“Noise: The Political Economy of Music”
Attali argues that the distribution of music and the control over noise shapes societies. This is a direct reflection of power and control. Attali characterizes music as perceived order and noise as subversion. In totalitarian regimes, noise is strictly controlled and banned in order to achieve primacy of melody and deny the abnormal a voice. As a tool of power, Attali divides music into three zones of "strategic usages" (Attali 38). Music can be used to make people forget violence and fear, to make people believe that there is harmony in the world, and to silence by mass-producing music and censoring all other noise. Within these three zones, Attali further characterizes music by its role. Music becomes a ritual sacrifice or scapegoat when it is used to make people forget. When music is used to make people believe in a harmonious world, it is representation. Finally, as a tool of enforcing silence, music is repetition. However, as an act of subversion, a fourth musical practice emerges: composition. According to Attali, composition is an act of freedom that suggests the arrival of a new social order. Ultimately, Attali argues that music "runs parallel to human society" as economic and musical revolutions often occurred side-by-side (Attali 35). He criticizes tradition of teaching musical history as a linear evolution, as neither scientific nor human history is structured this way.
“Prelude: Music and Musicking”
Small asserts that music is not an object, but an activity. Furthermore, he criticizes the championing of musical works as the ultimate source of musical meaning. The concept of music-as-work over music-as-event is problematic because reduces the performer to a passive role (as the conduit of musical meaning) and implies that only the musically literate can be privy to the innermost meanings of music. Additionally, the concept of the work limits the channels of communication to one direction: from composer to audience. This limits the responsibilities of the audience as they are not expected to communicate in return to the composer (nor is it expected of the composer to listen). Small also argues that the concept of the musical work divorces the music and its potential meaning from its original context. When Bach’s Saint Matthew’s Passion, is performed in concert halls, for example, it is presented as a singular work of art, not a religious piece to be performed on Good Friday in the Lutheran Church. When presented in this manner, Small argues that the meaning of the piece is “trivialized” (Small 7). Thus, in response to these issues, Small proposes the reinstitution of the verb “to music” and its present participle “musicking”. In doing so, Small aims to broaden our notions of music making: to music is to contribute to a musical event. When music is conceptualized as a verb, Small argues that any kind of participation, be it active or passive, is allowed. Ultimately, Small’s goal is for musicking to become a framework for understanding how and why participating in music effects “our existence as individual, social, and political beings” (Small 12).
“Participatory and Presentational Performance”
Like Small, Turino finds fault with predominant conception of music as an object rather than an active social process. According to Turino, music making occurs in relation to four specific “fields of artistic practice”: presentational, participatory, high fidelity, and studio audio art (Turino 25). Turino emphasizes that these fields are not meant to correlate to any preconceived notions of genre and style; a single musician or band can fluidly operate within all four fields throughout their career and a single musical event can be comprised of overlapping qualities from each field. This chapter in particular discusses the characteristics of presentational and participatory performance practices. In the presentational performance field, there is one group of people designated to provide music (the performers) to another group (the audience). Participatory music, on the other hand, is framed as a social activity where there is no audience. Instead, there are performers and people who can join in and become performers as well. Unlike Small, Turino emphasizes that the kind of participation in this field needs to demonstrate active contribution to the music, such as clapping or playing shakers. In participatory music, the primary value is inclusivity. Presentational music, however, places priority on individuality and contrast. Turino uses form, texture, and timbre to explain the musical manifestations of these priorities. In presentational musical practice, the form is closed as there are definitive formal sections of predetermined length. Additionally, the texture is deliberately made transparent to ensure that the audience understands the details of the performance. In participatory music, instruments are often tuned to wider intervals to accommodate the participants’s different skill levels. As a result, the pitches will not always sound unified. Highly repetitive phrases and cyclical forms, with a repertoire of stock beginnings and endings also help participants of all skill levels feel secure in participatory music. Moreover, the repetition of form and musical phrases heightens the potential for “social synchrony” (Turino 41).
Discussion Questions:
- Attali states the presently, music is a "somewhat clumsy excuse for the self-glorification of musicians and the growths of a new industrial sector" (Attali 34). How does this compare to Small's criticisms of conceptualizing music as work? Does Attali's opinion bear any weight in today's musical/political climate?
- Turino opens this chapter by discussing the cultural shift from perceiving music recordings as a representation of a musical event to becoming the “real thing” (Turino 25). The “real thing,” according to Turino, is based on the musician’s successes in producing and distributing products: CDs, music videos, etc. From this, I interpreted these products to be proof of musical skill and professionalism. How does the idea of professionalism (or even skill) tie into the use of computer programs that correct out of tune pitches in presentational/high fidelity fields?
- How can Small and Turino’s frameworks be adopted or integrated into the social life within a school of music?
When reading Attali's article, my mind was drawn to Soviet-era USSR and the 1960s in America. Socialist Realism is a prime example of a government acknowledging the power of music and trying to intervene. In America in the 1960s, the government was concerned with acts such as Elvis Presley and The Beatles who had an overwhelming influence over the anti-establishment groups of the time (the famous story of the CIA's file on Elvis Presley comes to mind).
Small's and Turino's arguments are similar in that they both deal with the recent phenomenon of viewing music as a tangable "thing" rather than as an activity or a process. As musicians, we all (hopefully) understand why this is troubling. Those of us pursuing music performance as a means of making a living have certainly had conversations with non-musicians wherein the non-musicians, while supportive, are unable to understand the processes behind music-making (not necessarilly musicking).
This leads to another argument over what makes a person a musician/non-musician. While we haven't covered this argument in class yet, part of it can be examined here by looking at the use of auto-tuning/other music technologies that enhance both high-fidelity recordings and studio art recordings. The general public does not tend to take these technologies into account when measuring success by album output/catalog volume. It doesn't even seem to come into question all that much within the (popular) music industry (granted I have not had a lot of experience in this area). Perhaps this speaks to the fact that technique is not all it takes to be a good musician (playing/singing in tune being part of a musician's technique).
Overall, all three artivles present interesting views on important issues in music. Of the three, Smalls' article resonated the most with me, as I totally agree with his opinion that examining only Western European art music as "music history" is problematic, as well as his opinion that too much emphasis is placed on the "thing" that is music, rather than the experience/process (I found Brahms' quote about reading Don Giovanni particularly disturbing).
1. Attali and Small actually share some of the same views and their opinions bear significant weight in today's climate. I was particularly interested in the following sentences:
Attali: "What is called music today is all too often only a disguise for the monologue of power. However, and this is the supreme irony of it all, never before have musicians tried so hard to communicate with their audience, and never before has that communication been so deceiving."
Small: "As long at that theory [of musicking] remains unconscious and unthought about, it not only controls people and their musical activities, limiting and circumscribing their capabilities, but also renders them vulnerable to manipulation by those who have an interest in doing so for purposes of power, status, or profit."
While I agree with many of Small's statements throughout his article, I think that perhaps a more current definition of "musicking", for many people in the US, would be the consumption of music. Specifically, I mean hearing music as the only activity involved. And we hear the music that somebody wants us to hear. In shops and restaurants, we have no choice but to hear the music. When we are on our own, we choose to hear the music we like, and our modern music culture seems to say that that music is part of (if not completely) our identity. Here is where Attali makes sense. The irony is that we feel like we are communicating or relating to the artist when we identify with a piece…but are we? How does hearing and enjoying a piece connect me to the a rich pop star or a deceased composer from across the world? To change the phrase "you are what you eat," we create "you are what you hear." The music we hear shapes our ideas of life, society, and self. The problem is that what begins as music preference can develop into what Small points out, manipulation and limitation. Those who exclusively hear music most likely believe that they are incapable of any other music activities. Moreover, strongly defined genres create barriers of sorts which have us believe that we cannot relate to other people. Plus, a culture of “stars” and “idols” gives a message of personal value to listeners. In what may come across as just music, are messages which have the power to unsettle and divide our society and make us feel discontent as individuals. The good thing is that music also is a means for the opposite as well.
2. Today’s musician needs to be more than just music. If we look at the most popular musical artists, we don’t define them just by musical skill but the complete package (audio, visual, social media presence, spectacle, and persona). I would argue that while some successful musicians may be lacking in certain skills, they do have the professionalism to play up their strengths and to portray themselves as best as possible. For example, I don’t even consider the musical skills of OkGo as I watch their videos. (It makes me think….maybe I need to choreograph my recital…) Another aspect of being a professional would be hiring or working with others who are capable of doing or teaching us the skills we lack.
3.As music students, we experience the all of the best qualities of music through the means Small and Turino define. We are musicking all day every day (performing, listening, rehearsing, practicing, composing, and dancing). We also experience music through both participatory and presentational styles. The problem is what is going on outside of our world inside the music school. A music school should not only train musicians but inform and guide the public. Whether or not we consider ourselves individually as music educators, we need to each be advocates for music. The values of music are clear to us because they are a constant part of our lives. I think it would be useful for us to consider the frameworks of these two authors and develop courses or programs designed to teach those in a music school how to advocate for music outside the school. Especially we need to learn how to teach the value of music and the various ways of “how to musick.”
1. Atalli's writing was such a joy to read. He makes such grand sweeping gestures considering the content, the writing deserves some sort of audible component. Attali writes: "The world is not legible, but audible" (30). Attali defines music as a "way of perceiving the world", and stresses that he is theorizing "through music, not about it" (30). I have never read Attali before this essay. It is his poetic approach to discussing culture through the lens of music that resonates with me rather than his ideas about subversion/power. He discusses how his book is a "call to theoretical indiscipline" ( 31). I could see him writing a very similar essay about color and it's impact on society, through a visual lens, and how color is regulated, manufactured, reproduced, and broken. Or perhaps Attali could write something about touch, and the fabrics of the world. Attali understands that, in order to investigate an idea or make a proposition, the opposites of that idea or proposition are needed in order to make something meaningful. His essay is teeming with opposite, which gives it it's beautiful, sweeping structure and. Attali writes: "With noise is born disorder and its opposite; the world. With music is born power and it's opposite, subversion. " (32)
2. Small says that "music is not a thing but a thing that people do" (2). He call this the act of "musicking". What stood out to me as a visual artist reading this essay/chapter was his discussion of music objects/musical meaning/representation/approximation. I have (I'm embarrassed to say) not really thought much about how musical meaning can change through representation and performance. For example, Small's discussion of the search for the best representation: reading a score versus watching a performance (Brahm's would rather read Mozart) versus listening to a recording of a performance of a score. It all reminds me of the ga,e of telephone. I think about these things in my own visual art practice too. Isn't it ironic that most of the paintings I look at are google images, representations, when I strive so clearly make work that needs to be seen in person? What does my digital two-dimensional research mean when I'm to make real, 3D objects?
3. Small ask "If the meaning of the music lies not only in the totality of the musical performance, where do we start to look for insights that unite the work with the event?" (13). This question is directly related to Turino's article, where he discusses participatory performance and presentational performance, the discussion of where the two meet.
Attali’s arguments drawing correlations between industrial/economic growth and the prosperity/growth of musicians did not seem to grasp me in the Western democratic context. Through the lense of a Soviet Totalitarian government, the idea of music being related to economic/societal prosperity was clearer. Ideas of government censorship should be nothing new to a student of art when it comes to countries like Russia and China during the rule of totalitarian regimes. I think that Small varies from the idea of government/societal control of music more to the imposed restrictions set by the “Western Classical Community”.
-The argument that Turino makes regarding what is the “real” thing has many aspects to it. Is the perfect realization of a composers score more authentic than the experience of sitting in a concert hall watching the same thing? I think the question does not have a definite answer, you either want the authentic experience of the concert, or you want to the most accurate authentic representation of the composer’s work. Or, is the composer's authentic representation of the work native to the concert hall (i.e. John Cage 4'33" which inherently relies on it's public setting to give it context)
I think while Small and Turino’s viewpoints on music society are valid, the idea of a School of Music is rooted in standards and groundbreaking works, and is too established to change without a rebuilding of how we view music education from the ground up.
Small's term, "musicking", while clever, struck me as not being much more than that. Calling music by something else to give it a different context is a matter of perspective from the reader.
I felt that these articles were all a little too in the clouds and rooted firmly in the study of ethnomusicology. Not to say that they were wrong, just that the practicality of the articles in applying to a traditional western education may be misguided. The structure that NASM and music schools worldwide would have to be reformed starting with the redefining of what constitutes music and the relative importance that specific works play in the education of a well rounded musician in today's society.
Hi all!
A few Attali statements stood out to me as noteworthy, especially: "…never before have musicians tried so hard to communicate with their audience, and never before has that communication been so deceiving" (34) caught my attention immediately. In the writing immediately before this he implies that the ultimate goal of music today is to be a "monologue of power" and therefore deceiving. I can't say I agree. While it is unclear whether he means commercial popular music, classical art-music, or both, I can't think of many performers whose goal is to assert power. Then, I guess the question would be: "what kind of power are we talking about?" Sure, music is used in commercials to try to encourage us to buy things. Major pop musicians - Gaga, for instance - are constantly showing the world that they are at the pinnacle of their own success. But these aren't new trends, and there are plenty of other musicians whose compositions and performances are try to communicate something about the human condition to their audiences.
Small's term "musicking" struck me as a really creative term. Often, performers can't possibly find a way to thank all of the people who helped their performance happen (teachers, parents, friends, colleagues, janitors, etc). Encompassing them all in one over-arching process necessary for the performance is a really nice way to make music more inviting and communal - not just the performer and the audience. It would be great to see this term popularized.
Turino and the idea of participatory versus presentational music clearly gets at the heart of ethnomusicology as it relates to studying the music of other cultures. As a percussionist, I am able to dabble in various types of world music in a way that few other instruments can. The idea of participatory music as Turino explains it is something I've always known was there but wasn't sure how to fully express. I have participated in Ghanaian drumming and dance ensembles, learned about Chinese and Japanese traditional drumming, played in Steel Bands, rehearsed with samba groups…the list goes on. What I always find fascinating is that students from the U.S. are always shy and timid - afraid to participate, while anyone performing on the instruments native to their country don't see it as a performance but as an expectation, and as a really good time! I wish that there was more of this in our own culture. The obvious example for me is the popularity of drum circles in the U.S. Their popularity comes and goes, but if you attend a drum circle or "jam," it is definitely expected that you play and begin to learn all of the different techniques and rhythms.
Turino's distinct categories of participatory and presentational performance types respond and critique a very rigid "type" of presentational music culture that he attributes to North American contemporary cultures. I am struck by the clarity of the distinction he draws here, and it seems informed by mass culture or by professional musicians and ensembles. Participatory music traditions like elementary, middle school, and high school band and choir are popular among American students, and the daily act of "making music" in class is a fully participatory practice. Of course, the goal of many of these ensembles is to cultivate "musicianship," eventually weeding out the "non-musicians." I would argue, though, that this system blurs the clearly drawn line between Turino's categories. I would say the same for the music practices of many churches or religious organizations.
My disagreement is mostly with his assertion that "participatory performance is a type of artistic practice in which there are no artist-audience distinctions." Participatory music making often requires a hierarchy or structure in which a "leader" or "head musician" is required to facilitate. Perhaps "artist" and "audience" are simply the wrong categories here.
Attali's observations about music as a source of both power and subversion, order and disorder, illuminate some of the power structures that music creates and then breaks down as it changes (as does the society in which it exists). To claim that "censorship, recording, and surveillance are weapons of power" (an assertion with which I agree) is to point to the fact that those who control sound wield incredible power over a culture or community. Music, which is "a tool for the creation or consolidation of a community" becomes a commodity (even a utility) which can then be controlled and profited from. Thus, the rise of pirated music in the digital age is revealed to be a subversion of the power structures created by sound and music in the west. This shift has now created a new structure of music streaming, file sharing, and internet-based musical culture which will eventually be broken down. New, profitable businesses like Spotify, Apple Music (that emerged from the "subversive" internet-based sound sharing culture) are simply the new power structures that will be subverted by new structures that will escape the control of existing powers and then become the new ones.
Attali's definition of music is " the organization of noise, and refelcts the manufacture of society". As seeing noise is the source of power to understand the world, music becomes a mirror to reflect and herald our society. Thus his idea about the understanding through music would be a suggestion to the historical and musicological tradition. After discussion today at the class it made me understand clearly the concept of 'political economy' is not confined by the lexical meaning. If he mentioned about a mass media( because a mass media have been affecting on ideologies and technologies of society in ages) as a source which is contributing or cotrolling music and culture, it could be more solid to answer his question "what the economy has made of music and what ecomony music foreshadows?".
In a relation and understanding music Attali viewed music in a broad category, wherease Small and Turino more focused on acting(making)of music, performance as a form of socialization. The term "Musiking" explains well the nature of music which is not an object. Reading Small's writing, then how we should define and what is the roll of recordings? Is it musical objects? If it is a live concert recording is it more real?
Musiking is social activity based on a relatioship and experience. And Turino's distinction of music between participatory and presentational performance correspond to this. It seems like too complex to categorize performance type, though it helps to think about the interaction of performance and its shift to an object. Still we can come up with overlapping structures of performances.
The second discussion questions raises once again the role of technology, specifically software programs designed to alter and “correct” pitch. Namely, Autotune (although there are many other programs).
For those of us who were around and witnessed the development of Autotune, the reaction to it from working musicians and the musical elite, it’s intended uses and how those uses were adapted and changed during it’s evolution, there is a parallel to the Sept. 9 reading regarding Edison. Edison invented a technology he intended as a tool to record voices – but his invention was soon adapted to other uses, notably music.
The same is true of Autotune. In the beginning it was touted as “pitch correction” – not as an artistic and expressive piece of software. Very quickly, however, artists began to realize the expressive potential of the software; by tweaking the program parameters, sounds and effects never heard before were created.
Today there is a divide between those who see technology as the enemy of true art, and those who feel it is yet another means of expression of that art. I believe these lines are slowly (or more rapidly in some cases, such as experimental pop music) being blurred. Regardless of the source, whether technological or natural, creativity and expressiveness should be lauded.
In Attali’s Noise: The Political Economy of Music, he stated the relationship between the growths of economics and the growths of the music. His statements are not new, but very interesting. I totally agree with his idea and I can see the applications and impacts of his theory. The main type of music will have a big impact on the society. As he said, the government or the main society chooses harmony as one of the important standards of the music will induce people to believe that they want to live and live in a harmonious society. Because of internet, music becomes a major part of people’s daily life, the impact of music is blooming. The control of music is going to help government better govern the society.
In China, there is an old story which could support this idea. Around 2300 years ago, Mother Meng moved three times with his son Meng ZI, one of the greatest Chinese philosopher, such that she could provide a better and harmonious environment for Meng Zi to grow up. This story talked about the importance of the environment can shape people’s reflections of themselves and the world. Even people can know about the world through internet but the majority of their time is to stay at where they are. Under this condition, music becomes an important way to build their mental environment. A harmonious music will help people to develop a harmonious mental environment and affect them when they breathe, eat and talk.