I find it very interesting how both Small’s “prelude” and the Lysloff article converge, though fleetingly, on the concept of“the natural environment”. In Small’s prelude, music’s ability to idealize a relationship with “ the natural environment”, is probably meant quite litertally, meaning that he, like so many others, probably understands there to be some fundamental connection between the product of the musicking and the actual geographic location where the activity is taking place. (Small p.13) Lysloff, on the other hand, highlights the ethnomusicologist and recorders’ eternal dilemma of transplanting a musical product through recording. He too, though, proposes the idea of using the actual “location” of music’s production as a guage of “authenticity”.
Given our current emphasis on technoculture, I am tempted to extend the definition of the “natural environment” to wherever any act of musicking is initiated and actively received, not just a geographic location, and even if it is in front of a computer screen. I think that for my studies in this course, these conceptual boundaries will become important for me as I move towards what I anticipate will be my final project. The issues of boundary will become relevant for me, if for example, a renowned Basque rapper living in Spain, (professional or amateur) moves away from his homeland. Will the music produced from the newlocation continue to be viewed as equally “authentic”? Or better stated, willan expert on Basque rap still be percieved as an expert on Basque rap through the internet, even if he were to move to, let’s say Salt Lake City? I have my own ideas about this, but I would like to see light what our future articles might shed on these and other considerations. I am glad that these two articles brought this up.
Sep. 1 Readings / Discussion
This is the discussion related to the wiki page Sep. 1 Readings.