The readings for this weeks center around redefining fundamental concepts of music. While there are clear distinctions and differences between each of these authors, they are each interested in broadening the definition of music through historical, cross-cultural, and sociological analysis.
Redefining Music
In his book Musicking, Christopher Small1 argues for reimagining music as a verb—musicking–as opposed to a noun in order to emphasize the processual and socially-bounded nature of musical activity.
"Music is not a thing at all but an activity, something that people do. The apparent thing "music" is a figment, an abstraction of the action, whose reality vanishes as soon as we examine it at all closely"2
For Small, our continual quest for understanding the meaning of music is undermined by our ignorance of the nature of music, that is, music scholar's traditional focus on musical works rather than the processual and social nature of music. Musicking refocuses the analytical lens by contextualizing musical practice in time and place, as suggested in the opening vignettes in Small's "Prelude":
- a concert hall during an orchestral concert
- a supermarket
- a stadium during a sporting event
- mobile music technology (Walkman)
- congregational singing at church
- a political rally
Small's argument is subversive. To argue for a processual approach is to undermine the canon and upend the Western obsession with masterworks as the central feature of Euro-American musical culture. And he doesn't hold back, he pulls no punches.
"For performance does not exist in order to present musical works, but rather, musical works exist in order to give performers something to perform."3
Small's argument implicitly challenges power relationships in musical society. In his book Noise: The Political Economy of Music (1985).4, Jacques Attali5 situates music within a Marxist discourse, considering the relationship between noise (music) and power. Music, while not explicitly defined, is understood through a series of suggestive metaphors:
- music is a "mirror of society" (p. 4)
- music is the "organization of noise" (p. 4)
- music is a "metaphor of the real" (p. 5)
- music is "prophecy" (p. 11)
- music is "intuition, a path to knowledge" (p. 20)
Like Small, Turino6 is concerned with Western definitions of music. He begins this chapter from his book, Music as Social Life, by questioning how we conceptualize—and categorize—music (e.g. stylistically, socio-culturally, recorded format). No doubt inspired by Small, Turino points to shifts from music as a noun to music making, and recorded music as music-object to recordings as representation. Drawing upon diverse musical cultures—Peru, Zimbabwe, North America—he raises issues concerning musical value and the value of musicality. Like Small, the is a clear sense of relativity in Turino's writing:
"I have found it useful to conceptualize music making in relation to different realms or fields of artistic practice" (p. 25)
These four fields of artistic practice are:
- participatory performance: a practice lacking a distinct demarkation of artist and audience
- presentational performance: a practice where performers provide music for others
- high fidelity: making of recordings that are indexical or iconic of live performance
- studio art: creation of a "sound object" that is not representation of live performances
As with Small, Turino's social-process approach to musicological study, and the resulting broadening of the definition of music, is clear:
"The focus here is on the types of activity, artistic roles, values, goals, and people involved in specific instances of music making and dance." (p. 27)
Participatory Music
Both Small and Turino are explicitly concerned with the issue of participatory notions of musical activity. Small's definition is extremely broad, allowing for the most flexible conceptualization of musiking:
"To music is to take part, in any capacity, in a musical performance, whether by performing, by listening, by rehearsing or practicing, by providing material for performance (what is called composing), or by dancing. We might at times even extend its meaning to what the person is doing who takes the tickets at the door or the hefty men who shift the piano and the drums or the roadies who set up the instruments and carry out the sound checks or the cleaners who clean up after everyone else has gone. They, too, are all contributing to the nature of the event that is a musical performance."7
With this definition, Small opens himself up to criticism, moving the definition of music so far beyond sound-producing activities that the term may have been stripped of any value at all. Turino, however, defines participation more narrowly than Small:
"I am using the idea of participation in the restricted sense of actively contributing to the sound and motion of a musical event through dancing, singing, clapping, and playing musical instruments when each of these activities is considered integral to the performance."8
While Small is more broadly inclusive, even within strict presentational settings, such as the concert hall, Turino indicates an interest in musical practices and settings that privilege active, sound-producing roles. Participatory performances, for Turino, lack a distinct demarkation of artist and audience, an issue that is also at the heart of Attali's book.
"The distinction between musician and nonmusician—which separates the group from the speech of the sorcerer—undoubtedly represents te very first divisions of labor."9
"What is called music today is all too often only a disguise for the monologue of power."10
I think this following video may be served as one of the examples of Participatory Music.
The roles audience played in this video display both Small and Turino’s distinct yet connected definitions. A number of crowd surrounded Anderson and Roe were watching a performance in the midst of NYC’s Washington Square Park, therefore taking part as an audience according to Small. At one point, (0:35), the crowd clapped as well as shouted, “Mambo”, which serves as an integral part of the performance. Thus, this performance could not be completed without the participation of an audience.
Steinway’s Self-playing piano also played an important role as a main performer, whereas Anderson and Roe’s role switches back and forth between being a main performer, and a supporting role; we see them scraping strings inside the soundboard, using sheet music to create varying sounds, as well as providing a rhythmic ostinato supporting the self-playing piano. Therefore, all three main participants; Anderson and Roe, the Self-playing piano, and the crowd are contributed to musical activity in creating this engaging performance.
Turino acknowledges division of labor as central to contemporary musical practices, but does not consider it antithetical to participatory musical practices. Advanced technique and specialization are central to the success of participatory music-making and necessary for avoiding boredom.
This is where Csikszentmihalyi's theory of "flow" comes in to play.
Striking the right balance between familiarity and challenge "enhances concentration and a sense of being 'in the groove,' at one with the activity and the other people involved."
But this emphasizes is rather narrow and, frankly, Western in its perspective of music, placing it within the realm of entertainment and art, where particular qualities of excellence are valued and pursued. To a certain extent, Turino unravels his own argument here regarding the difference between participatory and presentational music.
Ritual and Relativism
Both Attali and Small consider musical activity as fundamentally ritualistic, the "ceremony in Symphony Hall."11 Musicking as ritual emphasizes not only process, but recenters the musical actors within the event, regardless the the particular activity or contribution each actor makes to the ritual event.
"If everyone is born musical, then everyone's musical experience is valid."12
For Attali, the power and politics of ritual is embedded in the very process of musicking.
"…music is ritual sacrifice…it is reproduced, normalized, repitition. …Today, in embryonic form, beyond repetition, lies freedom: more than a new music, a forth kind of musical practice. It heralds the arrival of new social relations. Music is becoming composition."13
Questions
- If the ticket-taker and roadie are musicking, what place does sound have in music research and study? Should sound have a priviledged position vis-a-vis other "musicking" activities?
- How do Turino and Small's conceptualizations of musical participation differ? Which has greater value? Which emerges more forcefully within cybercultural settings?
- How is sound inherently political? How might the political be emphasized in cybercultural contexts of musical practices?
- How does the concept of ritual help us understand musicking?
- With the exception of Turino's discussion of sound recordings, technology is not a central issue in these readings. Where does technology come into play in regards to participatory music-making, musicking or music as ritual?
Varinia:
Iowa School of Music
1. Turino and Small differ in an important distinction here, regarding their inclusion of who is really involved in "musicking". For Small, everyone involved in the social aspect of this process is part of music and should therefore be included in music research and study. Yet, Turino specifies this a bit more, including only those who are involved in sound creation or dancing that directly contributes to the musical product. My initial reaction when reading this is to agree with Turino, as roles such as publicizing music or running concert venues fall into a business and social category more than they do a strictly musical category. At the same time, this reaction may be due to my long-held perception of music as the actual creation of sound. These readings bring to light that music cannot exist in a vacuum, and the social aspects of music are critical to its overall effect. Thus, I would advocate that sound does indeed have a privileged position over other activities involved in "musicking"; however these other activities must not be completely excluded from the equation as they play important secondary roles.
2. I discussed this topic in my response to the previous question, and I think the concepts go hand-in-hand. Turino advocates for musical participation as the creation of a unified whole sound, where Small views musical participation as involving anyone that plays a role in this process, even quite indirectly. It is always difficult to make a value judgement in these scenarios, as both viewpoints bring forth ideas that merit further consideration. My personal instinct, as a music therapist and advocate for community music for all people, is to value Turino's idea of participatory music. Moving from the idea of performers and listeners to a space where all people, regardless of ability or experience, can contribute to the sound as a whole empowers people and allows them to connect on a deep level. Yet, when looking at this from a cybercultural context, Small's perspectives hold value as well. Technology is so widely used for the dissemination and creation of music that many people that are not considered "musicians" in the traditional sense take on roles in the process of musicking. Sound engineers, DJs, people involved in the creation of technologies such as YouTube and Spotify, while not directly singing or playing an instrument, have had enormous impacts on the way we are involved in musicking today.
3. Sound is inherently political in that it reflects the situations of the times. Attali brings this up with reference to everything from Mozart and Bach to Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix. He asserts that music is able to express societal phenomena and trends often before and more accurately than language. In today's society, cyberculture plays a huge role in music, politics, entertainment, and essentially everything that we do. On one hand, the rise of technologies and platforms allow for the widespread dissemination of music, and a sort of democratization of means, in that nearly anyone can post a YouTube video of a song, without the resources that would be necessary for a record contract. This allows for voices to be heard through music, empowering people to rise up as was the case in Egypt and Tunisia in recent years. On the other hand, cyberculture allows for the "perfection" of performance, through what Turino calls high fidelity recordings. As such, auto-tuning and digital remastering of music takes much of the human or organic nature out of music, placing it more as a commodity. This reflects our political and social climate, in that citizens want quick and easy entertainment.
4. Turino's discussion in particular offered a plethora of examples of music's use in a variety of cultural rituals. This illustrates the various uses of music around the world, and also enlightens us, as Western listeners/readers, to the ways that musicking can be so different in other cultures. Turino discusses rituals and social norms for singing at weddings and social gatherings, to celebrating holidays, to dancing together for entertainment. These rituals are deeply linked with social norms, as was seen when he discussed the musician's lack of desire to point out others playing badly, even when that was occurring and they were very aware of it. At the same time, Small places the situation of the Western concert hall as a type of ritual, in that there are certain social norms that must be followed, and one is often unaware of these unless they are part of the specific group. Thus, across various cultures and practices of musicking, rituals help us understand the social aspects of musicking.
5. As I discussed in my response to question three, technology, music, and politics are often deeply connected.Technology allows others to participate in musicking to a greater extent in that anyone can do it and post online for others to see. I can sit at my computer in Iowa and watch YouTube videos of Calypso ensembles, or Irish jigs, or African drumming, and as such become part of a vast array of musical cultures, if we are taking Small's description of musicking. Yet, at the same time, this use of technology isolates us as musicians and listeners. When we can do so much by ourselves, there is less need to seek out others with whom to make music. For example, you can record all of the parts to a song yourself, and then put them together using mixing technology, instead of seeking out an ensemble of musicians to play each part simultaneously. Also, we can walk around with our headphones on at all times, simultaneously engaging in the music that we choose to listen to and distancing ourselves from the music, or experiences in general that may be happening around us socially. Thus, technology serves as a double-edged sword in regards to music. In some contexts it provides for dissemination of various styles and cultural understandings, while simultaneously limiting authentic human interactions and fostering isolation.
Many of the issues presented by Small and Turino involve the definition of participation in "musicking." Both make similar points as far as the inclusion of participants not creating the noise itself through instruments, vocals, etc. However, even the involvement of dancers is a bit of conflict with my preconceived notions of music. It seems that both authors propose that the act of musicking is frequently extended to those the respond to the music (through dancing for example). I am conflicted on whether I can truly commit to this notion. The understanding that "dance" music is conceived from the need of music to dance to is fairly clear. Does that necessarily make the dancers musicians? I'm not sure of the answer, and I also think that we could propose that their is again a difference between musicians in definition we most often use, and the idea of musicians proposed by these authors. Perhaps this idea of "musicking" is an attempt to alleviate this conflict of terms, by introducing a new term that satisfies both the participatory music enthusiasts, as well as the "outsider" who prefers to differentiate between musicians and audience.
While, Small almost veers too inclusive, I find myself aligning far more with his concept of musicking as I have some trouble with Turino’s piece, despite finding insightful elements throughout. Turino’s examination of a MP3 or CD is to music as a photograph is to a physical person is bogus. Similarly, the example of his Peruvian friends’ festival recordings is in no way analogous to North Americans’ downloading or purchasing (what is implied as) professional recordings… as I’m sure if Turino was also friends with Deadheads or Burners he’d find similar practices in their amateur recordings as a means of disseminating and reminiscing the musical celebration with friends. While there’s no denying the commodification of popular music has placed an emphasis on merchandise and recordings, it seemed (at least initially) Turino considered all participatory and social music-dance activities/interactions no less authentic or valid as professional or star-driven performance… despite even those thoroughly engaged in these participatory practices do not consider their activities and social interactions as “music making.” While I thoroughly believe these practices are worthy of study, it struck me as odd that Turino would view them as “a different form of art and activity entirely – and…should be conceptualized and valued as such” (25). I’m not certain I agree with his assertion that participatory performance is a different form of art [and not just because defining art is as much a minefield as defining music]; because the word art, like music, is a noun – that is also generally thought of as an object or thing. However, I would argue that both words are equally associated with the technical skill or proficiency to create and the individual pieces used to create (ex. tones and sounds to colors, movements, shapes) as they are with the final product or object of that process – regardless of form (composition, performance, recording to painting, dance, sculpture). It seems Turino aimed to sidestep this issue by ignoring many of the social music-dance activities/interactions and only applies his participatory field of music to performers. I recognize his four fields, and thought the Beatles were an excellent example – but since no field includes the role of non-musicians I fail to see how Turino’s view deviates from longstanding divisions of culture and music scholarship that places value-based judgements on nontraditional (musical) participation.
Small and Turino offer interrelated but slightly differing opinions on this. Small suggests that everyone involved in the production and musical process of sound-making is technically participating in "musicking." Turino, on the other hand, claims that this number of participants is pared down only to include actual sound-makers or those responding to it (dancers, audience participants, etc). In this way, Small challenges the tendency to focus solely on performers/performance (held by Turino) as the locus of one's ethnomusical studies.
In the context of musical cyberculture, Small's attitude towards the study of music-making can be seen at work. While musicians or "producers" of music remain at the center of musical interactions on the internet, the importance of the "consumer" remains a sort of currency. The internet is a space in which information and art are spread freely, and those that engage with it critically (via social media/music platforms) are indirectly contributing to its popularity. In a world now partially subsumed by social media, affiliating one's self with a certain "sound world," "aesthetic," or a particular musician can be perceived as political due to the widespread social associations with them. While the concept of making a priori assumptions about a person based on their musical tastes is nothing new, socialized music consumption (as with Spotify) magnifies this practice and allows us almost uninterrupted insight into a person's tastes and moods.
Such socialized music consumption extends even to the realm of live music through streaming subscription services and YouTube live broadcasts alike. In this way, the "ritual" of musicking becomes globalized and shared instantaneously. As these practices become more commonly understood and accepted in our everyday lives, the ritual of musicking becomes embedded within different spheres by definition, allowing us to feel socially connected to artists and each other through the broader and more immediate means of the internet.