Discussion Questions for Hood
Discussion Questions; for all responses, provide examples and specific line citations.
Remember, each student is asked to provide a minimum total of 12 lines in response to the following questions, using the "Comments" feature below. Please indicate clearly which Discussion Question you are responding to in your comment(s). [Edited to add]: You are encouraged to respond not only to the Questions but also to other seminar members' comments.Also note: Comments function for this set of Questions will be open only through Nov 23 11am; you must complete your comments prior to that deadline.
1. Hood notes that even “ingenuous” music, from elsewhere than the Industrial West, entails training in basic musicianship. This is another observation that might seem obvious in hindsight. Why does Hood make such an "obvious" point? Is he responding to an alternate position that might believe "ingenuous music" does *not* employ "training in basic musicianship"? Why might opposing scholars *need* to hold this view?
2. Be prepared to precisely define the expectations Hood assigns to "bi-musicality." He is actually quite specific about all the factors that go into cross-cultural musical competence. In other words, what, for Hood, is the "yardstick" which reveals a sufficient ability to cross musical/cultural boundaries?
3. Hood is a proponent of musical participation in ethnomusicology. What other philosophies of ethnomusicology might he be contesting?
4. The idea that cultural or ethnic background precludes musicianship also may seem like an outrageously dated (and implicitly racist) opinion--one which is now thankfully, largely, disappeared. However, the idea that ethnicity or "cultural characteristics" somehow might *enable* certain kinds of musicianship does still appear--it is the old question of "nature vs nurture". What doors does such a presumption close or open? In what example idioms?
5. What is the “laundry list” of specific musical skills he says are essential for “bi-musicality”? What learning approaches does he describe for addressing specific skills?
6. What *specific reasons* does Hood provide justifying the selection of improvisation as "the crowning achievement"? Why is improvisation the last, most difficult hurdle? What are all the constituent elements that Hood says must go into fluency in improvisation?
7. What is the full range of "knowings" he says are essential "rules" that must guide improvisation?
8. How does Hood fold this argument back, away from "other" musics, to question or expand approaches to "own" musics?
posted by CJS at 6:36 PM
4 Comments:
I am not going to answer specific question numbers as I feel the following statements refer to all of them. The best way to understand anything is to actually "do it." I believe he made use of a detailed explanation of playing the gender to give insight to the reader of the complexity of playing instruments and their music, which employs different techniques, other than the ones known through Western tradition. His statements on "perfect pitch" relate completely to breaking down the walls created by the musician who has learned a specific way. He almost seems to knock down the tried and true habits of the Western musical tradition, but he is really saying to the reader that our learning is not the "be all end all." Printed music cannot ever create actual music, not even for the Western musician. Notation is only a "primitive" way of recording (I think I found the proper use of the word primitive ;) . The crazy part is that when I have studied "other" musics with instructors from the region, I always had a learning experience that had nothing to do with notation (Gamelon, North and South Indian drumming, and Cuban folkoric drumming). It usually involved the tasks that we take for granted: listening, practice, performance.
The only thing that Hood seems to forget is a perception of history and place. You cannot be enculturated into the music without an understanding of the life. Unfortunately, he made mention of the statement that if you are not born into it then you cannot understand it. Of course, this is wrong, as there are many people in the world today who have proven that statement wrong. But, there is some truth to the statement, because understanding of music relates closely to understanding of life, society, whatever is perceived.
1. I think Hood makes a point that music from places of than the East do need basic musicianship because in 1959, I think, sadly, that other scholars and people believed that music from a place other than the wonderful West didn’t need basic musicianship. There was the mentality that Western music was the only “real” music. Pg 55, 5th paragraph is where Hood first talks about a musician in Japan being “bi-musical.” I think this is a very true statement. I think opposing scholars need to hold the view that music from other lands does not need basic musicianship because they fully do not understand music from other lands. Sure they may have read an article from another scholar who possesses the same views, but they themselves have not put forth the effort to learn music from other lands and to experience that firsthand. Hood makes a smart observation in the expressing of “bi-musicality.”
3. I completely agree with Stefan in that Hood is contesting the German driven ways of conducting ethnomusicology and someone also said lab driven. Hood wants people to go out into the world and do the observation for themselves. He understands the importance of participant observation. Pg 56, 2nd paragraph states that a person without formal musical training has an easier time playing by rote than a person who “misses the page.” As a person who has been taught by notation and has tried learning music by rote not only in my fieldwork with the gospel choir, but in celtic ensemble, that stuff is just plain hard. It really helps a musicethnographer understand what is going on in the study if they themselves go through the same hoops.
5. I agree with Jeremy in the fact that in the West, audiation has not been used more frequently. As a one trick pony, singing being my only side-step, I do not have the first hand knowledge of having to learn a part on an instrument and then equating that knowledge through my fingers or through a reed or lips. I do however agree with Jeremy that it should happen more in the West because it does engrain the part in the brain. I will often hum my part to make sure I know it before setting the same melody to words. I think this is a part in becoming “bi-musical.” One needs to learn aural training, imitation of music by rote, and basic memorization of tones.
2. I like how Dr Smith said you must have the hands and ears and cultural perceptions to be bi-musical. Hood states that you must understand the language, religion, customs, and history. So yes, to be bi-musical is to be bi-cultural.
3. Hood as a proponent of musical participation could be protesting the philosophies of those who were out to preserve a culture and it’s music. They were never worried about participation.
4. Immediately I thought of the generalization, “all black people have rhythm.” This is not true. However, a child that grew up in a home that instruments around and even rehearsals or jam sessions within those walls, will have better odds of growing up with a more developed ear. Therefore it is best to nurture what nature has helped. That may not have answered the question, but that is my opinion of Nature vs Nature.
Generalities:
The ability to HEAR, to break ourselves away from the written page, from the idea of ‘perfect pitch’, & to understand that tonality is a concept, a construction of Western ears/minds, & that it CANNOT/DOES NOT apply to music from outside that sphere. From #2
Observational techniques as the sum total of ‘learning’ foreign musics. From #3
The idea that cultural or ethnic background might enable us towards certain kinds of musicianship may denigrate the contributions of practitioners NOT part of the generally accepted community that makes up that background. This is like saying one MUST be black to play the blues or rap, or MUST be white to play country & western music. Additionally, it may place expectations on those outside of the cultural background to mimic or imitate the ‘lowest common denominator’ elements that are picked up by mainstream eyes/ears. Further, the idea that culture is ‘ingrained’ is (perhaps) a false pretense, it seems to me that it created as we evolve (as individuals, as communities, etc), & that, for instance, someone like Dr. John or Miles Davis COULD have decided to go in another musical direction if they chose to do so (by choosing elements from a different culture than what they were exposed to). From #4
Understanding the PEOPLE & the CULTURE that have made this music, in addition to all of the technical demands the music places on those who attempt to play it & improvise in its framework. From #7
Post a Comment
<< Home