For Monday: the Christopher Small reading (Musicking: A Ritual in Social Space http://www.musekids.org/
Why is this "Musicking" reading important, you ask?
Christopher Small is one of the most influential thinkers about the nature of music and has had an enormous influence on what some people call the "classical change" movement. His book Musicking is a more extended discussion of his perspective and perspective-altering ideas, but the key ideas are summed up well in the lecture text. Greg Sandow, my friend who teaches among other things the "Classical Music in an Age of Pop" course at Juilliard (which I st in on last spring), wrote a lovely blog post about Small which is worth reading.
So I invite you to read the lecture thoroughly and suggest you'll profit from outlining it. That will get you to really did into it. Why not require you to outline it? Because I want to give you the opportunity to do a learning activity in order to learn something for the sake of learning it, not in fear of punishment (a bad grade) or in hopes of a reward (a good grade). What I can promise you is that really engaging with Small's ideas creates an opportunity that can change your life as a musician. (Which actually beats a good grade, anyway.)
Now the follow-up questions from today.
1). Some good debate today on "The human voice is the most natural [I like Kevin's substitution of "organic"] and powerful vehicle for musical self-expression. The difference in our voices add richness and depth to music."
Many of who our instrumentalists find we are more expressive playing our instruments, and argued in one way or another against this. My suggestion is to turn this assertion into a question. What if your voice is the most natural and powerful way for you to express yourself? How would it change your experience of being alive if you let yourself fully express yourself with your voice, just as it is? We each were great at expressing ourselves as infants--what happened?
2) The MfP (Music for People) Bill of Musical Rights is a statement of principles developed by people including many who would identify themselves as "recovering from our classical training." As I told you, one of my most wonderful colleagues here was initially offended by this document. Especially by "Sincerely expressed emotion is at the root of meaningful musical expression." This person is a fantastic artist. So why could my colleague, whose own music making is creative, flexible, and musical, dislike this? And in what way might he be right when it comes to classical music? (The two of us had a terrific, passionate debate about this, let me tell you!)
Comment away! Have a great weekend (or I hope you had one, if you are getting to this late Sunday night).
--EE
What I found most interesting about the reading was Chris Small"s definition of "Musicking." The fact that a music performance isn't just about the piece of music being played, but everyone involved, from the performer to the listener to the person selling tickets for the event, is a very creative way of looking at what music really is. I also liked how he said that there should be more emphasis put on the performer of a piece of music when one trys to define what music really is. We obviously all perform music for a reason. Why not include that in the definition? All in all I found the reading very eye opening.
ReplyDeleteI was kind of put off by some of his strong opinions about Western concert halls. However I appreciated his ending by emphasizing that people can disagree; he just wants questions to be asked.
ReplyDeleteAnd the ideas he was presenting were very thought provoking. I never really considered that any interaction with music (aka musicking) can be a type of ritual.
I don't think I quite followed the connection from music being about experiencing relationships (which I totally agree with) to our understanding of the cosmos.
The most interesting part for me was when Small delved into aspects of music being a form of communication. I have noticed this with other music thinkers (through reading or through listening), that music is truly a form of human communication. And it is about sending information between one another. He speaks about speaking and gesturing as if it were almost the same thing as performing a piece of music - and I believe it is. We can convey emotions and ideas through music just as easily (maybe not as clearly, but much more deeply) as through speaking.
ReplyDeleteSmalls states that music is not for the few privileged musicians "but is part of the evolutionary inheritance of every member of the human race." A book I read called Musicology, by Oliver Sacks, described music in an evolutionary standpoint - how it could have been our primary means of communication (and thus every human developing of "perfect pitch"). But Sacks discussed in it a fleeting matter, like it COULD have been a means of communication. I agree more with Smalls in the fact that music stuck around for longer as a means of communication, and every human being can celebrate "relationships" and the flow of information through performing any time of music. This idea of music really sticks with me - musicking as a means of communication, as part of the flow of information in and out.
I found it very interesting when Small redefined music as a verb, rather than a noun. It's not something that I've ever thought of. In my opinion, music can be what we see and hear; I never thought of it as an action. The fact that he included everyone from dancers or instrumentalists to the woman taking tickets at the door.
ReplyDeleteI support Small's comment on the responsibility that comes with music. "...is an activity in which all those present are involved, and for which all those present bear a responsibility. It isn't just a matter of composers, or even performers, actively doing something for the passive rest of us to contemplate. Whatever it is that is being done, we are all doing it together." I feel like this is what we strive to learn, not just as students, but also as members of our respective communities. It's our responsibility to make music and to keep the community involved.
I wasn't sure whether I was in a music class or an etymology course at first! I don't see the point in inventing a new word, but his way of looking at music affecting not only the listener but the performer and the composer as well was something i had never thought about, but was really interesting. I have always been deeply affected by the music I am performing, but I never thought about that, only what the audience would experience.
ReplyDeleteSecondly I love his ideas about music the point of music being about the relationships we form while making music. I knew that after a great performance I feel closer to my fellow performers than I do to many other people. It is something that I think we as future performers need to think about more, not only to improve our music but also to bring a new and fresh meaning to our musical worlds.
I found it very interesting when Small redefined music as a verb, rather than a noun. It's not something that I've ever thought of. In my opinion, music can be what we see and hear; I never thought of it as an action. The fact that he included everyone from dancers or instrumentalists to the woman taking tickets at the door.
ReplyDeleteI support Small's comment on the responsibility that comes with music. "...is an activity in which all those present are involved, and for which all those present bear a responsibility. It isn't just a matter of composers, or even performers, actively doing something for the passive rest of us to contemplate. Whatever it is that is being done, we are all doing it together." I feel like this is what we strive to learn, not just as students, but also as members of our respective communities. It's our responsibility to make music and to keep the community involved.
I suppose he is right in saying that "if you are are participating in any way at a music even you are musicking". We find ourselves daily judging music on its quality, when really every piece of music ever written has a motive suitable to its creator. Some of these motives are easily recognizable and loved by billions. Others are misunderstood and rejected. I also liked how he compared a heavy metal concert to an orchestra concert. How both are very popular forms of musicking and really aren't that different from each other in that respect.
ReplyDeleteI will agree with Kelsey in saying how odd it was for Small to redefine music as a verb. However, as I kept reading his article, it was hard to follow him most of the time. I don't think I quite agree with his idea of using music as a verb, to an extent at least, mostly because...the word music, itself, is just a general subject. Within music there's what types (how one is "musicking", what genres, and other specific things that the word "music" brings along. So I agree with Kevin in saying that maybe inventing a new word is unnecessary (and honestly, it seems a little lazy to create a word that has a meaning including: "to listen," "to perform," "to compose," etc.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER, one quote I did like was "the meaning, of music lies not in those objects but in the act of [musicking]." Although it seems like common sense that instruments can only take us so far in making music, it brought me back to Friday when we were talking about how a person, who has a chance to be critiqued by a highly known musician, is torn apart because he or she didn't play it "right" according to the critic. Personally, I love it when people add emotion to their playing and what not. It not only shows that the person is creative, but it gives a glimpse of who a person is. Sometimes the way we perform music, the expression, the color, tells a person (or an audience) a lot about who we are as an individual. We find and understand who we are, and then are able to incorporate that into our playing.
Anyway, I didn't enjoy this article much. It may be the fact that I still don't understand some of his points, but all I know is that it made me angry.
I was totally struck by his theory that music and musicking is all about relationships. I really had never thought about it that way before....but it makes sense. I music for my own enjoyment of course, but I also love to perform for people and share the music that I love. It brings people together as well as bringing people closer to the enigma that is music. I say enigma because, while Small has attempted to define music and what it does, his analysis has only raised more questions for me; how can apply his relationship theory to my own playing? Does music facilitate relationships, or is it vice versa? I love investigating the topic, but it's frustrating at the same time.
ReplyDeleteAs for the actually word "musicking"....I love it! Some people say it's unnecessary to invent a new word, but we aren't really inventing a word, we're just using the word "music" in a different way. In some ways, though, it really is necessary; we need a kind of ambiguous word to talk about music because, as this and other articles illustrate, there is no concrete, specific way to describe it. The term "musicking" covers the areas of performing, listening, and composing, but also those other aspects that aren't really tangible or able to be described.
Unlike Kevin or Sarah, I believe Small's "invention" of musicking as a new word is very much necessitated. (Actually Smalls didn't invent the term. He simply redefined it, as it "does in fact have an obscure existence in some of the larger English dictionaries".) As Dan pointed out, we need to redefine the term "music" in order to fully realize its possibilities, in order to fully experience its powerful effects.
ReplyDeleteI identify immensely with Small's assertion that the core of music lies in "performance". As a Jazzer (another musical neologism), I have the most fun performing and interacting with other musicians, as well as an audience. The greatest pleasure I experience from musicking occurs when the audience (or fellow performers) express their appreciation at a delicious lick. The more hootin' and hollerin' the better!
What I found most important about the reading is that Small and Hurricane Yo-Yo echo the same sentiment of what music (or musicking) truly means. Performing is more than just having everything memorized and technically perfected, it is more than just the motion and repetition - it is the passion and ripples it creates in audiences lives. Personally, when I play jazz music, it makes me feel warm, happy, and at home - and I can only imagine the Count Basie Orchestra or Ellington band playing in front of an open dance floor in the 60's, Wynton with the Las Angelos Philharmonic in Carnival of Venice, Christopher Martin soaring over the CSO in the Haydn, and it's that response and participation that is truly musicking and an art.
ReplyDeleteI found Small's discussion of the triad of the composer, performer, and listener the most interesting. We usually think of performers as the most important part of the musical experience, but Small says they are merely servants. Servants should do their "menial job" as "unobtrusively" as possible. Performers are just conveying the messages written by the composers for the listeners. Their job in the equation is relatively unimportant. This makes me want to in my performance learn more about the composer's message to more accurately portray it to their intended audience.
ReplyDeleteCaitlin, I believe Small believes, like most of us do, that performers are indeed "the most important part of the musical experience". The line you quoted from the article was actually Emmanuel Kant's view of the performer, not Small's. Small quoted Kant to expose the absurdity of such a belief as implied in the following paragraph when he dismissed Kant's opinions as the musings of a man, disconnected from reality, who spent his life "writing year after year in his musty study."
ReplyDeleteIn Small's words, "There can be no music apart from performance."
I also found the fact that Small described performance as the essential factor in understanding music to be extremely eye-opening and interesting. It is something that I'm sure many of us as performance majors have failed to think deeply about. Though, it makes sense. Music comes alive when it is being performed. Without the performance of music there is nothing but the composer's notion. However, it seems that scholars and teachers in the musical world choose to spend their time reflecting on what composers have done rather than what performers are doing. I also found it interesting that Small described performance as a "sacred ritual." Small comments on the ritual saying that performance itself is the art (almost forgoing the compositional aspect). He continues to say, that performance is the heart of several of relationships including relationships to concert space, audience members, and fellow performers. I now feel that we all have a much greater responsibility than assumed to carry out his task of interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI think Small had a lot of good points. His reframing of music as an activity that resides in a larger culture was refreshing, and I quite enjoyed the discussion of Western concert halls. In fact this is something I was wondering about at the jazz concert last week. While sitting in my velvety red seat, trying not to tap my toes too violently - it struck me that the genre of jazz did not originate in a concert hall, and is in fact very ill-suited for the setting. The audience should have been up dancing, not sitting there in rows as if attending a lecture on the history of jazz.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of a project somewhere to build a concert hall with a reconfigurable seating area built on hydraulics. (I searched google but couldn't find a link.) The idea was to have a more adaptable space that could be changed quickly from traditional concert hall to theater in the round or whatnot.
So maybe there is hope!
I agree with Small's point that music is a way of communication. I have always been fascinated how many different languages there are in the world. This made me think of how difficult it must be to communicate, until i realize that music in itself is like a giant unifying language. I have heard many music educators say that music has the power to unite a nation, while language has the power to break apart a nation. Like Kevin said, after performing with a group of musicians there is a certain kind of connection built. This connection is what we are music students are slowly developing, however in the long run this connection is what allows for music to be used as a language, or way of communication.
ReplyDelete