Critical Review #3: "Knowing Fieldwork" (Titon)

In his article "Knowing Fieldwork," Titon explores the issue of epistemology in ethnomusicology, or, more simply stated, what ethnomusicological knowledge consists of and how it is acquired and understood. He defines two different kinds of "knowing," explaining and understanding. The latter, with its emphasis on subjective human experience rather than the formulation of natural laws, is what he argues contemporary methods in ethnomusicology and fieldwork seek to accomplish. He refers to this modern ethnomusicological paradigm as the "study of people making music." Following these methods, knowledge is accessed phenomenologically, that is through the consciousness of the ethnographer as he or she experiences music. Titon adds that this knowledge can be presented in a number of ways, including narrative, film, and multimedia. In his postscript, he discusses friendships that arise from the process of making music and participant-observation. Two types of friendship, instrumental friendship -- in which there is a mutual, material benefit for each party -- and friendship based on mutual admiration and a shared musical experience, result from fieldwork and also affect the nature of knowledge acquired from fieldwork.

Discussion question: What does Titon's phenomenological sort of understanding actually allow us to know? Is it possible to translate an individual's experience into language and then for an outsider to glean meaning from it? Does this approach solve the "crisis of representation?" Does it result in other crises, perhaps even one's more serious than those it sets out to resolve?

SEM Post

Apparently, Ethnomusicology – both the field and the journal – has come a long way in the past 60 years. Just looking at the first issues from the 1950s, even the appearance of the journal looks outdated. The font looks like it came off a typewriter. In the “Notes and News” from 1953, the journal seems oddly quaint boasting about its mailing list of 437. It is also clear that the term ethnomusicology is not yet full accepted. It is still rendered sometimes as ethno-musicology and an early publication from the journal titled “On the Subject of Ethno-musicology” seems to be a defense of the title of the journal in which it is published. As far as actual fieldwork and ethnographic work being published in the journal, much of the language seems offensive.

In the article “A Study of Norms in the Tribal Music of Uganda,” the region being studied is described as a “laboratory for students of music,” as if these cultures are no more than classrooms for students that have been shipped overseas to learn from. This is an obvious representative of the colonial attitudes that later ethnographers tried to distance themselves from. The use of the phrase “vigorous jumping dances” is almost comical, but is in danger of being condescending and reductionist. Other ideas, however seem quite modern. The author states that the goal of this exhibit is “to get away from all tribal, savage or primitive valuations in the mind of the European.” In addition, the article seems more concerned with the arrangement of a museum exhibit on Ugandan instruments – dedicating an entire paragraph to the background colors display cases.

Other articles seem oddly lacking in ethnography. They are almost all under ten pages, and frequently very narrow. Many read like handbooks, like “The Rhythmic Orientation of Two Drums in the Japanese No Drama,” which is a technical inventory of terminology and rhythmic patterns. It is certainly not centered around the “affective experience” of the performers or the ethnographer, and it is not even clear who performed the fieldwork. Other articles, such as “The Society for Research in Asiatic Music; Its Aims, Functions, and Achievements” just alert readers to the formation of new institutions devoted to the study of Ethnomusicology. These articles, short in duration and very precursory in their treatment of topics, seem like articles from a newspaper, not an academic journal.

Letters to the editor provide a fascinating perspective on the minds of readers. “The Phonograph and Primitive Music” shows signs of colonial attitudes and positivism in statements like, “the phonograph is destined to become a most valuable aid in the investigation of savage music, but it must be used scientifically.” This contributor's choice of language juxtaposes with the proclamation in the article on Ugandan music discussed above that strives to European perceptions of “savageness” is non-Western music. Clearly, the world of Ethnomusicology at this time was very heterogeneous, and signs of both shockingly outdated and surprisingly modern viewpoints are present.

Ethnography Project Proposal -- BUGS

For my ethnography and fieldwork project, even before I decided on a topic, I knew I wanted to research a music culture that is well outside of my comfort zone. With that in mind, Brown University Gilbert and Sullivan (BUGS), is a rather surprising choice. BUGS is a student-run theater company at Brown that specializes in the comedic operas of Gilbert and Sullivan, a librettist and composer whose collaborative works are hallmarks of Victorian English culture. As a singer who performed works of musical theater in high school, and whose good friends and sister have performed for BUGS, the group does not seem like one that would be very uncomfortable or unfamiliar to me. However, I always thought of myself as an outsider in theater -- a performer who resents the music culture that he is a part of. In high school, personal conflicts and changes in my musical taste led me to dislike my theater company and the works that I performed as a member of it, and since then I have avoided performing in stage works. Furthermore, though I am close with many participants in BUGS individually, I have always felt excluded socially from them as a group. In my experience, they are an extraordinarily close and dedicated group of people with a vibrant and sometimes perplexing culture that seems to repel outsiders. Clearly, I have considerable personal reasons to be interested in this music culture. I am determined, however, not to let my preconceived notions of BUGS and musical theater cloud my judgment and scholarship during the course of my research.

In order to conduct my research, I will attend rehearsals for BUGS's upcoming show Patience. I will also attend a performance and cast party. In addition, I will hold an interview with the music director of Patience and, if possible, with performers (past or present), crew members, and audience members. I am interested to see how, as a student-run group, authority is distributed and tasks accomplished. I am also curious as to how the Brown student body perceives this group of artists and their performances.

Questions that I will consider during my research include:

What is the experience of a performer in BUGS?

How do participants in BUGS view their theater company and other theater companies at Brown?

How do participants in BUGS evaluate their own performances?

How does the Brown community from individuals to members of other theater companies to the BDH evaluate BUGS?

How do members of BUGS interact both in the formal setting of the rehearsal and administrative tasks and in the informal setting of social gatherings?

Why do participants in BUGS choose this theater company over other theater companies at Brown?

How do participants in BUGS view the works of Gilbert and Sullivan?

How are past members and shows remembered by current members of BUGS?

How has BUGS changed during the course of its history?

How does my experience in musical theater compare to both the experiences of members of BUGS and  to my perception of BUGS gained from this fieldwork?

Critical Review #2: Anthony Seeger "Ethnography of Music"

Anthony Seeger in his article "Ethnography of Music" provides a very brief ethnography of a performance as a illustrative, generalizable example of a method of performance ethnography that he advocates in the article. This method is centered around asking a number of questions about the content (what and how), the significance (what and why) and the context (where and when) of a performance. These questions are asked not only of the researcher, but of the audience, performers, and other participants such as club owners. These various perspectives constitute the final question, who, and lead to a deeper understanding of the motivations and interpretations of those people involved in a performance. Seeger closes by urging the ethnographer to strive for a holistic view of the music culture, not a microscopic or exclusive view.

Discussion Question: What is the danger of viewing a performance from a single perspective, if indeed there is one? Are multiple perspectives always objectively better than one?

Soundscape: The Ivy Room

Soundscape in the Ivy Room 11:15-11:45

electrical buzz

chatter

laughing

spring loaded ice cream scoop

shoes squeaking

beat from unidentifiable song on radio

blender

knuckle cracking

chip bags crinkling

ice rattling in soda fountain

my housemate's voice

singing and electronic beat on radio

nails tapping

bottles clanking in trash can

slurping from straws

hands clapping in a high-fiv

plastic bottle cap snapping

banging on table

door slamming

metal trays banging

pencil tapping

I chose to observe the soundcape of the Ivy Room because I spend a lot of time there socializing and especially studying, and because I like to study there primarily because of the sounds there. Usually, I study alone because my preference for noise confuses many of my friends, who prefer quieter library settings. I like to study in a loud place with a lot of repetitive or constant sounds, which I find paradoxically to be a less distracting than relative silence. Paying attention to the level of noise in the Ivy Room, therefore, was a very different experience for me, as I am used to tuning it out. The very first thing I noticed was that the total resting level of noise was quite high. The constant electrical buzz from the lights and the refrigerators and chatter -- and the very frequent sound of the blender from the smoothy line -- were the biggest contributors to noise. The level of noise was so high that virtually no outside or natural noise was perceptible. Almost no sound was heard only once, so for the sake of brevity I only listed a given sound the first time I heard it. 

Grouping the sounds is an interesting exercise that I tried during my observations. One dichotomy was between human and non-human sounds. The vast majority of sounds were directly caused by humans present in the space, either with their voices or by making contact with inanimate objects. The only sounds that were not were the sounds of the radio and the electrical buzz. The human sounds can organized by the purpose of the actions with which they are associated. For instance, the sound of the ice cream scoop, blender, and soda fountain were associated with food production; chip bags crinkling, slurping from straws with food consumption; chatter, laughing, high-fiving with social interactions; and nails and pencils tapping with studying. 

In a bustling cafeteria, the sounds heard are associated with actions and with purpose. Even though the musical sounds that I heard were mostly unintelligible, this very fact suggests that their purpose was more for atmosphere than to be listened to. Most of the other sounds were just incidental to human activity. Even these sounds, however, contributed to an atmosphere that is interpreted by many groups of friends as conducive to socializing by a few people like me as conducive to studying.

Critical Review #1: Handler and Linnekin

In "Tradition, Genuine or Spurious," Handler and Linnekin discuss the concept of tradition, which, although popularly understood in an informal sense, is difficult to define rigorously. Two definitions of tradition are presented: the naturalistic one, which defines tradition as stable and objective, and the symbolic one, which argues that tradition is constantly in flux and subjective. Drawing from case studies in Quebec and Hawaii, the authors find that in those and presumably in all cultures, tradition is constantly reinterpreted in the present. Cultural elements that are perceived as traditional are so not because of some external reality of past practices and beliefs, but because of this perception itself. Additionally, in the cases of both Quebec and Hawaii, there is a sort of "chicken and the egg" question concerning the relationship of nationality and tradition. The desire for a national identity provides the impetus for the development of tradition, while shared tradition helps to define the nation itself. Ultimatiely, Handler and Linnekin find that the symbolic definition of tradition is the more useful one.

Discussion question: Edward Shils posits that culture develops in almsot imperceptibly small steps in a way that Handler and Linnekin compare "organisms that grow and change while yet remaining themselves." Although the authors' phrasing of this viewpoint states that cultures do not stop being themselves, could a form of cultural speciation in which cultures do indeed morph into new cultures be possible? Why or why not? And if so, how might this process come to be?