I broke down this week and did something I avoid – I went to the local animal shelter (because I can’t go without bringing home new friends). Even worse, I went into the kitten room and was immediately accosted by two small feline persons who informed me in no uncertain terms that I was taking them home with me.
As you can see, they didn’t take long to settle in – this was the first evening at home.
If you’re wondering, the orange tabby is Bowie (yes, note my curated post from last winter) and the black and white tabby is Marlowe. I’ll leave it to you if he’s the poet/playwright or the detective. And no he’s not named after a sportscaster. I’d never even heard of that Marlowe until after I’d named him.
Since this is a departure from my usual pop culture/ethno posts, I’ll leave it at this, but I will say that I debated naming them (respectively, right to left) Walter and Benjamin. Unfortunately, Marlowe is just definitely a Marlowe, and Bowie is not a Benjamin. They’re cats – they told me this. 😉
For those of you who do not know me in “real” life, I was trained as an art music musician (what most folks call classical music, which I have issues with, which will likely be the topic of another post on another day…). Recently, as in about three weeks ago, I took a new job that has brought me back to that world. Funny enough, in my head I never left it. I always saw myself as trained from that particular perspective.
Now the anthropologist/ethnomusicologist steps in.
Perspective IMHO predisposes me to consider the daily grind of practicing and interpretation of another’s ideas as my two basic premises.
But I live in the contemporary world, just like all the other currently living, currently practicing, art music musicians.
So why is it that the music we who make it all love and perform is considered so disconnected with contemporary popular culture?
Here is the article from Greg Sandow from last week that got me started. In this particular post, he reflects on a performance of Wagner’s Ring cycle in DC recently, which leads to a revisiting of a consistent theme in his blog on how art music is/is not maintaining its audience and hence relevancy to our contemporary world, as measured by audience attendance and participation in art music performances.
Sandow comments mourn what is to my eyes a disconnecting from tradition in favor of current cultural connections and values in the ways contemporary art music (again, I hate the word classical music – it’s so loaded) is adapting/will adapt to the modern world.
And this got me wondering. Big surprise.
Here’s a “duh” moment question: why is it that the American consumer public, at least at the broadest levels, dis-values tradition and the re-presentation of older musical forms? Is this any different in theater? Film? (Hint: NOT) Of course the answer is that our society values and fetishizes the “new” and the “unique,” making “the past” something only relevant to people who are “out of touch.” (this last part: also not true)
I had a conversation with a fabulous screen writer this past weekend talking about this same evolution in film and tv writing and development. Granted, this is a far newer technology, but it takes on the same question: where do relevant art and culture-making enterprises have to let go of the past to be relevant to the present and the future?
My favorite example of this kind of art music making comes from one of my favorite composers, Maurice Ravel. Ravel, for those of you who don’t know his work, not only totally rocks in terms of creating moving and meaningful music, but also had a real sense of the connections between what was created before and what can be meaningful now.
I’ll take as a case in point his Le Tombeau de Couperin, composed between 1914 and 1917, and was dedicated to friends of his who died fighting in World War I. The notes from the performer who presents this performance give a great example of the kind of relevance I’m talking about.
So, I’ll leave you with this here today. But there will be more on this theme. Please do comment – this is something so important for us all to talk about!
So this the the world I study, folks. The ways that the music recording industry interacts with performers, and in particular how these two parts of the music world intersect with how music gets made.
I encourage you to pay attention to the Kesha/Sony case, not the least of which because it’s another example of how problematic the relationships are between performers and their labels.
The Amanda Petrusich’s article in the New Yorker yesterday (2/25/16) does a nice job of identifying one of the big issues here – not about right or wrong, but in the ways the American system of economy and justice assumes that – as Petrusich put it – “since Sony has an undeniable mercenary stake in Kesha’s continued success, it is likely acting in her best interest.”
Kesha signed her current contract when she was eighteen. EIGHTEEN. There is a long history of labels signing young performers, and there is also an equally problematic history of the catches buried in those contracts.
I rarely simply repost an article (not accounting for my recent curated post on David Bowie – a personal retrospective if I’ve ever done one), but I am today, with just a bit of context.
As someone who studies the digital world and the production of culture in that world, the ongoing Apple case strikes me as extremely important, and Amy Davidson’s piece in The New Yorker lays out the issues well. Please do read this. I’d be interested in having a discussion in the comments.
I had to post this today. It parallels – almost exactly! – the argument I’ve been making for many years now about the deconstructing of the linear music production model. Nussbaum lays out (although she’s living in analytical fan mode) how the different elements in TV production interact creatively. Just had to lay this out there. If you’ve been wondering, lots more is coming from me on this subject…
Just read this this morning. I’ve been thinking lately (i.e. I’m writing a conference proposal on) the impact of anthropological methods in the classroom. As I say to my students regularly, it’s a case of regularly a ski g “so what” and why does this matter? My short answer has become that anthropological thinking and methods let us get back outside, at least to some extent, our own cultural boxes to understand and communicate someone else’s perspective and to hopefully give voice to someone else’s views beyond our own. This article is an example of exactly the places this gets critical. Can we possibly require some basic social/cultural education of anyone who reports outside their own regional culture?