Critical Review #10

Hamm, Charles. 1989. "Graceland Revisited."

In his article “Graceland Revisited,” Charles Hamm criticizes Graceland apologists’ claims that Paul Simon’s album was beneficial to South African musicians, avoided politics for the musicians’ safety, and represented a rebuttal to apartheid. Hamm writes that Ladysmith Black Mambazo, a primary collaborator with Simon, was a well-established and wealthy South African music group that played mostly abroad. Hamm points out that South Africans associate Lady Smith Black Mambazo “musically and politically with conservative black elements within South Africa” (300) because the group avoids politics in most of its songs. Citing the Lady Smith Black Mambazo example, Hamm claims that Graceland was not beneficial to new musicians nor was Simon necessarily avoiding anti-apartheid lyrics to protect his collaborators. Hamm also points out that racially-diverse bands were tolerated in South Africa as a public relations stunt. In fact, the release of Graceland in South Africa was “widely covered in the pro-government press” (302) and praised by the government for the mix of South African music and American pop. Consequentially, in spite the racial diversity of its musicians, Hamm claims that Graceland cannot be viewed as anti-apartheid.

Hamm brings up a lot of interesting criticism about the about Graceland’s perception. However, I don’t see any criticism aimed at the album himself; the articles focuses entirely on debunking certain positive claims about the album rather than making negative statements about the album’s production. The only mention of anything ethically hazy is Simon’s “defiance of UNESCO’s cultural boycotts” (300). I personally don’t see anything wrong with the fact that this album is a-political, features established musicians, and was unfortunately used as PR material by a racist government, but I would like to know what the class thinks. Given the times, was it unethical that Graceland did not have an anti-apartheid message? Should Simon been more politically aggressive?

I want to point out that I have not done the second reading for Tuesday yet, which may address some of the ethical issues directly related to the album’s production.

Presentation Materials

Dan:



Lorraine:



Clip:



Clear Away the Track:



Dan+Jon:

Challenge Question Response to Feedback

Jake's Question and My Response

Jake's Feedback

My Response to the Feedback:

I want to address some the question and observations you brought up in your response to my post:

Towards the end of your paper you discuss ethics, and you’re right to point out that ethical problems still exist with insider ethnographies. In a response to one of my challenge questions, Joe Maurer wrote about importance of outsider ethnographies in a world where insider ethnographies are available, and he made a similar observation. Joe argued that insider ethnographers may miss/exclude important details that an outsider would pick up on, and ultimately concluded that including both insider and outsider ethnographies is important to understanding a music-culture. After reading Joe’s response, I realized that I was too quick to write-off outsider ethnographies. As you mentioned, both ethnographies lend themselves to different ethical problems and bias, so the only way a scholar can hope to begin to understand a music-culture is to read both. I should have focused more on further elaborating my point that outsider ethnographies are over-represented rather than try to calculate the relative values of insider and outsider ethnographies.

Besides the discussion about the value of insider versus outsider ethnographies, I was trying to show that the predominance of westerners in the field perpetuate colonial relationships, not because of how they approach their field topics, but simply because of their predominance in an age where equal representation is feasible. My intentions were to extol insider ethnographies by debasing outsider ethnographies rather than raise the issue of improper representation. That was a poor logic/writing choice on my part. Therefore, I wasn’t trying to suggest that “the idea of a western traveler being exposed to a new culture pre-disposes us to think of that culture as an ‘other’ ” though my rant on etic perspectives probably did.

Even though my response did not intentionally address this idea, you do bring up an interesting question: “is emphasizing the non-western-ness of a culture the same as emphasizing the western-ness of the ethnomusicologist?” I think the answer is yes, it does. If I’m interpreting your question correctly, “Emphasizing the non-western-ness of a culture” is the same as highlighting the unfamiliar traits. The purpose of ethnographies should not be to point-out or only focus on what is foreign, but to explain what effect these foreign and similar traits have on a music-culture and how/why they arose within the culture. Familiar traits in a music-culture are just as valuable as the non-familiar. Therefore, when an ethnomusicologist wishes to describe a music culture without comparison to another culture, there should theoretically be no distinction between the unfamiliar and the familiar. I would like to a write a whole response to that question, but this isn’t the essay do that in. This is a good challenge question in itself.

Thanks for all the positive comments on my response. I also appreciated your feedback. You made me think about some important points in my response, and you posed ideas that I did not even consider.

Challenge Question Feedback

My Question:

The ability to learn about a culture’s music and the role of that music within culture is easier because of technology. Information can “come from the source;” people from around the world can publish their work for a wider audience. If insider ethnographies exist with more frequency, what is place of outsider ethnographies? Do we need an outsider’s ethnography on a culture when we can readily get an insider’s?

Joe’s Response

My Feedback:

Hey Joe! It’s interesting that you chose to write on this question because I ended up answering a version of this same question in my response. Perhaps I twisted Jake’s question in order to answer as I did because I find the place of ethnomusicology in the modern age an interesting topic. In his question, Jake asked about whether the field of ethnomusicology “perpetuates the colonial relationship between cultures of unequal status.” I answered that it does, arguing that even in a time when technology allows for access to insider ethnographies, the field is still dominated by outsider ethnographies written mostly by westerners. Even though I argued that outsider ethnographies should be obsolete in a modern age, I wasn’t arguing from my heart, and I agree with you that there is just as much wealth in outsider ethnographies as there are in insider ethnographies; some observations will be missed by insider ethnographers, and combining perspectives gives us greater insight into music cultures. Though my response to Jake’s question wasn’t what I asked of you, I think our responses are related. You argued very well that outsider ethnographies are important, but I still think the dominance of them in the field is something that needs to be addressed.

So I’m wondering what you think, Joe. We both agree that outsider ethnographies are important, but are they over-represented in the field? If different voices are equally valid, is the voice of an outsider not trained in ethnomusicology as important as the voice of an outsider trained ethnomusicology? After all, ethnomusicologists may have biases taught into them by having to study western anthropological theory that you or I may not have. If our outsider opinions are as valid, what should the goals of trained ethnomusicologists be in a century when so many varying opinions are available because of technology? What makes trained ethnomusicologists perspectives unique that would justify their dominance, or does the academic field need to evolve to changing times?

Critical Review #9

Pacini Hernandez, Deborah. 1998. “Dancing with the Enemy: Cuban Popular Music, Race, Authenticity, and the World-Music Landscape.” Latin American Perspectives 25(3):110-125.

In her article “Dancing with the Enemy,” Deborah Pacini Hernandez writes about the history of Cuban music’s introduction into the western music and recording scene. Hernandez focuses a majority of her article on outlining Cuban music’s incorporation into the world-music genre.

Following the revolution, the Cuban government condemned racial prejudice and encouraged the cultivation of a unified Cuban identify rooted in African and Caribbean culture. The government provided financial support and elevated Afro-Cuban music and dance, particularly the rumba, to the status of national symbols (115). Other forms Caribbean music, such as salsa, emphasized Spanish roots. Because of Cuban’s music emphasis on its African roots, it was not originally produced on Latin music labels. Hernandez argues that this racial aspect “positioned Cuban music to enjoy easy acceptance within world-music networks” (116), whose primarily listeners were westerners attracted to the clear connections to traditional, in this case African/black, roots.

Question: Though the world-music label provided an outlet of Cuban and other musics to spread, does the phrase “world-music” have a harmful effect as well? Even if music becomes known because of these labels, is it right to use them?

Challenge Question Response

Question

Some of the readings we have done (Agawu, for example) have offered the view that ethnomusicology in some way perpetuates the colonial relationship between cultures of unequal status in world influence. These views range from the historical observation that ethnomusicology was born from the ideals of a western-centric society to the claim that the very act of studying another culture imposes, to some degree, a different culture upon it. Rather than discussing a specific reading, please focus on your own opinions as to where ethnomusicology falls on this admittedly broad spectrum. Feel free to offer suggestions for improvement, if you have them, but don't feel pressured to offer a solution to an issue that has plagued the entire field for decades. Please address this topic in either a 2-3 page paper or a 4-6 minute interpretive dance.

Response

It is important to separate the goals of ethnomusicology from the practice of ethnomusicology. Ethnomusicologists are interested in how the particulars of music (rhythm, melody, timbre, instrumentation, etc) arise in a culture and what role the music has in/on that culture. Defined goals such as these are common to all academic fields, and are not inherently bad. Though the goals of ethnomusicology are noble, the practice of ethnomusicology can be problematic. Western ethnographers are over represented in ethnomusicological writing, which perpetuates colonial relationships present in the field since its inception.

One ideal of ethnomusicology is to learn about a culture directly from "the source” but ethnomusicology from the first half of the 20th century could not achieve this. Transportation technology made direct communication between cultures impossible on a large scale; it was impractical for many people to experience a music-culture directly. Ethnomusicology unavoidably lent itself to the predominance of western scholars- the field needed the "crutch" of the traveling ethnomusicologist to record culture and report back with findings. Because of the importance of the traveling scholar in early ethnomusicology, most published ethnographies came from westerners rather than from the practitioner's of the music-cultures being studied.

One of the benefits of better transportation and telecommunication technology for ethnomusicology is the opportunity to reach this ideal of learning about a culture directly from "the source". Online publications such as in blogs make it possible to read about music-cultures from practitioners while affordable, fast, and reliable travel gives ethnomusicologists the opportunity to bring "the source" home. With the onset of these technological advances, I would expect the need for the "crutch" of a western traveling ethnographer to disappear. It would be possible for more papers to be written by non-westerners. This would be a more direct way getting information. We always filter cultures through our own bias. Reading an etic ethnography forces us to filter this culture twice-once through the ethnographer and once through ourselves, the readers. In technological society, there would be less of a place for outsider ethnographies; scholars could read ethnographies written by people who are part of the music-cultures they are writing about.

Though the world has experienced technological changes that could have these impacts on ethnomusicology, the field is still dominated by western ethnographers and is not a universal discipline. Universities still train budding ethnomusicologists in western theory to be applied to other cultures. Agawu points out that universities pay for westerners to travel to and study African cultures, instead of paying for Africans to study their own culture. While there may be something to gained from reading an outsider perspective on a culture, reading an insider perspective is a more efficient way of transferring information. Insider ethnographies are not by plagued by as many ethical problems traditional ethnographies are. In a time when technology allows for the benefits emic ethnographies, the predominance of western ethnographers in 1950s seems less shocking to me than their predominance today.

Critical Review #8

Campbell, Gavin James. 1997. “‘Old Can Be Used Instead of New’: Shape-Note Singing and the Crisis of Modernity in the New South, 1880-1920.” Journal of American Folklore 110(436):169-188.

In her article “Old Can be Used Instead of New” Gavin James Campbell describes the internal debate that occurred in the late 18th and early 20th centuries in the shape-note singing community over the direction of their music tradition. Campbell explains how the post-civil war introduction of gospel music in the South became synonymous with seven-shape note singing and created controversy with the four-shape note Sacred Harp tradition. Supporters saw the simple melodies with major harmonies in gospel music as progressive. Others saw it as a point of pride to continue singing the tradition songs from The Sacred Harp.

Campbell also gives a brief history of the revisions of The Sacred Harp during the time period. Though most editions that removed, and reharmonized old hymns while adding more gospel tunes failed to gain popularity, Joseph James’ minimalist revision satisfied conservative singers, yet still had an air of progress; James used better printing plates for his edition, and he included corrections, new as well as unpublished old tunes in an appendix, and detailed statistics about the book. Thus, James’ edition was a book both “rooted in timeless, universal values, and in the specific context of the turn of the century debates over progress and modernity” (183).

In writing about this debate in the shape-note singing tradition and revisions of The Sacred Harp, Campbell shows that shape-note singing was not a rigid tradition, but was subject to differing opinions and its own evolution.

Question: How should a music group or any music tradition moderate between tradition and modernity? Was it handled well in the shape-note singing tradition? Is there a “well”?