For Monday:
1) Learn ALL the rhythms for Jansa, and be able to say/clap/body drum each. You already know three of them ("bang the drum homey," "hitting the drum, and now I'm . . . ," and "the dun dun"). The last two are shown on the 2nd dun-dun line. The part notated with Xs is the bell, and you'll see that the second measure is very easy to remember. The dun-dun part is not all that complicated, either.
2) Read, be prepared to discuss (i.e., take notes, highlight, etc.) p 1-4 of the Small "Musicking" lecture (through paragraph 20). And write a coment on the blog about it.
- Add a comment about the Small reading to this post.
- Write at least two paragraphs about how Small's two main assertions, that music is an activity rather than a thing, and that the meaning of musical performances comes from relationships more than works, resonates with your experience.
Be sure to bring a hard copy of the article for easy reference during class.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I deleted my post instead of editing it. Sorry. I feel that this is a very personal article from how it is written. It is a personal experience much like music is for the author and he wants the readers to be part of like a audience is at a performance. He really focuses on the human experience that makes a performance so great. I also want to say we have heard the term musicking in the darling interviews.
DeleteIt was an interesting article. I didn't like the delivery of what was said though. I wish he had presented it in a normal paragraph form, that would make it easier to read. Interesting to hear from this perspective.
ReplyDeleteI really like this statement he made: "I find it hard to make myself believe that so universal and so concrete a human activity as music should require such complicated and abstract explanations". Too many times have I understood something in music but not be able to put it into words or a tangible idea. I feel like we as intelligent humans do this a lot. We tend to over analyze things until they become something completely different than the original idea. I really like he concept of performance. I don't know about you but the word "work" has a bad connotation with it. The idea of the meaning of music and its function in human life is daunting to most people. It reminds me of the age old question: What is the meaning of life? It is a difficult concept to grasp. But I agree with the way Small approaches it. Instead of looking at from musical works, we should look at it with performing. My experience with performing is that when the audience is engaged, I find that I perform better. I do think that the idea of music as a verb rather than a noun is little strange. My brain can't quite grasp that concept. I think that music can both a activity and a thing. Why does it have to be one or the other? The actual performance of music is the activity and the sounds that we call music are the things. When I'm performing and when I'm being part of an audience I get the same feeling during a performance. It is this warm feeling and my heart starts pounding in my chest but it's a good pounding. It is this feeling that...I just can't describe it. This would be one of those moments when I can't put words to what I know and feel. But as musicians I hope you have that same feeling. I love it. That's what makes me what to pursue a career in music.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I noticed about the post was the way it numbered the points and I didn't like it that way because it was slightly confusing. I did like the different way it presented the information though. The individual points were easy to follow but it jumped around quite a bit. I liked reading more details and seeing a different set of facts about the evidence. I enjoyed this article but I liked the first one a lot more.
ReplyDelete"What is the nature of music?" I am going to be perfectly blunt - my inquisitions regarding music have never actually crossed over to such a philosophical realm. I had always assumed music to be something of relationships and of collaboration. Observing these "remote" philosophical statements which regard art as a thing, or as an object, I couldn't help but think - How can such a concrete definition lead to such "abstract explanations"? Music cannot be objectified in such a way that takes humanity out of the picture. Because when we look at music, it is a primary form of HUMAN expression; one that has no meaning or value if human interaction is absent. This lecture beautifully depicted the seemingly obvious truth behind the humanity of music...or musicking.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, creating music is most rewarding when more than one person is involved. I had always wondering why my most memorable musical moments involved my band director smiling at me, or my best friend gleaming from across the stage during our last band concert. Arguably, music is absolutely found in relationships. It is why we get so excited to show our friends new music we have stumbled upon - we as humans revel in expression of emotion and seek others to participate in our lives. WE ARE NOT SOLITARY BEINGS. Music is just one of many forms of communicating - one that EVERYONE is capable of participating in. We as musicians have simply chosen to designate it as one of our primary means of communicating.
I really liked the perspective taken by this author. The way he approaches music makes more sense because music is something that everyone experiences at a basic level at least. Western philosophers' lofty approach doesn't encapsulate the musical experience that people relate to.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciated the discussion of physical relation and ritual experience. These considerations bring the thesis to a higher level of complexity. Rather than presenting a simple definition of music, Small actually elevates his argument to include ideas that can construct a new philosophical approach to replace the existing models.
Small’s assertion that music is more of a verb than a noun is in some ways very valid to me. However, I still do not agree fully. If what he says applies, then by “musicking” what would one create? Unless the creation is meaning? The way that Small puts it I am reminded of a foundation that I learned in early elementary school: music is a language. If we as a population can embrace this assumption it will make music more accessible to people (possible FYS event theme? “Music is Language”/”Musicking”) who are not traditional “musicians”.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to me that Small analyzed how works have influenced the music definition and culture as opposed to how people in a certain time have reacted to it. Intrinsically, I think that music IS a representation of the time period, people and culture, but the ways that it is interpreted shift as the population shifts. As with literary works and with art, the object itself is not its own definition because art is subjective and the meaning is all in the interpretation. Thinking about music in this way could apply to the current shift in classical music audiences and reactions. What traditional musicians are currently clinging to is this stodgy interpretation of music instead of treating music as a language to communicate meaning from performer to composer to listener. If musicians can embrace this idea more than classical music may evolve more efficiently and less painfully. Music is for the individual though it affects the whole of the population, the specific work may be beautiful, but it is the reaction and feeling toward it that is what matters. “Music” (works) are the stimulus and Emotional Connection (what Small seems to be discussing) is the product that we strive for.
that music is an activity rather than a thing, and that the meaning of musical performances comes from relationships more than works, resonates with your experience.
ReplyDeleteThough I enjoyed this section of the article, I found it a little repetitive. He repeats his ideas over and over, and eventually I was annoyed. Thankfully, his ideas are interesting.
Thinking about it, I definitely agree with him on his definition of music as an activity. Too often we find ourselves thinking about the score (or worse, our individual parts) when "music" is mentioned. Music is the notes, yes, but it is also the performing of the notes, the conducting, the listening, the venue, the context, etc. And though performing is one of the most obvious aspects of music, it is one that is usually under appreciated. Performers do, as Small asserts, have one of the closest relationships with music (the verb and the noun). Yet when discussing music the noun, they are often left out of the conversation. The use of music the verb seems to try to rectify this.
While I don't think ALL of the meaning of musical performances come from relationships, I do agree that they are a very big part of the meaning. Playing music requires a relationship between musicians- a good relationship, hopefully. The audience has a relationship with the musicians because they are hearing and interpreting what they are playing. These things are true- I am just not sure if it's truly as deep as Small is getting at. Things to look into...
*oops. forgot to delete the prompt.
DeleteI have knowingly experienced both points in my life. The first, that music is more akin to being a verb than a noun, a process rather tan a product, is something I've encountered commonly through composition--namely writing counterpoint. There's always something I felt I could do to make it better, flow more smoothly, be more euphonic, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe second point is something I've felt and described for most of my life, and it's the reason that I wanted to pursue a music performance degree. Performance night makes doggedly rehearsed music new again. I've felt connected with my audience and other performance enough to know that what makes music is an audience and its performers, not one or the other. Without audience support, older works of music would be forgotten. Without performers, music would still be on paper, without the nuances of interpretation, and that is not music, or at least not music as we know it today. If a performance is fully engaged, an audience and performers share the same sense of immersion, if not euphoria, to the same degree, and the energy of one group feeds off the other, and vice versa, until everyone reaches an equal ground of satisfaction in the experience. This is a sensation I've felt time and again as a performer.
I completely agree with music being an activity rather than a thing. A thing is just there. You can do as you please with it and t will just stand there in stillness. Music has the potential to be in movement constantly. It is an activity that is just waiting to happen, its energy constantly in the process of building up. With music your mind is constantly analyzing what is being presented, even if you don't realize it. It is incredibly interactive and personal.
ReplyDeleteThe statement he makes about the meaning of musical performances and how it comes from relationships more than works hits so close to home. Think about it for a second. Every person that takes part in a performance (be it the performer, the audience, those who tune the piano, those that do the lights) matters. If one of those people were to be missing from the performance it would be incomplete. There is no performance without an audience and vice versa. The performer will not be able to be seen if those who are working the lights were to not show up to work that day. The chain goes on and on. Musical works are honestly just ink on paper. It is the musician, the audience, the moment that makes it music. For example, at home I will often go to restaurants and if they have a piano I will sit down and play. At this one particular French restaurant I was on their baby grand piano taking requests. This one adorable elderly woman came up to me and requested I play the L'adieu waltz by Chopin. I know, the piece like the back of hand, it may be simple but it is lyrically and musically so beautiful. She explained to me how she met her husband in France at a bar while a pianist was playing that song, therefore, making the song very close to her heart. I smiled and told her what a lovely story it was and then proceeded to play her requested piece. As I was performing it, I couldn't help but imagine a young man and woman catching each others eyes at a bar; instantly falling in love. It was an amazing moment which just verifies the fact that musical performances are really made out of relationships. I'm going to sound like a broken record but its the relationships between your audience, relationship with your instrument, relationships with the place you're performing, etc. that makes music.