Drawing from other research I've done (and mentioned previously), I find a lot of similarities between Wald's analysis of the "corridos" in Mexican/SW American culture, and the culture of British 19th century music halls. While the latter emphasized variety performance--dance, song, comedy, cabaret, theatre, etc.--both seemingly serve(d) a dual function as both a recognized popular style, as well as a conduit of subcultural lore. As Wald characterized: "Since their inception, corridos have been a sort of musical literature and newspaper for the working class community... they have always gone in for a good deal of tabloid sensationalism, and frequently mixed truth and fiction, but they also continue to transmit the news and cultural information that is of interest to their audience." [p216] Similarly, the London music halls served as popular nighttime entertainment for all, yet were of particular popularity for those "in the know," who read through the often comical or satirical fare to grasp working-class social, cultural or political subtexts. In my mind, that certain aspects of music go unknown to entire populations of listeners is significant because it multiplies the role that music can have; the dual function of music to entertain and inform implicates both the performer and the audience in the music itself.
Discussion question(s): so, how can it do this? How does music take on a role of something more than just "the music itself"? What is it in the music that fosters some to take it at face-value and others to decode? Furthermore, what can one discern of a subculture centered around such musics? Is immersion necessary for understanding?
Monday, April 20, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Critical Review - Wayne&Wax
I'd like to comment specifically on an observation made early in the Wayne&Wax post "we use so many snares." In this post, Wayne notes that "reggaeton is an Internet music" and to me this is a crucial point that contextualizes how one perceives reggaeton and what goes into its composition. Particularly in light of other "Internet musics," the composition directly effects how individuals consume music, how it is performed live, and how people identify with the music itself. To emphasize my point, to underscore the importance of prefacing a music as an "Internet music" I would like to refer to an example we often use in class.
GirlTalk, masher-upper extraordinaire, stands at the pinnacle of digital music, exploiting the possibilities of both digital composition--in his meticulous splicing and laptop performance--as well as digital distribution--sweeping dorm room playlists through viral videos and MySpace links. Both these uses of digital technology connect GirlTalk with his audience, yet distance him from the music. In composing his tracks, GirlTalk does not conventionally write a melody nor a chord progression, he simply lifts snippets from other songs (albeit masterfully). The music is thus reduced to simple ctrl-X/ctrl-V commands, detached from the sounds themselves; the beat becomes regulated by its BPM, not by its "feel." This deconstruction of the "music itself" is further reflected in GirlTalk's live performance: an obviously over-compensating spectacle of stages full of fans in Day-Glo garb, aggrandizing a musician whose music is entirely pre-composed. Granted, this participation connects fan to artist, yet illustrates the inherent limits of digital music composition.
My point in using this example is not to accuse reggaeton of any such distance, but simply to frame further analysis of the genre by identifying the pitfalls already experienced by a (not so) distant relative. Wayne's detailed analysis (and examples) of reggaeton rhythms visually break down this simplistic view of composition--instead of previous generations speaking of the "feel" of different rhythmic patterns, different regional tendencies, he now makes his case by showing us FruityLoop sequences. On one hand, it opens the doors of composition to innumerable young beat-makers and aspiring reggaeton artists, yet conversely exposes its restrictions.
Discussion question(s): How can digital composition and live performance be reconciled? What works? What doesn't? Does seeing the process behind reggaeton broken down and analyzed in any way detract from the "music itself" or emphasize its artistry?
GirlTalk, masher-upper extraordinaire, stands at the pinnacle of digital music, exploiting the possibilities of both digital composition--in his meticulous splicing and laptop performance--as well as digital distribution--sweeping dorm room playlists through viral videos and MySpace links. Both these uses of digital technology connect GirlTalk with his audience, yet distance him from the music. In composing his tracks, GirlTalk does not conventionally write a melody nor a chord progression, he simply lifts snippets from other songs (albeit masterfully). The music is thus reduced to simple ctrl-X/ctrl-V commands, detached from the sounds themselves; the beat becomes regulated by its BPM, not by its "feel." This deconstruction of the "music itself" is further reflected in GirlTalk's live performance: an obviously over-compensating spectacle of stages full of fans in Day-Glo garb, aggrandizing a musician whose music is entirely pre-composed. Granted, this participation connects fan to artist, yet illustrates the inherent limits of digital music composition.
My point in using this example is not to accuse reggaeton of any such distance, but simply to frame further analysis of the genre by identifying the pitfalls already experienced by a (not so) distant relative. Wayne's detailed analysis (and examples) of reggaeton rhythms visually break down this simplistic view of composition--instead of previous generations speaking of the "feel" of different rhythmic patterns, different regional tendencies, he now makes his case by showing us FruityLoop sequences. On one hand, it opens the doors of composition to innumerable young beat-makers and aspiring reggaeton artists, yet conversely exposes its restrictions.
Discussion question(s): How can digital composition and live performance be reconciled? What works? What doesn't? Does seeing the process behind reggaeton broken down and analyzed in any way detract from the "music itself" or emphasize its artistry?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Research... not going as planned.
For all those in my class reading this, this is an open request for help.
In beginning my research, I have found more and more obstacles in what I thought would be a straightforward subject of research. For those who don't know, my initial research proposal is here -- it outlines my intention to survey at least 100 Brown students to identify quantitative data on iPod use. My hope with this survey was to determine what people used their iPods for, how they were incorporated into their daily life, to what extent people identified with digital music, what genres of music people used most, generally what the relationship was between subject and technology via the iPod. However, after a sample of this survey, the preliminary results proved quite opposite.
The cross-section of Brown students revealed the entire spectrum of iPod use. Some would say this is a good thing--I disagree... somewhat. My aim was to reach specific conclusions as to how people interacted with their iPod, how they used it in their daily life, and in fact to generalize this usage to broader conclusions that might illuminate college students and their patterns of digital music consumption. However, what I now predict I will find in further research is that these patterns cannot be generalized and (for the most part) cannot be summed by quantitative data because it simply reinforces the undefinable versatility of the iPod as a malleable technology. Because of the great variety in my initial findings, I have now decided to forgo the quantitative portion of my research and focus specifically on qualitative profiles of iPod users, ones which can then be compared to form a cross-section of iPod usage.
I will admit two primary mistakes in my research thus far, two that I hope will illuminate the problem so that those reading this may understand where I was coming from in undertaking this project and may understand where I need to go. My first mistake was generalizing a student population that, at face value, often seems homogeneous in taste yet is in fact quite broad. I assumed that genres of music would be consistent, downloading patterns too, and that surveys would produce statistics that reinforced my initial hypotheses that iPods were in fact a dominant means of music consumption, often used in a similar manner by varying users. My hypothesis was wrong: wrong not only in its superficial evaluation of the Brown student body but also wrong in how greatly I underestimated the versatility of the iPod--both in its technical features and in the creativity of its users. My second mistake was my interview: I interviewed someone out of my target range, hoping that an older iPod user would shed light on the student population and in fact bring context to trends among student groups. In fact, this interview only confused me, complicating my survey findings yet assuring me that I needed to change direction.
Class: this is where you come in.
Think about your friends. Think about their iPods. Think about their music in dorm rooms, dining halls, locker rooms, house parties, frat lounges, libraries, back porches, wherever. When you think of music in all these different contexts, what comes to mind?
I don't mean to stereotype music in these different locales, quite the opposite. I really want your feedback because in reading these surveys (primarily from people I didn't know) I came to understand that the cross-section of student iPod users extended beyond what I would have guessed, and I hope that you all can help me find these extremities of which I was unaware. So perhaps I should rephrase my question: if you had to describe how three friends used their iPods differently from one another, what would they be? Could you guess why?
By taking these suggestions, I would like to dissect the different iPod uses and varying iPod technologies. What is the difference, say, between one who owns a iPod Shuffle (without a display screen) and one who owns an iPhone (with an accessible iTunes store)? How can one compare one who meticulously outlines playlists for moods, settings, genres, and one who lives and dies by the shuffle feature? By what criteria can one measure one uses their iPod to augment their vinyl collection and one who solely downloads illegal files? These are but a few of the questions I now realize I am unable to answer quantitatively and questions that I need help in answering. What say you? How can I redirect my research to a more productive, nay, illuminating end?
So to conclude, really, I have no new research to speak of. In fact, I'm almost starting over. Kiri, Liam: my apologies. More information is soon to come, and hopefully from the comments of this post. But if nothing else, I am learning during this research not to put the cart before the horse and think that hypotheses will in any way guide actual findings. Hopefully, I can find subjects willing to offer in-depth, qualitative information that will better illustrate the culture of the iPod and how it so deeply (and distinctly) ingrains itself with each user.
To all: think, next time you plug in your earbuds. Your iPod may hold more than mp3s.
In beginning my research, I have found more and more obstacles in what I thought would be a straightforward subject of research. For those who don't know, my initial research proposal is here -- it outlines my intention to survey at least 100 Brown students to identify quantitative data on iPod use. My hope with this survey was to determine what people used their iPods for, how they were incorporated into their daily life, to what extent people identified with digital music, what genres of music people used most, generally what the relationship was between subject and technology via the iPod. However, after a sample of this survey, the preliminary results proved quite opposite.
The cross-section of Brown students revealed the entire spectrum of iPod use. Some would say this is a good thing--I disagree... somewhat. My aim was to reach specific conclusions as to how people interacted with their iPod, how they used it in their daily life, and in fact to generalize this usage to broader conclusions that might illuminate college students and their patterns of digital music consumption. However, what I now predict I will find in further research is that these patterns cannot be generalized and (for the most part) cannot be summed by quantitative data because it simply reinforces the undefinable versatility of the iPod as a malleable technology. Because of the great variety in my initial findings, I have now decided to forgo the quantitative portion of my research and focus specifically on qualitative profiles of iPod users, ones which can then be compared to form a cross-section of iPod usage.
I will admit two primary mistakes in my research thus far, two that I hope will illuminate the problem so that those reading this may understand where I was coming from in undertaking this project and may understand where I need to go. My first mistake was generalizing a student population that, at face value, often seems homogeneous in taste yet is in fact quite broad. I assumed that genres of music would be consistent, downloading patterns too, and that surveys would produce statistics that reinforced my initial hypotheses that iPods were in fact a dominant means of music consumption, often used in a similar manner by varying users. My hypothesis was wrong: wrong not only in its superficial evaluation of the Brown student body but also wrong in how greatly I underestimated the versatility of the iPod--both in its technical features and in the creativity of its users. My second mistake was my interview: I interviewed someone out of my target range, hoping that an older iPod user would shed light on the student population and in fact bring context to trends among student groups. In fact, this interview only confused me, complicating my survey findings yet assuring me that I needed to change direction.
Class: this is where you come in.
Think about your friends. Think about their iPods. Think about their music in dorm rooms, dining halls, locker rooms, house parties, frat lounges, libraries, back porches, wherever. When you think of music in all these different contexts, what comes to mind?
I don't mean to stereotype music in these different locales, quite the opposite. I really want your feedback because in reading these surveys (primarily from people I didn't know) I came to understand that the cross-section of student iPod users extended beyond what I would have guessed, and I hope that you all can help me find these extremities of which I was unaware. So perhaps I should rephrase my question: if you had to describe how three friends used their iPods differently from one another, what would they be? Could you guess why?
By taking these suggestions, I would like to dissect the different iPod uses and varying iPod technologies. What is the difference, say, between one who owns a iPod Shuffle (without a display screen) and one who owns an iPhone (with an accessible iTunes store)? How can one compare one who meticulously outlines playlists for moods, settings, genres, and one who lives and dies by the shuffle feature? By what criteria can one measure one uses their iPod to augment their vinyl collection and one who solely downloads illegal files? These are but a few of the questions I now realize I am unable to answer quantitatively and questions that I need help in answering. What say you? How can I redirect my research to a more productive, nay, illuminating end?
So to conclude, really, I have no new research to speak of. In fact, I'm almost starting over. Kiri, Liam: my apologies. More information is soon to come, and hopefully from the comments of this post. But if nothing else, I am learning during this research not to put the cart before the horse and think that hypotheses will in any way guide actual findings. Hopefully, I can find subjects willing to offer in-depth, qualitative information that will better illustrate the culture of the iPod and how it so deeply (and distinctly) ingrains itself with each user.
To all: think, next time you plug in your earbuds. Your iPod may hold more than mp3s.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Critical Review - Flores
I didn't even really know what 'boogaloo' was. I have been listening to a record called "Boogaloo to Beck" for years, a jazz tribute record to pop icon Beck, wondering what it meant: is the sound boogaloo? Are the songs boogaloo? Did they mean to write "bungalow"? Wtf? Needless to say, I was quite surprised to actual learn the history of boogaloo as Flores here describes it.
However, to hear that boogaloo is regarded as a short-lived, disregarded genre seemed funny to me because (though I should have guessed that) I actually that it must be some developed jazz subgenre, intricate and inaccessible. I find it interesting that a genre cast aside would then be appropriated by jazz artists. Anyway, while I realize it sounds like an aside, my discussion question relates:
Discussion question(s): Is musical language recycled? Genres? Styles? If so, how? Do the cultural associations transfer with the revivals or interpretations of a genre such as boogaloo? Where have we seen a similar appropriation of one music by another, and how has it functioned differently?
However, to hear that boogaloo is regarded as a short-lived, disregarded genre seemed funny to me because (though I should have guessed that) I actually that it must be some developed jazz subgenre, intricate and inaccessible. I find it interesting that a genre cast aside would then be appropriated by jazz artists. Anyway, while I realize it sounds like an aside, my discussion question relates:
Discussion question(s): Is musical language recycled? Genres? Styles? If so, how? Do the cultural associations transfer with the revivals or interpretations of a genre such as boogaloo? Where have we seen a similar appropriation of one music by another, and how has it functioned differently?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
