Maloya: The protest music banned as a threat to France
Maloya is a type of dance music that was developed in Reunion, which is an island located in the Indian Ocean and is governed by France. The music was banned by France in the 1970s because it was seen as a threat to the French state. The music was sung in Creole, not French, and had its roots in Africa from the slaves that were brought to the island to harvest sugar cane.
France was not the only one that disliked the maloya music. The Catholic Church was not in favor of it because it was used in ceremonies where participants would enter a trance and come face to face with their ancestors. The French government was highly opposed to the music because it was protest music. In the 1970s, the Communist Party utilized maloya as protest music to voice to France that Reunion wanted to become independent. France saw this as very threatening and chose to ban the music. Anyone who was found openly producing or performing maloya would be place in jail.
In the 1980s, the music was not only re-legalized but was also funded by the French government from a cultural standpoint. Reunion did not gain its independence, but maloya was no longer used by the Communist Party as protest music to gain independence. There is still quite a disparity though between French nationals and those in Reunion. Unemployment rates are extremely high for those on the island, which has generated much frustration for those between the ages of 18-25, who have the greatest level of unemployment. Even though maloya is now legal and not being used as protest music, it is still a means of voicing frustration towards the French government. Maloya musicians will talk about the hardships they face because of the high levels of unemployment and cost of living. It would do the French government good to learn Creole to gain a true understanding of the hostility the islanders have towards the French.
I was glad that I came upon this reading because it really spoke to the idea of music being an outlet for frustrations and voicing opinions. It also showcased a more recent example of what we read about in Thomas Turino's Music as Social Life. In one of his chapters, Turino talks about how music has often been associated with various political movements. This was very much the case for a duration of time in Reunion. As I mentioned, the Communist Party help protests during the 1970s in Reunion asking the French to release the island from its control. One of the vehicles they used to gather individuals together and draw them to their cause was maloya music. It was a music type that had developed on the island so it was a perfect tool for the Communist Party to use. This article reminded me of what Turino wrote about when he mentioned the Nazis banning forms of music that were associated with Jews or African peoples. In the case of jazz though, some of it still survived because of the immense popularity it had among the Germans. The instance in Reunion with maloya is semi-reflective of what happened during WWII. The French, just like the Nazis, banned maloya music; however, it was very much a cultural and popular music type on the island so they were not able to completely eradicate it.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Gregorian Chant
As an individual who was raised as Roman Catholic, there were certain times of the year when Gregorian Chant would permeate through my house. Most often, the music was played during the Lenten season (time between Ash Wednesday and Easter). I always found the chanting of the monks captivating. I generally didn't understand all that they were saying since Gregorian Chants tend to be in Latin, but I enjoyed the music nonetheless.
Gregorian chant was developed in the 6th century and is often associated with St. Gregory. The chants are musical repertoires used to accompany liturgical parts of the Roman Catholic mass. Gregorian chant can be related to a "sung Bible" because it comes from sacred Latin text of the New and Sacred Testament. The whole purpose of the chants is to encourage spiritual growth and reveal the full gifts of God.
Gregorian chant in its inception was an aural music. I have often heard of music being passed down orally or through manuscripts but rarely through hearing. The Gregorian chants were heard and committed to memory. This aural tradition was much more common in the early centuries of music-making. As Gregorian chant became widespread in the 8th century, we began to see more manuscripts of the music. This initiated quite a change in the past traditions of Gregorian chant. The music became less interpretive and no longer required the use of memory. During the Renaissance, melodies that used to contain long vocalises were reduced to a few notes; while, literary compositions representative of the Roman liturgy were "corrected" against verbatim biblical readings. These changes continued for two hundred years and came to be known in English as "plainsong."
In the 19th century, a young monk, Dom Prosper Guéranger, took it upon himself to restore Gregorian chant back to its pre-Renaissance state. He was successful in his mission, and the chants we hear today are reminiscent of his work. I'm especially glad that Guéranger restored the music back to its previous state. If he had not, I don't know that the Gregorian chant would have continued to touch so many people and achieve the objectives it was designed for (i.e. spiritual growth). Listening to the Gregorian chants during Lent helps me achieve a greater understanding of my religious background and enriches my Lenten devotions.
Blue Man Group Performance
On September 26, 2013, I had the opportunity to attend the Blue Man Group performance at McCain Auditorium in Manhattan, KS. It was an incredible experience. It was unlike any other performance I had been to! I was really glad to be taking Ethnomusicology when I saw this performance because it touched on material we had discussed in class. We read in Thomas Turino's book, Music As Social Life, that there are four types of music-making: participatory, presentational, high fidelity, and studio audio art. The reason the Blue Man Group, in my opinion, is unlike any performance you will ever see is because it encompasses all the music-making types!
It is evident to the audience that the Blue Man Group would be classified as a presentational performance. It is highly rehearsed, showcases individual artist's abilities and promotes innovation. As a part of the audience, I thought that was all I was going to experience--a presentational performance. I was quite surprised to find it was the opposite. I wasn't the only one who was surprised. At the beginning of the performance, the audience was supposed to recited words that came across the screen. Initially, only a portion of the audience participated, but after a few recitations, the majority joined in. In today's society, we are used to attending performances that are solely presentational. The audience doesn't generally participate in any fashion.
In addition to having to recite lines, if we did not actively respond or participate in the performance, the performers would often stand still. This part reminded me a little of the commedia dell'arte. In commedia dell'arte, it was the duty of the performers to keep the attention of the audience. If they were losing it, they had to improvise their performance a bit to gain it back. The Blue Man Group did this often. When we'd go silent or have long pauses between reactions, they would stop what they were doing or do something rather extravagant to regain our attention. Some may consider that odd or a negative of attending such a performance, but it was a nice change. We, as the audience, had some say in how the performance went.
Not very often does an audience experience high fidelity and studio audio art at the same time. The Blue Man Group was able to do that! The sounds and quality of music-making were representational of a presentational performance. Even though I was at a performance, what I was hearing sounded like something I would hear off a CD (minus the audience noises). Additionally, there were many sounds that I don't typically hear in other music-making types. The Blue Man Group had a lot of studio audio art music-making. To me, it was almost galactic! There were lots of weird sounds being made either through computer generation or intensive manipulation. Much of the studio audio art that I've heard I have not been a fan of, but I really enjoyed the Blue Man Group's take on it. It didn't seem out of place in their production.
I really loved this performance. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to go! It was so amazing that the Blue Man Group was able to intertwine participatory, presentational, high fidelity and studio audio art into their production. The best part was not only were the able to complete such a feat, but they provided the audience with a live dance party at the end involving huge light-up balls, disco lights, and flailing air tubes.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Participatory vs. Presentational Performances
Until reading Thomas Turino's Music As Social Life, I was unaware that there was a classification for music-making other than genres. The book talked about participatory, presentation, high fidelity, and studio audio art music-making. I found the contrast between presentation and participatory to be the most interesting as well as the two types I associate with most.
Participatory music-making is my favorite, hands down. I'm a very visual and active learner. I've always been drawn towards music, dancing, and singing. This may have come from my siblings and me having dance parties in our kitchen growing up. It was not an uncommon occurrence for me to join along in song and dance with the radio, a band, or another group of people dancing/singing. For me, (almost) all types of music-making are participatory.
The thing that I found the most interesting yet sad was more cosmopolitan areas/countries don't emphasize participatory music. In areas of the world such as South America and Africa, participatory music is an integral part of their culture and celebrations. Those cosmopolitan areas prefer presentational performances; they solely want to be entertained. Although I do enjoy presentational music-making, I still manage to make it participatory for myself. Either I know the production or group that is performing and I start participating in my own way. Of course, I don't become obnoxious with my participation because I'm still restricted by the social norms of presentational performances.
I find it disheartening that we've lost the desire to favor participatory music. In some areas you can find it, but for the vast majority of the U.S. you won't. I know that many people do not like participatory performances because they're unrehearsed, impromptu times of music-making that "stifle" the progression and ingenuity of artists. Even though this may be true in some cases, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would speak negatively of their participatory performance music-making. This is because participatory music-making is designed to welcome all levels of talent yet still provide a simple, challenging engagement for everyone.
Presentational performances do the opposite. Yes, an individual or group can better express their musical talents, but the pressure and expectations of presentational performances are much greater than participatory. Many artists never make the transition to presentational performances for this reason. As a presentational performer, you are subject to critiques and feedback from your audience. I've performed on numerous occasions with my choir in high school as well as the band. Even though I was in a large group, the expectation to do well was high. Our shows were exclusively presentational. The weeks leading up to a concert were always filled with lots of rehearsing and tweaking to ensure our performance would be "perfect." It was nice to showcase our work to the community, but I found this type of performing to be my least favorite. Shows were always successful; I just preferred to let loose, be myself, and enjoy the music, which I couldn't do in presentational performances.
I can't rightfully say presentational is better than participatory or vice versa. Each person has their own music-making preferences. I gravitate towards participatory performances yet I enjoy attending presentational performances. It could be suggested that a blending of the two would be beneficial, but I don't think that it would be. It just adds further confusion to the audience as to what they should be doing. Do I just listen or do I need to get up and move? I've been to numerous performances that are of this type--participatory and presentational. I do enjoy the participatory sections; however, they are sometimes distracting. It's also evident in many of the audiences' faces that they were not expecting such a turn of events. The two music-making styles should continue to be somewhat separated. I just hope (wish) that participatory music-making becomes a larger component of our society.
Participatory music-making is my favorite, hands down. I'm a very visual and active learner. I've always been drawn towards music, dancing, and singing. This may have come from my siblings and me having dance parties in our kitchen growing up. It was not an uncommon occurrence for me to join along in song and dance with the radio, a band, or another group of people dancing/singing. For me, (almost) all types of music-making are participatory.
The thing that I found the most interesting yet sad was more cosmopolitan areas/countries don't emphasize participatory music. In areas of the world such as South America and Africa, participatory music is an integral part of their culture and celebrations. Those cosmopolitan areas prefer presentational performances; they solely want to be entertained. Although I do enjoy presentational music-making, I still manage to make it participatory for myself. Either I know the production or group that is performing and I start participating in my own way. Of course, I don't become obnoxious with my participation because I'm still restricted by the social norms of presentational performances.
I find it disheartening that we've lost the desire to favor participatory music. In some areas you can find it, but for the vast majority of the U.S. you won't. I know that many people do not like participatory performances because they're unrehearsed, impromptu times of music-making that "stifle" the progression and ingenuity of artists. Even though this may be true in some cases, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would speak negatively of their participatory performance music-making. This is because participatory music-making is designed to welcome all levels of talent yet still provide a simple, challenging engagement for everyone.
Presentational performances do the opposite. Yes, an individual or group can better express their musical talents, but the pressure and expectations of presentational performances are much greater than participatory. Many artists never make the transition to presentational performances for this reason. As a presentational performer, you are subject to critiques and feedback from your audience. I've performed on numerous occasions with my choir in high school as well as the band. Even though I was in a large group, the expectation to do well was high. Our shows were exclusively presentational. The weeks leading up to a concert were always filled with lots of rehearsing and tweaking to ensure our performance would be "perfect." It was nice to showcase our work to the community, but I found this type of performing to be my least favorite. Shows were always successful; I just preferred to let loose, be myself, and enjoy the music, which I couldn't do in presentational performances.
I can't rightfully say presentational is better than participatory or vice versa. Each person has their own music-making preferences. I gravitate towards participatory performances yet I enjoy attending presentational performances. It could be suggested that a blending of the two would be beneficial, but I don't think that it would be. It just adds further confusion to the audience as to what they should be doing. Do I just listen or do I need to get up and move? I've been to numerous performances that are of this type--participatory and presentational. I do enjoy the participatory sections; however, they are sometimes distracting. It's also evident in many of the audiences' faces that they were not expecting such a turn of events. The two music-making styles should continue to be somewhat separated. I just hope (wish) that participatory music-making becomes a larger component of our society.
Revolution of Afro-Reggae
In class, we watched a majority of the film Favela Rising. The movie was about the Afro-Reggae movement that took hold in the Vigario Geral favela in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rio has numerous favelas on the outskirts of the city, and they are all overridden with violence and drug gangs. Many people in the favelas are fearful to say anything or stand up to the drug lords that run the streets. A group of young men, who had chose to escape the drug life, began to change that through music.
Afro-Reggae came about as a means of bringing awareness to the favelas about the dangerous life of being a drug lord. Anderson was the main character we heard from in the film. I was really taken aback by his courage and willingness to do anything to help the people in Vigario Geral. His vivacity was contagious, and you could see why he was one of the leaders of the movement. His song lyrics talked of the tragedy that was being caused by youth dying so young at the hands of drugs. Despite his presence in the favela, many people still refused to listen his message. One of the most interesting scenes in the movie for me was when he was talking to the group of young boys. One in particular was not keen on talking to Anderson; he wouldn't even tell him his real name. The boy kept saying how he wanted to become a drug leader. Anderson kept telling him that was no life to live. That you never saw old drug leaders, and that was because they had died young as a result of their work.
This was not the only opposition that Anderson and his crew had to face. I, honestly, was surprised that there wasn't more than the one person we learned about in the video whose life was taken in connection with Afro-Reggae. I was very fearful when Anderson began telling us of the instance where a neighboring favela drug gang came to attack him. I was amazed that his fellow Afro-Reggae members were willing to die with him. The most shocking part occurred when the drug leader allowed Anderson to talk. This happened because he had heard of Anderson and what he was doing. Even though many people may have not agreed with the messages Afro-Reggae was dispersing, some drug lords were giving them respect. This is what saved Anderson and his friends that day.
I always knew that Rio had a troubled life for those that live in the favelas yet I was not aware that is was as terrible as we saw in the film. There are more people being massacred in Brazil than in the Middle East, which is a place that we associate with high levels of violence. I feel that this movie really points to the power and influence of music. For the youth and many others that lived in Vigario Geral, Afro-Reggae became their alternative to drug life. It provided them with an escape. For the Afro-Reggae leaders, their voices were finally heard, and they were able to get a record deal to promote their message to the world. I feel this is an ideal example of how something as simple as music can change the world or in this case a favela.
Afro-Reggae came about as a means of bringing awareness to the favelas about the dangerous life of being a drug lord. Anderson was the main character we heard from in the film. I was really taken aback by his courage and willingness to do anything to help the people in Vigario Geral. His vivacity was contagious, and you could see why he was one of the leaders of the movement. His song lyrics talked of the tragedy that was being caused by youth dying so young at the hands of drugs. Despite his presence in the favela, many people still refused to listen his message. One of the most interesting scenes in the movie for me was when he was talking to the group of young boys. One in particular was not keen on talking to Anderson; he wouldn't even tell him his real name. The boy kept saying how he wanted to become a drug leader. Anderson kept telling him that was no life to live. That you never saw old drug leaders, and that was because they had died young as a result of their work.
This was not the only opposition that Anderson and his crew had to face. I, honestly, was surprised that there wasn't more than the one person we learned about in the video whose life was taken in connection with Afro-Reggae. I was very fearful when Anderson began telling us of the instance where a neighboring favela drug gang came to attack him. I was amazed that his fellow Afro-Reggae members were willing to die with him. The most shocking part occurred when the drug leader allowed Anderson to talk. This happened because he had heard of Anderson and what he was doing. Even though many people may have not agreed with the messages Afro-Reggae was dispersing, some drug lords were giving them respect. This is what saved Anderson and his friends that day.
I always knew that Rio had a troubled life for those that live in the favelas yet I was not aware that is was as terrible as we saw in the film. There are more people being massacred in Brazil than in the Middle East, which is a place that we associate with high levels of violence. I feel that this movie really points to the power and influence of music. For the youth and many others that lived in Vigario Geral, Afro-Reggae became their alternative to drug life. It provided them with an escape. For the Afro-Reggae leaders, their voices were finally heard, and they were able to get a record deal to promote their message to the world. I feel this is an ideal example of how something as simple as music can change the world or in this case a favela.
Golden Record: Voyager 3
It was really interesting to learn about the compilations that were sent with the Voyager missions to space. I can't even image the amount of time and effort it took the "composers" to gather all the material and formulate the tracks for the alloted time. However, after learning from the readings what was included and excluded, I think that I would add different items to the Golden Record if a Voyager 3 was created.
Life is vastly different than what it was when the original Golden Record was created. I think there is much that could be added to it in order to further display our world to anyone who might find the Golden Record. Despite there being much to take into consideration when choosing articles to put on a Golden Record, much of what I would include are items that were excluded from the original record that I felt should have been included.
My Golden Record would include the following:
- Contemporary Music
- Including musical works such as Hip-Hop, R&B, Rap, Rock, etc. would be beneficial to include because these are works of art that have drastically changed and shaped much of current society. I would have also arranged the music in a progressive and/or chronological order. It would provide a timeline for the extraterrestrials who find the record.
- Non-Western Music
- The Golden Record contained many classical style compositions yet that only comprises a small part of the music-making in the world. More Non-Western music representative of the different cultures on Earth should have been represented. Those cultural compositions better portray celebrations and interworking of those cultures. (i.e. Polka, Gregorian Chant)
- Instrumentations
- I think that it would have been nice if there were quick musical snippets of as many instruments that could be compiled. It would aid the discoverers in understanding how certain instruments sound especially when they listen to the musical works. They would be able to better define 'what' is making the sound.
- Animal Sounds
- I found it very interesting that there were very few animal sounds on the record. Humans comprise a certain portion of Earth's inhabitants, and the rest is other species. I would have included sounds of the ocean (i.e. whales and dolphins), the jungle (i.e. parrots and monkeys), and more sounds of the sahara (i.e. lions and cheetahs) in order to represent animal sounds from the various ecosystems found on Earth.
- Photographs
- I would include images of war and natural disasters. These images were left off the original record, and I was shocked to learn this. I feel that we should portray ourselves and Earth as we really are--imperfect. The good and the bad should be displayed to anyone who would truly want to know about us. I would focus on the images from WWI and WWII because they were battles that encompassed and affected the whole world not just particular parts. I think it's also important to include images that display the power of nature on Earth. How it can instantly wipe out a population/species/place.
- Conversations
- It would have been nice to include conversations between family and friends in various languages. The original Golden Record only provided music, photos, and greetings. If I was the discoverer of the Golden Record, I would wonder if the "creators" had the ability to talk. It would be nice to include these so the extraterrestrials could understand tone and hear a wide breadth of topics that are discussed amongst friends and family.
- Scientific History
- This would be a more personal inclusion, but I've been reading A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, and I think that including historical discoveries should be added. If it was possible, I would have it told in various languages (Spanish, Mandarin, English, etc.). I think it would be important to tell extraterrestrials from beginning to current everything we know about our planet. It would help in painting the picture of where we live, and the capabilities we have as humans to discover, explore, and quantify the world around us.
Is Musical Ability Innate?
At the end of class several weeks ago, we were left with the lingering question: "Is musical ability innate?" I found this question rather compelling and felt it required further discussion. It's natural for us to assume a famous artist or composer is naturally talented. They just began playing or signing as if it were an everyday task like eating or walking. But is that really the case? Were they born with the natural ability to play an instrument or sing beautifully or even compose lengthy sonatas?
For years, the war has raged between Nature vs. Nurture. Depending on the sources you consult, one might say we are born with certain natural abilities, and that determines who we are and what we're able and not able to do. Others will say that who we are and what we can accomplish stems from the environment we were raised in. I believe that both cases are true. Each person is likely born with some inclination toward a certain activity, musical or not; however, the nurturing of that tendency will determine whether it becomes a natural habit or not.
I am the youngest of six children, and we all have varying degrees of musical ability. Neither of my parents is musically inclined. In our case, one might argue that whatever musical tendencies we have are a result of nurturing. I would have to agree and disagree. My mother and father, although not musical themselves, grew up in families that enjoyed music and dancing. They from a young age had been influenced by music, and it played a large role in their lives even if they themselves did not sing or play instruments. With the history of music on both sides of the family, it is quite possible that we all received some natural inclination towards music but not the same level of nurturing. I, of all my siblings, am the most musically accomplished. This may have resulted from me being the youngest; more resources were at my disposal to pursue my musical interests. I took piano lessons for 9 years and also learned how to play the trombone and clarinet. Throughout my years of lessons and youth, I constantly sang. I performed in a large and small select choir for several years. I also competed in both vocal and instrumental competitions growing up. As a result, music became a natural habit for me. I'm even currently learning how the play the guitar. Having nurtured my musical ability growing up, I'm able to quickly pick up on instruments and can easily read music when it's placed in front of me. I would say that I do have a natural musical talent but had I not been given the opportunity to develop it, it wouldn't come as 'naturally' as it does. I would have likely followed the road of my siblings and been limited in what I could do musically.
I find this debate fascinating. Most other cultures don't concern themselves with this idea. Music is such an integral part of their culture that everyone participates no matter what. It's in more developed nations that musical ability really must be subject to Nature vs. Nurture. Many people would not boldly say they're a 'musician.' They may play an instrument or sing nicely, but they'd say they're not musical. For us, musical = professional. We associate a person's musical ability to their level of stardom. We only assume that they're where they are because they have that natural talent; there was no nurturing involved.
For me, musical ability will never be one-sided. It is always comprised of both nurturing and nature.
For years, the war has raged between Nature vs. Nurture. Depending on the sources you consult, one might say we are born with certain natural abilities, and that determines who we are and what we're able and not able to do. Others will say that who we are and what we can accomplish stems from the environment we were raised in. I believe that both cases are true. Each person is likely born with some inclination toward a certain activity, musical or not; however, the nurturing of that tendency will determine whether it becomes a natural habit or not.
I am the youngest of six children, and we all have varying degrees of musical ability. Neither of my parents is musically inclined. In our case, one might argue that whatever musical tendencies we have are a result of nurturing. I would have to agree and disagree. My mother and father, although not musical themselves, grew up in families that enjoyed music and dancing. They from a young age had been influenced by music, and it played a large role in their lives even if they themselves did not sing or play instruments. With the history of music on both sides of the family, it is quite possible that we all received some natural inclination towards music but not the same level of nurturing. I, of all my siblings, am the most musically accomplished. This may have resulted from me being the youngest; more resources were at my disposal to pursue my musical interests. I took piano lessons for 9 years and also learned how to play the trombone and clarinet. Throughout my years of lessons and youth, I constantly sang. I performed in a large and small select choir for several years. I also competed in both vocal and instrumental competitions growing up. As a result, music became a natural habit for me. I'm even currently learning how the play the guitar. Having nurtured my musical ability growing up, I'm able to quickly pick up on instruments and can easily read music when it's placed in front of me. I would say that I do have a natural musical talent but had I not been given the opportunity to develop it, it wouldn't come as 'naturally' as it does. I would have likely followed the road of my siblings and been limited in what I could do musically.
I find this debate fascinating. Most other cultures don't concern themselves with this idea. Music is such an integral part of their culture that everyone participates no matter what. It's in more developed nations that musical ability really must be subject to Nature vs. Nurture. Many people would not boldly say they're a 'musician.' They may play an instrument or sing nicely, but they'd say they're not musical. For us, musical = professional. We associate a person's musical ability to their level of stardom. We only assume that they're where they are because they have that natural talent; there was no nurturing involved.
For me, musical ability will never be one-sided. It is always comprised of both nurturing and nature.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Canadian Music Fee
New fee for musicians visiting Canada could hurt small concert venues
On July 31, Canada passed a law saying "employers" would have to pay a $275 fee for each member of foreign bands that play in their venue. Before, this fee fell to the taxpayers. Foreign musicians that want to play in any Canadian bar, club, or restaurant have to apply for a work permit, which costs $150, but now with this $275 fee, foreign bands may stop coming to Canada to play. The cost could quickly add up since the $275 fee is per musician. There is much controversy surrounding this new law. Some Canadians say it's beneficial because it allows Canadian artists the first chance at jobs; while, others feel the opposite. Many club owners and others feel that this fee will kill the music scene in Canada. Groups that play at the Air Canada Centre or the Rogers Centre are exempt from this fee because these are considered concert venues.
I was shocked to read this article. I had never thought music-making could cause such a stir and be governed by such fees and restrictions. I think one of the greatest things about music is its dynamism. To me, this means allowing free access to music and sharing it with various peoples. In the article, one opposer of the new law says this new move is "trying to shut the door on culture, which makes us unique and sets us apart from every other country." I think he's right. Many young people these days flock to small venues to hear new and/or upcoming artists from all over the globe! This fee does make it more difficult for bands who want to tour Canada to showcase their musical talents.
On the other hand, I see the intention behind imposing these new fees. Canadian artists, as stated in the article, struggled to get jobs and were often beat out by their foreign counterparts. I can't imagine what it would be like to struggle to book a gig in your own country. This part of the discussion reminds me of the Blue Chicago readings. In the latter part of the book, we learn about reverse discrimination. Black artists were the ones always being booked in venues because of their "authenticity" even though white artists may have been just as good at blues music-making. It appears as though a similar thing was happening in Canada. Small venues sought out foreign bands to fill their calendars rather than local Canadian bands. Canadian artists struggled to book shows because "culture" was seen as only coming from foreign artists. This fee may provide Canadian artists with the first change at jobs; however, I'm uncertain this fee will really change the ratio of foreign bookings to local ones. Rather, the Canadian community may need to accept that "culture" comes in many different fashions, foreign or local.
On July 31, Canada passed a law saying "employers" would have to pay a $275 fee for each member of foreign bands that play in their venue. Before, this fee fell to the taxpayers. Foreign musicians that want to play in any Canadian bar, club, or restaurant have to apply for a work permit, which costs $150, but now with this $275 fee, foreign bands may stop coming to Canada to play. The cost could quickly add up since the $275 fee is per musician. There is much controversy surrounding this new law. Some Canadians say it's beneficial because it allows Canadian artists the first chance at jobs; while, others feel the opposite. Many club owners and others feel that this fee will kill the music scene in Canada. Groups that play at the Air Canada Centre or the Rogers Centre are exempt from this fee because these are considered concert venues.
I was shocked to read this article. I had never thought music-making could cause such a stir and be governed by such fees and restrictions. I think one of the greatest things about music is its dynamism. To me, this means allowing free access to music and sharing it with various peoples. In the article, one opposer of the new law says this new move is "trying to shut the door on culture, which makes us unique and sets us apart from every other country." I think he's right. Many young people these days flock to small venues to hear new and/or upcoming artists from all over the globe! This fee does make it more difficult for bands who want to tour Canada to showcase their musical talents.
On the other hand, I see the intention behind imposing these new fees. Canadian artists, as stated in the article, struggled to get jobs and were often beat out by their foreign counterparts. I can't imagine what it would be like to struggle to book a gig in your own country. This part of the discussion reminds me of the Blue Chicago readings. In the latter part of the book, we learn about reverse discrimination. Black artists were the ones always being booked in venues because of their "authenticity" even though white artists may have been just as good at blues music-making. It appears as though a similar thing was happening in Canada. Small venues sought out foreign bands to fill their calendars rather than local Canadian bands. Canadian artists struggled to book shows because "culture" was seen as only coming from foreign artists. This fee may provide Canadian artists with the first change at jobs; however, I'm uncertain this fee will really change the ratio of foreign bookings to local ones. Rather, the Canadian community may need to accept that "culture" comes in many different fashions, foreign or local.
Will Rap be protected by First Amendment?
Hip Hop Controversy: Rap music may be facing new challenges
Like most all styles of music, rap has transformed over the last few decades. Rap has been a style of music that has always been on the verge of controversy. Many rappers hail from inner city life and low-income families. Their childhood is often plagued by violence and scandal. Music for them is an outlet; a place where they can voice their issues and struggles in order to cope with the turmoil around them. The lyrics of most rap songs have always been questioned, but it seems as though now people are finally taking a stand.
Recently, prison-guard turned rapper, Rick Ross, showcased lyrics in one of his songs glorifying drugs and date rape. Survivors and activists charged at Ross for his unabashed lyrics. Unfortunately, Rick Ross is not the only artist to sing about such things. The question is now being raised, "Are the artists the only ones to be blamed?" Many people are petitioning to have the record labels who allow these artists to produce such scandalous lyrics to be held liable as well. People want safeguards in place that would make both the producers and artists accountable for what is being distributed. However, with the surge in popularity of these songs, would imposing such a reform alleviate the controversy? I don't believe it would. As the article mentions, these artists have such a high following that even if a small portion of people were to boycott them, they could easily go sell their product to someone else. Besides, in years past, rappers spoke of violence and shootings yet there were no actions taken to prevent them from continuing to do it. It just became an accepted thing. This is partly due to mainstream TV airing shows that depict greater levels of violence than in the past. These shows started depicting what the rappers were singing about, and people became desensitized to the violence. A similar thing is bound to happen with this case, I feel.
Music is an integral part to our society and culture. Having the ability to voice our opinions and lifestyle in a manner without fear of prosecution is one of the foundations this country was built on yet outside the rap community, these two ideas are disjointed. Music, which was once an outlet for people for various reasons, is now being targeted for this exact reason. It's okay and welcomed to create music. However, the moment it objectifies or promotes a negative aspect of society, listeners immediately renounce it as music. They seek to classify it as controversial and anything less than music.
Although I do not agree with many of the lyrics found in rap songs today, I don't feel we can place all the blame on the artists and the producers. The music, in fact, is being produced for the masses--for us. So shouldn't we be the ones at fault for accepting this as music in the first place? Yet, either way, it will be hard to eradicate such lyrics from music. Music is highly influenced by culture (local, community, state, etc.), and that's all the artists are doing--making music expressive of their culture. Unless, the plan is to exterminate a culture, I think rap music is here to stay.
Like most all styles of music, rap has transformed over the last few decades. Rap has been a style of music that has always been on the verge of controversy. Many rappers hail from inner city life and low-income families. Their childhood is often plagued by violence and scandal. Music for them is an outlet; a place where they can voice their issues and struggles in order to cope with the turmoil around them. The lyrics of most rap songs have always been questioned, but it seems as though now people are finally taking a stand.
Recently, prison-guard turned rapper, Rick Ross, showcased lyrics in one of his songs glorifying drugs and date rape. Survivors and activists charged at Ross for his unabashed lyrics. Unfortunately, Rick Ross is not the only artist to sing about such things. The question is now being raised, "Are the artists the only ones to be blamed?" Many people are petitioning to have the record labels who allow these artists to produce such scandalous lyrics to be held liable as well. People want safeguards in place that would make both the producers and artists accountable for what is being distributed. However, with the surge in popularity of these songs, would imposing such a reform alleviate the controversy? I don't believe it would. As the article mentions, these artists have such a high following that even if a small portion of people were to boycott them, they could easily go sell their product to someone else. Besides, in years past, rappers spoke of violence and shootings yet there were no actions taken to prevent them from continuing to do it. It just became an accepted thing. This is partly due to mainstream TV airing shows that depict greater levels of violence than in the past. These shows started depicting what the rappers were singing about, and people became desensitized to the violence. A similar thing is bound to happen with this case, I feel.
Music is an integral part to our society and culture. Having the ability to voice our opinions and lifestyle in a manner without fear of prosecution is one of the foundations this country was built on yet outside the rap community, these two ideas are disjointed. Music, which was once an outlet for people for various reasons, is now being targeted for this exact reason. It's okay and welcomed to create music. However, the moment it objectifies or promotes a negative aspect of society, listeners immediately renounce it as music. They seek to classify it as controversial and anything less than music.
Although I do not agree with many of the lyrics found in rap songs today, I don't feel we can place all the blame on the artists and the producers. The music, in fact, is being produced for the masses--for us. So shouldn't we be the ones at fault for accepting this as music in the first place? Yet, either way, it will be hard to eradicate such lyrics from music. Music is highly influenced by culture (local, community, state, etc.), and that's all the artists are doing--making music expressive of their culture. Unless, the plan is to exterminate a culture, I think rap music is here to stay.
Belly Dancing
Belly dancing has an extensive history across the Middle East. It can be dated back to 500 BC during the times of the Egyptian pharaohs. Many Westerns assume that it is something that is found in every Middle Eastern culture and is purposefully performed in a sensual way. In fact, the term belly dance is a Western coined term meaning "solo, improvised dances based on torso articulation." There are two main forms of belly dancing--Raqs sharqi and Raqs baladi. Raqs sharqi is generally performed by women and is the form of belly dancing we are more familiar with; while, raqs baladi is the local type of belly dancing that is performed socially by both men and women at festivities such as weddings. Belly dancing consists of percussive and fluid movements as well as vibrations, shimmies, and shivers.
Belly dancing is either performed in a social or presentational aspect. In a social aspect, individuals of all ages will dance and wear their typical clothing. Performances are just polished versions of the social dance and include costumes that will showcase the part of the body generating the movements (i.e. the hips). Women who decide to pursue belly dancing professionally in the Middle East are looked down upon because they're displaying their bodies in public.
The history of belly dancing is reminiscent of the reading we read in the first few days of class discussing whether ballet should be considered an ethnic dance. Ballet like belly dancing has been influenced by various cultures and ethnicities. I don't think this undermines belly dancing's 'authenticity' or being classified as 'ethnic.' Instead, I think this part of the dance's history makes it more appealing. It not only showcases its origins in the Middle East but reflects the influences of all the peoples who've developed the movements over time. I find these types of dances the most intriguing because they still preserve their origins while molding to encompass aspects of other cultures.
Bhangra--Bollywood Sensation!
Bhangra is a type of dance that originates in the Punjab region of Southeast Asia. This style of dance originally developed as part of harvest festivals but has since transformed into a lively dance that is performed at weddings, New Year celebrations, and many other occasions. Bhangra has seen the greatest change in the last 30 years. It has been made famous worldwide through Bollywood movies as well as it's merging with more contemporary music such as hip-hop, house, and reggae.
Bhangra may have origins dating back to 300 B.C.; however, it was in the 14th and 15th century that harvesters began this style of performance in order to pass the time during harvest. It quickly gained popularity and moved up the social ladder. Bhangra today has continued to evolve and the term "Bhangra" encompasses many subclasses of dance. During professional performances, traditional costumes are adorned by both men and women. The men wear a long Punjab-style shirt with a colorful piece of cloth wrapped around their waist and a turbin on their head. Women wear traditional Punjab attire, consisting of long colorful shirts and vibrant pants. They often wear a colorful piece of cloth wrapped around their neck known as a duppatta.
I was first introduced to Bhangra while watching a Bollywood movie entitled "Bride and Prejudice." I was fascinated by the vibrant colors, hand gestures, and body movements that were being performed. It's indeed a very lively form of dancing. I do know some of the basic movements, which I learned from a follow-along TV fitness program. Participating in an actual Bhangra performance, is one of my life-long goals. I can't help but get up and dance what movements I know whenever I hear the Punjab-style music that is often associated with Bhangra.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)