you observed them without their consent.
1 comment:
These points are interesting, esp. the parallel your draw with learning English...those are questions I actually ask myself sometimes!
Post a Comment