Mutant Sounds

 

By Julie Gray

 

In order to explore issues surrounding the representation of audio, this week’s reading will focus on the area of study referred to as ‘ethnomusicology’. For the purpose of this piece ‘ethnomusicology’ will be broadly defined as a discipline that examines alternate (understood as a non-western conception of) music and, inadvertently, their respective cultures. In the process of this examination I will ask the questions: What happens to the representation of music when researchers from alternate cultures attempt to collect and interpret data? What do these processes reflect in relation to the contexts of enunciation? Initially the discussion will focus on the research processes, ideological underpinnings and the development of ethnomusicology as a field of research. In order to further explore these questions I will briefly examine the traditional music of the Australian Aboriginal culture and draw a comparative between this, the Lionel Rose production, I Thank You (1969) and the track recorded by Yothu Yindi, Treaty (1991).

 

 

Research and Music

 

There are many texts that document the history of ethnomusicology’s development however for the purpose of this discussion we will be focusing on issues relating to research and representation.[i] When making reference to the ‘historical’ progression of this discipline, it will be for reasons pertaining to broader ideological frameworks that have informed the way in which ‘music’ has been embraced by alternate cultures and how this process has inevitably ‘mutated’ the product.

 

Ethnomusicology establishes links with the fields of study originally referred to as ‘comparative musicology’ and the eventual synthesis of this and ‘ethnography’. This ‘comparative’ study of music, as with many research topics, found affirmation through a positioning within the frameworks of academic rigour.[ii] Whilst these beginnings were defining in relation to the underpinning intent of this study, ethnomusicology eventually branched out to encompass broader principles, such as, ‘the hermeneutic science of human musical behaviour’.[iii]

 

 

Ethnomusicology began with notions of research for the purpose of gathering knowledge: an exposition of alternate practices of the production of music. The roots of the academic field of ethnomusicology are most commonly identified via the development of German and American research beginning in the 1880’s termed as comparative musicology. In fact, practices of this nature date back much further than this term’s inception, for example, activities such as this can be linked to the philosophical rationale for the study of foreign cultures emerging in the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ in the 18^th century.  This was a period where the value of scientific knowledge became the legitimate informant of the human condition. Traditional beliefs imbedded in clericalism were considered inhibiting in the process of inquiry and the acquisition of knowledge. [iv]

 

A positivist approach to objective notions of research emerged characterised by experimental processes of sample and measurement and data interpreted with scientific clarity: quantitative research. In an epistemological sense this form of research is titled ‘objectivism’. [v] Objectivism advances the notion that “things exist as meaningful entities independently of consciousness and experience, [furthermore]… they have truth and meaning residing in them as objects… [C]areful (scientific?) research can attain that objective truth and meaning.”[vi]  Notable in relation to this stance, was the manner with which scholars of the Berlin school “worked in the laboratory, rarely conducted fieldwork and gave little note in their work to music as a cultural manifestation.”[vii] These traditions basically prevailed until the late 19^th century. Ethnomusicology, from a theoretical standpoint, can trace its origins to these ideological frameworks of research.’

 

This stance appeared adequate whilst the discipline of music research focused on historical reconstruction however when the shift emerged to engaging with field research, the idea of ‘symbolic interactionism’ became the focus. As a theoretical approach, symbolic interactionism adopts a stance that considers society and the human world.[viii] This theoretical framework is one that is considered, most importantly in this context, by ethnographers. Initially ethnographers appeared to utilise a constructivist epistemological positioning, which enabled them to conduct interpretative research involving observation and/or participant observation.

 

Ethnographers were gathering data in the form of music with an academic approach predicated on late 19^th century to the early 20^th century research practices. These methods encompassed the epistemological basis referred to in the past paragraphs however, if the room remained for work that accurately reflected notions of a richer acknowledgement of the music itself, then that was put aside at this point in order to legitimise research practices. Musicology was a field considered ‘obscure and challenging’ and ethnographic methodological processes, conducted within the dominant academic rigour of this era, provided valuable data. However what was acknowledged in relation to the collection of data and the interpretation of this data, was said to reflect caution.[ix]

 

The term ‘ethnomusicology’ gained currency in the mid-1950s. One must remember that, at the onset of the 20^th century, ideological formations were predicated on the notion of ‘grand narratives’, which basically positioned one truth as all encompassing. [x]   This approach maintained a strong position until the 1960’s and even closer to the 1970’s in Australia.  In light of these systems of understanding the disciplines of ethnography and musicology merged however the practices remained positivist and particularistic in their research approach.

 

This was demonstrated via the work of Alan Merriam, who made advances in his approach to research via his insistence that personal fieldwork was essential.[xi]

Post-modernity witnessed the emergence of a broad reconsideration of the way data was gathered and theorists began conducting their own field research. This shift in ideological formations heralded a time of ‘petty narratives’: Many truths were now believed to exist.[xii] The knowledge of the individual contributed to a greater understanding of the community. In the 1970’s and 1980’s ethnomusicologists began the examination of things, such as, the process of musical creation and performance. The 1980’s also saw an increased use of technologies and the globalisation of communities via the use of communication technologies. The contributions to research made by indigenous performers as informants, in relation to specific cultural music production, experienced an elevated level of appreciation and validation.

 

With research practices expanding to encompass the idea of a ‘subjectivist’ epistemology, research methods diversified to include heuristic inquiries. This involved the consideration of the investigation and interpretation of human behaviour, speech, institutions etc, as essentially intentional.[xiii] A humanist approach became a valid theoretical position. Tendencies towards examining many aspects of the production of music coupled with the acknowledgement that the external stimulation of a  ‘performance’ by the researcher was, in fact, effecting the data, witnessed researchers taking a step back from their social subjects. This repositioning gave rise to claims that there existed a method of collecting data that, in effect, resembled the metaphorical hope of the researcher becoming ‘a fly on the wall.’ If one just observes then one can claim to have collected pure data.

 

Helen Myer presents anecdotal evidence shared by Alan Merriam that confronts the belief that one’s research is independent of the social subject:

Merriam found when visiting the Basongye village of Lupupa Nyge that music there had changed in ways he had never anticipated. More disturbing, he learned that the single most important event in the musical life of the village was thought to be his previous visit 14 years previously.”[xiv]

 

Evidently the researcher as positioned on the edges of an event (whereby claiming non-intervention) did not account for the peripheral vision of their social subjects nor the prior knowledge of the presence of the researcher. If one considers the ethical basis of this approach to research, then the developments in relation to representational issues becomes notable. Researchers were considering themselves within the process. These claims were eventually reconsidered and repositioned.

 

The famous African ethnographer and documentary maker, Jean Rouch, explored notions surrounding the acknowledgement of the researcher as part of the research data and interpretative process. Rouch explored notions of research via an approach dating back to the work of Dziga Vertov (1920’s, kino-pravda) who considered the process of representation to be a product referred to as a representation. The representation became no less valid, in fact, for Vertov what was captured on film was film-truth or kino-pravda. The possibilities that emerged from Rouch’s approach to challenging ideas of ‘fly-on-the-wall’ research and representation included acknowledgement of fieldworkers as mentors, participants, prosecutors, or provocateurs.[xv]

But what did this mean in relation to the production of the music itself?

 

Aboriginal Music

 

The ideological frameworks that underpin the development of ethnomusicology can be examined in relation to the mainstream promotion of ‘music’ recorded by Aboriginal artists. The following section examines Australian Indigenous music as a traditional form of cultural production and the comparative westernisation of the music track recorded by the Aboriginal boxer Lionel Rose in 1969 with I Thank You and the subsequent success of the group Yothu Yindi in 1991/92 with their hybrid track Treaty.

 

 

Aboriginal music exists as an integral aspect of the oral culture of the Aboriginal. Traditional forms of music production are realised via the use of tapping sticks, didgeridoos, dance and voice. These instruments provide the means through which the Aboriginal people communicate their stories. These stories encompass the day’s events and ritualistic processes which include hunting songs, funeral songs and songs in relation to seasons and animals, to name but a few. The sharing of intergenerational information is imperative in a traditional oral culture. Mythologies, songs of ancestors and Dream- Time legends all form a sense of history whilst reinforcing the importance of song.

 

Aboriginal myths relating to the origins of the world consider the beginning of life as a shaping of the present-day environment and their societies. There are various stories associated with these events that differ in varying degrees from tribe to tribe, but what remains constant is the reference to song as integral to remaining connected to the power of the original event. “By reproducing acts of singing/ naming from the cosmic time of the Dreaming, singers can actuate the power of Dreaming through the acoustic process of present-day naming of objects and persons from that time long ago”[xvi]

 

The Wawilak Sisters and their sons is re-enacted during the initiation ceremony for adolescent Yolngu boys. [This is a mythology presenting the story of how the great serpent associated with rainbows swallowed two sisters and their sons who were guilty of polluting a well with menstrual blood] Each episode of the rite, which represents a symbolic death before rebirth as an adult, is accompanied by songs which describe, in great detail, the relevant part of the myth as it unfolds. The songs form part of an extended cycle which runs to many hundreds of verses in the course of the ceremony”[xvii]

 

In a broad analysis, Aboriginal music relies on variations in rhythmic structure that are dictated by the ‘story’ at hand. “An outside observer may well fail to recognise extreme sections of the one song-line as conforming to the same musical pattern, but …the concept differs from our experience of melodic sameness; it consists of repetitions of sections of melody for a set proportion of the time the total verse takes to perform.” [xviii]The pitch remains simplistic and, in a true comparative musicology manner, relates somewhat to the pitch repetitions identified in Gregorian chants or early Baroque. The timbre of the instruments themselves disrupt Western ideas of ‘music’, for example, when the didgeridoo is used to make music that mimics the sounds of animals and voice, western ideas of ‘natural’ tone and harmonics are not adhered to. These differences exist in many other forms of music, such as, the sounds produced by oriental instruments, for example, the Chinese Er-hu, which is a fretless, two-string instrument and allows for the production of quarter and half tones.[xix]

 

The dissonance that appears apparent in traditional pieces of Aboriginal music presents itself through a Western expectation of how music progresses. The fragmented experience of alternate ethnographic music practice emerges through an experience of alternate chord progressions and tonalities.

 

 

Whilst the Australian indigenous culture lay claim to the existence of ‘song’ as an integral part of their beginnings, since the colonisation of Australia in the late 18^th century, the loss of Aboriginal language provides a significant example of the long term effects that the Western world has had on the production of music in alternate cultures. From an estimated 200 different tongues to that of the present day identification of 50, the Aboriginal culture is challenged. The most flourishing of languages exist where the least amount of European settlement took place.[xx]

 

The study of musicology in relation to Aboriginal music began in the same research vein as that which is discussed in the above overview of research methodological practices.  However when examining the early colonisation of Australia one struggles to locate information that points to an interest in the cultural practices of the Aboriginal as a race of people. Studies of Aboriginal music did become increasingly formalised in the early 1900’s. This research began with the ‘armchair’ method of analysis (Berlin school’s tradition) and shifted slightly with the studies conducted by Charles S. Myers on the Torres Strait Islands. The recordings taken in this field research were part of a Cambridge anthropological expedition however it appeared that Myers concentrated on a meticulous musical analysis and left the ethnographic studies to the ethnographers.[xxi] This process reflects a typical research stance when considering the study of comparative musicology prior to its slow synthesis with ethnography.

 

Post World War II saw the emergence of activity relating to the study of Aboriginal music. As outlined by Mervyn McLean, work presented for Higher Degrees in relation to this topic began with four in the period between 1955-64, seven in 1965-74, and twenty- five during the period of 1975-84. This reflected an increasing interest and quite quickly, as part of the Commonwealth Act of 64, The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies was established. This now provides housing for 4500 thousand hours of field recordings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait music. [xxii]

 

 

Ideological positions during the period of post war reconstruction mobilised notions of assimilation. The increase in immigration, the White Australia Policy and Sir Robert Menzie’s royalist right wing policies, all functioned as a springboard to promote the idea of nationhood. In accordance with promoting notions of nationhood, any ‘variations ’in relation to differing cultural practices required unification-very simply assimilation was a means to homogenise the masses.

 

In 1968 the first Aboriginal man in Australian history was awarded Australian of the Year. Lionel Rose made his name as an elite sportsman, winning the World Title in boxing and was presented to the Australian public as a ‘successful’ Aboriginal.[xxiii] Rose was clean cut with nicely ironed shirts and had made his name in a sporting nation: he had embraced the Western Culture. This was also reflected in the track recorded and released by Rose in 1969. The song, I Thank You, was written by Johnny Young and was afforded mainstream success. The song’s release was positioned pre-notions of multiculturalism in Australia. I Thank You represented little, if nothing, of Rose’s aboriginality.

 

It was a standard pop song of the era, embellished with a country and western flavour. The recording adopted a western melodic sound, chord progression and tonality. Absent were the ‘sounds’ of traditional musical instruments. Even voice on this track was assimilated with a voice that reflected industry expectations evident in this era. The marketability was predicated on ‘sameness’.

 

The success of the band Yothu Yindi reflects both the mutation of aboriginal music styles for a mainstream market and the successful integration of traditional forms of music, which, in effect, rendered their music viable for mass consumption. Again the issue of ‘sameness’ emerges however Yothu Yindi use the medium of song in a traditional form of storytelling to present political issues, such as, the issues raised in the track Treaty.

 

Treaty consists of a typical popular music four-chord progression supported by a complex and rhythmic percussion section. The didgeridoo provides a prominent and traditional timbre, reflective of the cultural origins of the performers. The delivery of this track was embedded in a visual performance, which utilised traditional Aboriginal dance movement and dress. This provided a broader cultural positioning of the song itself. In 1992 Yothu Yindi performed at the Big Day Out, incorporating a traditional performative element.

 

Yothu Yindi’s lead singer, Mandawuy Yunupingu, was also awarded Australian of the Year in 1993, however, comparatively speaking to the atmosphere in 1968, he presented as an Australian Aboriginal and his difference was celebrated. Yothu Yindi’s web site pays homage to use of contemporary technologies as a communicative form that can be utilised to raise awareness.[xxiv] Is this approach complicit? One need only navigate their way around this site-listen to the tracks, look at the graphics. There is a sense the shifts identifiable here reflected a changing position in relation to Australian indigenous culture, but not too left of field. Yothu Yindi contributed to this shift when they made marketable music for a broad Australian audience and research practices in relation to ethnomusicology can, in part, take responsibility for the mutation of this music form.

 

Concluding

 

For recordists or ethnomusicologists, these power and representation themes can be productive of a different humiliation: complicity. The despair of seeing documentary projects transform from icons of music diversity to “raw material” for industrialized [sic] neocolonialism surely marks the end of all ethnomusicological innocence. The lesson for researchers is that community trust, academic recognition, and institutional prestige mean little when you are up against international law, major recording companies, the media and marketing world, music collecting agencies, and highly paid, highly protected rock stars.”

 

Whilst one could conclude with the argument presented here by Feld in his article Sweet Lullaby for World Music, the manner with which this argument is developed is significant. Feld also recognises: “[T]hese occasional pains of ethnomusicology seem vastly overwritten by the pleasure of musical participation, and that is still the world music location where celebration rules most. Musicians are having a great time”[xxv]

 

The process of the representation of music is full of pollutants that effectively have given rise to a hybridity of musical styles. This can be overwhelming in relation to the sheer volume of musical productions and gives rise to further consideration when one positions the findings in an alternate context for reception. An antidote to this can be traced to the emergence of the valuing of knowledge as produced by ones self with reception limited to those associated with the ‘culture’ the research is positioned within. Of course, in considering this process an entire range of different problems emerge that concern notions of parochialism and elitism in relation to the sharing of knowledge.

 

 

Research methods have shifted to reflexive positions where autobiographical examination has become legitimised in academic circles. Researching and interpreting your own story within your own cultural context is now considered an accurate representation of research. But how does one divorce themselves of their position within society to conduct objective research? As the developments in ideological formations underpinning research practices have shifted, this is no longer a necessary question. The notion of the subject as positioned within the human experience cannot be separated from the research process itself.

 

This is not to say that the study of exotic cultural music by westerners is not an admirable pursuit, what this discussion does try to present is the need for questioning dominant paradigms associated with research practices in an effort to acknowledge the position of subject within researching processes. Let us consider the representation of music as just that, a representation. This discussion poses that the study of alternate cultures is hazardous in it’s representational form when one adopts ‘the voice-of-god’ approach.[xxvi] A self checking honesty must prevail where claims to accessing pure knowledge are put away with the researchers of past. It will come to pass that the representational issues discussed today will serve to inform the foundations of future issues emerging from the study of music. 

 

I end this discussion by posing a question.

 

 

When you come to representing audio yourself- what does this mean in terms of the dual responsibility associated with the representation of the material and the audience to whom you ask for cooperation in relation to reception?