Anna’s Blog

“Tic, Tic, Tac” was interesting- it sounded as if it was referencing hip-hop (vocal style and the sound of scratching records) and traditional Andean music. The traditional Andean reference was provided by a panpipe; the panpipe seems to have become one of the most important icons of the indigenous in cosmopolitan styles, instead of the many other instruments used in indigenous contexts. Out of the roles of the icon in music Turino discussed, the most plausible here is authenticity. The sound of a panpipe grounds the music in a particular cultural context, demonstrating how the artist wants to be identified. “Nunca Pense en Llorar” differs from the traditional examples we listened to in many ways. In terms of instrumentation, it uses an electric guitar and what sounds like synthesized sounds (maybe a drum kit?). It also has a steady, driving beat and Western harmonies and influence on distinct parts. The texture is much more transparent, and the music is definitely not participatory. Also, there is a prominent vocalist. “Valio la Pena Esperar” is also very different. The electric guitar here doesn’t even have the bright timbre that guitars usually have in the cosmopolitan ensembles we studied; it sounds almost like metal. There is also a drum kit, and once again, a driving beat. The texture is denser than the other piece, which is more similar to the traditional aesthetic. However, it is structured around harmonies and chords that support the vocalist.

Doesn’t sound like any of the Andean music we’ve listened to…El Condor Pasa 

I thought the intervals used in “Lambango” sounded interesting- they didn’t sound familiar to my Western ear. The instrumental part sounded cyclical, providing a steady backing for the two vocalists. Their singing sounded more like a dialogue than singing together, as if they represented two people singing. I wonder if the text substantiates this. All together, the piece sounded more similar to the “traditional” music we listened to from Zimbabwe. “Sada Diallo”, then, came as a surprise. It reminded me of the pieces we listened to by Thomas Mapfumo. As in “Lambango”, the guitar part seemed to provide a cyclical backing for the vocals, but now a drum kit kept the beat and the singers harmonized. The male solo vocalist used a vocal style more similar to “Lambango”, but the intervals sounded more Western. In the same way, “Piracy” used more modern instruments and vocal styles, though the dialogue style of the singing in “Lambango” made an appearance. The male vocalist sounded almost as if he were rapping; I don’t know when this piece was recorded or if hip-hop had any influence on it. Both the latter pieces reminded me of our discussion of the Herbie Hancock piece “Watermelon Man” and ideas of appropriation, influence, and cultural reformism. Hancock claimed a cultural connection to the music he was working with; here the songs are presumably musicians within the culture “modernizing” traditional sounds and approaches. I think semiotics play a role here. Turino talked about indices as signs of “authenticity”, showing lived experience and a connection to the music which lends legitimacy. Looking at the music as iconic can be somewhat objectifying, implying an outside perspective with different prejudices. When appropriating sounds from one’s own culture, they can be used as indices, and thus is appears less like theft of another culture’s “property” and more like a dialogue with one’s own history. However, heedless modernization of music can be just as objectifying as appropriation, which is the real irony.

I thought the yodeling sounded really interesting. It almost reminded me of the calls to prayer we listened to, with frequent slides between pitches and embellishment. I also thought the use of harmony was interesting- generally, I don’t think I heard any, but there were a few moments when it was used. The contrast there created an interesting listening experience. I liked how vocal music managed to sound so instrumental, too; the examples really used the power and potential of the voice. “Darkness is Good” sounded more structured and less spontaneous, with a melody and a call-and-response pattern that reminded me of African-American musical forms like blues and gospel. Perhaps a connection can be drawn there; I don’t know enough about the history of the forms to say that definitively. “Makala” reminded me of the yodeling, except I heard percussion in the background- some kind of drum and corpophones. The singers also seemed to be singing more similar parts than in the yodeling example. The last example seemed similar to “Makala”, except I thought I heard more female voices, and the drums had a solo. It seemed like there were multiple groups singing distinct parts, too, and I didn’t really get a sense of groups in “Makala”. Overall, the participatory nature of the music struck me. As in Merriam’s tripartite model, the inclusive nature of the music seems to influence the sound; since the examples were primarily vocal, they could be performed with ease (no instruments to be carried around) and transmitted orally, and could include presumably anyone present, at least to some extent. I would have to know more about the context of the examples to go further, but those are my initial thoughts.

Gamelan beleganjur seems to have both similarities and differences to other Indonesian gong ensembles we have studied. The instruments used are similar- metal gongs, metallophones, flutes, and drums are all used, as in Javanese gamelan and talempong. However, gamelan beleganjur also uses cymbals; this creates a different sound than the other pieces we have listened to. It is much harsher, and when the cymbals play they overpower the other sounds. Thus when I heard the piece, I initially thought there was less texture than in Javanese gamelan pieces, which are constructed in layers. However, when I read about the structure of the music, I realized there was actually more similarity here too than my initial listening had suggested. Javanese gamelan pieces have four layers: a foundation, balungan, panerusan, and rhythm. Gamelan beleganjur also uses a structure of layered beat and melody, with larger gongs providing an important (sonically and symbolically) focal point which maintains the cycle. The cyclic nature of the form is also present in all three ensembles, though there are many types of cycles in Javanese gamelan (16 beats, 32 beats, etc.), and in gamelan beleganjur  only an 8- beat cycle is used. As far as the physical characteristics of the ensemble, gamelan beleganjur is more akin to talempong than Javanese gamelan. Both are portable, designed to be used in processions; however, larger instruments, such as gongs, are seen here than would be seen in talempong. Contextually, all the ensembles are similar in that they are often used ceremonially. Gamelan beleganjur and Javanese gamelan are also used in a performance setting; the website talks about gamelan beleganjur competitions, and Javanese gamelan is often used for wayang kulit and other more recital-like contexts. An important difference, however, between gamelan beleganjur and other ensembles is that the instruments themselves and components of the music have gender associations. Two of the large gongs are called “male” and “female”, and the interlocking rhythm patterns, “kotekan”, have sexual associations and are seen as reflecting an interaction of the two genders. Overall, gamelan beleganjur is reflective in many ways of gong ensembles seen throughout the region, but it has distinct characteristics that differentiate it.

I really enjoyed listening to Turli Tava play and talk about their music; I don’t have much music theory knowledge, so listening to music that is very different than what I’m used to can be overwhelming sometimes. For that reason I found it very helpful when they talked about the different rhythmic patterns and modes that informed what they had just played. That helped me listen more critically and enjoy the music in a deeper way than I did originally. I also thought the cultural context was interesting- they said it was dance music, mainly for weddings. I thought about what modern American “dance music” would be, in contrast, and what Americans play at different ceremonies. I don’t have much experience with weddings, but the contrast between that “dance music” and what is played at the high school dances I went to (mainly hip-hop and electronica) is dramatic.  I think the relation between the music and the audience in both situations is similar- the listeners are meant to have a physical response to the music, and rhythm is very important. But if Turli Tava played at a wedding, there would be performers too, adding another social level and changing the dynamic to something more spontaneous. I think the “live” factor is especially important in music intended for dancing (in other words, to involve the audience)– it adds more energy and a deeper, social connection to the music through the people playing it. 

Although as we discussed in class, the call to prayer is not music from a relative, ethnomusicological perspective, it is still hard for me to look at it solely as an index with specific cultural associations and functions since I am not part of that culture. When I listened to it, I still wanted to think of the piece from an aesthetic perspective, as a “work of art” to be debated and not a ritual piece. From my perspective it is music, but from the perspective of its maker it is not. That made me think about who gets to decide what music is- whether it is in the “eye of the beholder”, so to speak, or the creator. Does the listener or the musician ultimately decide? Personally, I think both decide, with the listener informed by the information in the work itself and also their own experiences and biases. The John Cage piece we talked about on the first day is an excellent example. Even if John Cage says he is making music, several audience members will leave the performance with a very different idea. But, the question of music or not-music aside, I thought the call to prayer was beautiful, and at the end of the day, I assume it is meant to move listeners and show reverence and a sense of transcendence. So really its technical classification is not important; its effect is. And even though I don’t share the faith it comes from, I can hear the power in it. I also thought the call to prayer ringtone was really interesting; it seemed even more “music-like” than the actual calls to prayer, since it had instrumental components and wasn’t just a kind of singing recitation. I’d be interested to know what Muslims think of it, and if it is considered to be as sacred.