Nettl's article talks about ethnomusicology at home and is a self-reflective (though I think he claims it isn't) look on western art music, the people who produce it, and the people the study it. By studying the way a group of midwestern universities ("Heartland U") are organized, he tries to make a larger argument that cultural structures tie into musical structures and the structures of musical societies.
He begins by presenting an approach to music in relation to the culture that produces it. Music is a part of culture, it is a microcosm of culture, and it is a commentary on culture. Though he makes a disclaimer that there should be a healthy bit of skepticism towards this view, this is the stance he decides to take. I understand that what a culture produces (in this case, music), will obviously be a reflection of it. But I am skeptical that the power structures within a musical culture reflect the culture at large. More on this later.
Then Nettl goes into a fascinating, tongue-in-cheek discussion about the way Heartland U. treats the great composers in the western art music canon. An ethnomusicologist from Mars would see Heartland U's society worshipping a Pantheon of great and lesser gods. This deity-worship is something I am familiar with and I think it is a good way of presenting the treatment of figures like Wagner, Mozart, and Beethoven and it highlights the musical hierarchy-cultural hierarchy connection pretty well.
The most interesting part about this section was the connections Nettl constantly makes between talent, genius, and the divine. The way we think of "genius" is a figure who almost can do no wrong in terms of what he or she produces. Nettl mentions this in the way we catalog composers' works and release them in compilations, as if all their works are masterpieces by virtue of being associated with the composer. The little bit about relics was cool too.
Then Nettl attempts to consolidate his argument. I don't think this was particularly well done. Essentially, he is trying to make the argument that the polytheistic nature of Western Art Music is reflected in the culture of Heartland U. I found his Mozart-Beethoven inspiration-hard work dualism frame very weak and forced.
He then discusses uniforms, the orchestra, and how they relate to Western society. I liked the idea of the rise of the modern orchestra corresponding with industrialization or militarization and the power structures that formed as a result. In my experience, orchestras are like machines, where the individual is obliterated in favor of a collective existence lol. Uniforms would probably help in doing this. The discussion of the clothes people decide to wear were also interesting because I see people go to the opera dressed very formally. Dress codes are a very potent reflection of societal power structures and it was cool to see it addressed in the article.
One question I didn't feel like was answered very well: Why did "western" society gravitate towards the composer as deity set-up?
more somewhat related questions:
Why has the orchestral set-up remained so static for the past 50 or so years?
Most "pop" music "deifies" the performer and their body of work (the Beatles come immediately to mind) as opposed to the composer. Is this a reflection of the shift away from the composer-performer setup of WAM, or does this reflect a change in societal attitudes towards music and its production?
No comments:
Post a Comment