Andy's response to me
I’m intrigued by your idea that assuming both roles is outside the realms of polyphonic, experiential, and interpretive ethnographies. Based on Clifford, then, the only remaining mode of discourse is the dialogical, and this may be a valid characterization of this writing style. However, there is one big problem: all the dialogue happens within the author’s mind, and real people are not involved. Thus, if this was to become a formal method of writing ethnographies, a new mode of discourse would have to be invented to characterize writing from both the role of the insider and the outsider.
The main reason that I categorized the increased objectivity of this writing style as an advantage was because I thought that, provided it is done correctly, presenting two or more views would be less biased and colored by the ethnographer’s prior experiences than an experiential or an interpretive discourse. I did not go so far as to categorize this as deception, but it certainly could be, especially if it done incorrectly. I considered this possibility when I wrote that no one can really forget his prior biases and past.
Of course, an insider’s ethnography is no more or less informative than an outsider’s ethnography—as you wrote, they just include different elements. But I disagree that an insiders’ ethnography would be difficult for an outsider to interpret because of cultural practices and vocabulary. Sure, they are different, but unless an ethnographer was writing only for the culture he was studying (which in my opinion, is extremely unlikely), he would have to define and explain the unfamiliar prior to presenting the insider’s views. The only unfamiliarity should stem from the insiders’ different background and experiences.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Critical Review #10: Neustadt 2002
Among other analyses, Neustadt's writing contrasts two different albums released at roughly the same time: Buena Vista Social Club (BVSC) and Tremendo delirio (CH, after La Charanga Habanera, the band's name). He compares the different musical styles: son (BVSC), which as, according to Argeliers León, has already passed out of vogue, and timba (CH), which was the popular genre at the time in Cuba. The images projected by the two albums differ as well. BVSC represents "exotic holdovers" (140) from the past, while CH is a satirical representation of contemporary Cuban life. The album art for these two releases represent these differences as well. The BVSC cover uses blurred and muted colors on the front and is black and white on the back, drawing attention to vintage 1940s and 1950s American cars. This furthers the image of the pre-Revolution Cuba, frozen in time. In contrast, the CH album is brightly colored, with "props" made of neon-colored condoms. According to Neustadt, it is "clearly ironic" (148), and this augments their satire. Unsurprisingly, BVSC was marketed to (and mostly bought by) "'First World' Europeans or Anglos--not Latin Americans and certainly not Cubans" (149); it satisfied demand for exotic music in Europe and North America. In contrast, CH appeals to Cubans who live in Cuba through their lyrics concerning "shared perception and experience" (140).
Discussion Question: These two vastly different albums were released at roughly the same time. Why do you think they are still different? Also, compare the translations in the Neustadt reading and the BVSC album liner. Where are they different? What (or who) is responsible for these differences, and why do you think they are different?
Discussion Question: These two vastly different albums were released at roughly the same time. Why do you think they are still different? Also, compare the translations in the Neustadt reading and the BVSC album liner. Where are they different? What (or who) is responsible for these differences, and why do you think they are different?
Challenge Question Feedback (Julie answered my second question)
I have very similar ideas as Julie does. Specifically, I also believe that the three main critiques of Ethnomusicology are valid, and that good training, interviewing many members of the studied culture, staying for a significant time in the studied culture, and reflexivity are the main ways that the criticisms can be mitigated.
However, I do have some ideas to add. I think that in addition to addressing the two other concerns, reflexivity can also play a large role in reducing the asymmetries of power: the ethnomusicologist should recognize the impact that his ethnography may have on his career and include ways that it may have prejudiced his observations and subsequent writings in his ethnography. Additionally, though Julie writes about interviewing many people and incorporating their views, she does not mention polyphonic discourse. In my opinion, this is the best way to address the poststructuralist criticism that individual experience is fiction. Because many parties are interacting on different levels and each interprets it in a unique way, it makes sense for all (or, at the very least, many different) voices to be represented in the ethnography. This effectively makes writing about the experience a shared project, much like how the experience itself was a shared one. Of course, as the “editor” of his ethnography, the ethnomusicologist is responsible for choosing which opinions to include in his ethnography, but if he is objective and reflexive, this should not be a problem.
Overall, I thought that Julie’s response was insightful and well-written. Indeed, there may be no better way to approach the critiques of Ethnomusicology aside from consciously acknowledging the criticisms and actively planning how to overcome or, at the very least, to ameliorate these concerns.
However, I do have some ideas to add. I think that in addition to addressing the two other concerns, reflexivity can also play a large role in reducing the asymmetries of power: the ethnomusicologist should recognize the impact that his ethnography may have on his career and include ways that it may have prejudiced his observations and subsequent writings in his ethnography. Additionally, though Julie writes about interviewing many people and incorporating their views, she does not mention polyphonic discourse. In my opinion, this is the best way to address the poststructuralist criticism that individual experience is fiction. Because many parties are interacting on different levels and each interprets it in a unique way, it makes sense for all (or, at the very least, many different) voices to be represented in the ethnography. This effectively makes writing about the experience a shared project, much like how the experience itself was a shared one. Of course, as the “editor” of his ethnography, the ethnomusicologist is responsible for choosing which opinions to include in his ethnography, but if he is objective and reflexive, this should not be a problem.
Overall, I thought that Julie’s response was insightful and well-written. Indeed, there may be no better way to approach the critiques of Ethnomusicology aside from consciously acknowledging the criticisms and actively planning how to overcome or, at the very least, to ameliorate these concerns.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Challenge Question Response (Andy's First Question)
In his ethnography entitled Heartland Excursions, Nettl assumes three voices. He describes them as “an ethnomusicologist teaching at Heartland U. and writing a conventional account,” “the principal native informant […who] knows its ins and outs as well as anyone,” (Nettl 8) and an outsider. While this approach does have some advantages over a single-voiced experiential or interpretive ethnography, it does not constitute true polyphony of voices and is intrinsically limited.
Though assuming different voices is not true polyphonic discourse, this style is not without its own advantages. In fact, it may be more objective than the experiential or interpretive modes of ethnographic authority (according to Clifford), which only present the ethnographer’s point of view. But the main advantage of having one person assume the different viewpoints is that he can then present multiple analyses of the same exact fact or event. This is difficult with true polyphony. Observations of different authorities are inherently colored by their prior experiences and biases, but what each individual chooses to observe and remark on may vary as well. Furthermore, instructing diverse people to observe the same thing carries the risk that the instruction will affect their subsequent conclusions. In my opinion, these are the main advantages of one ethnographer assuming the role of both the insider and the outsider.
Borrowing the phrasing of the question, I believe that despite its advantages, this form of discourse is inherently limited. When assuming the role of the outsider, the ethnographer can claim to have eliminated his prior biases, but can one really “forget” his past? In my opinion, it is far too easy to simply address those biases, therefore missing or ignoring other important details that only true outsiders would perceive as significant. It is my understanding that the polyphonic mode of discourse is a response to the idea that it is in fact impossible for any individual, ethnographer, translator, insider, or outsider, to be unprejudiced. Consequently, it is necessary to include as many of these presumed biases as possible so that the reader can incorporate as many points of view as possible into his own interpretation of the ethnography. In short, I believe that multiple voices from a single author are not equivalent to multiple speakers.
Another fundamental problem with this approach is that it only allows for one insider and one outsider. Of course, Nettl himself is the solitary insider in his writing, but not all members of a culture sees and “translates” it for others in the same way. The same problem exists for the outsider: Nettl describes his outsider as “the legendary ‘ethnomusicologist from Mars’” (8), claiming that this ethnographer “comes to the Heartlands with no knowledge and thus experiences everything from scratch” (8). While I agree that all experiences are new for the outsider, it is impossible for anyone with no knowledge to perform an ethnography. Any outsider’s observations will naturally be in the context of his home culture or cultures that he is familiar with; thus, different outsiders could also interpret the same culture differently. Again, polyphony seeks to bring in as many voices—insiders and outsiders alike—as possible, and this is not accomplished with one author assuming two general roles.
Writing an ethnography while assuming different roles, such as the insider and the outsider, does have some advantages. Specifically, the diverse viewpoints on the same aspects of culture generated by these different perspectives can be illuminating. However, as helpful as this can be, it is not polyphonic. No matter how hard someone tries, it is impossible to truly remove all personal biases and past experiences when analyzing a part of a culture, and this does not satisfy the requirement that many different insiders and outsiders must be included for a writing to be polyphonic. Therefore, although this writing style does improve on experiential or interpretive discourses, it cannot be categorized as true polyphony.
Though assuming different voices is not true polyphonic discourse, this style is not without its own advantages. In fact, it may be more objective than the experiential or interpretive modes of ethnographic authority (according to Clifford), which only present the ethnographer’s point of view. But the main advantage of having one person assume the different viewpoints is that he can then present multiple analyses of the same exact fact or event. This is difficult with true polyphony. Observations of different authorities are inherently colored by their prior experiences and biases, but what each individual chooses to observe and remark on may vary as well. Furthermore, instructing diverse people to observe the same thing carries the risk that the instruction will affect their subsequent conclusions. In my opinion, these are the main advantages of one ethnographer assuming the role of both the insider and the outsider.
Borrowing the phrasing of the question, I believe that despite its advantages, this form of discourse is inherently limited. When assuming the role of the outsider, the ethnographer can claim to have eliminated his prior biases, but can one really “forget” his past? In my opinion, it is far too easy to simply address those biases, therefore missing or ignoring other important details that only true outsiders would perceive as significant. It is my understanding that the polyphonic mode of discourse is a response to the idea that it is in fact impossible for any individual, ethnographer, translator, insider, or outsider, to be unprejudiced. Consequently, it is necessary to include as many of these presumed biases as possible so that the reader can incorporate as many points of view as possible into his own interpretation of the ethnography. In short, I believe that multiple voices from a single author are not equivalent to multiple speakers.
Another fundamental problem with this approach is that it only allows for one insider and one outsider. Of course, Nettl himself is the solitary insider in his writing, but not all members of a culture sees and “translates” it for others in the same way. The same problem exists for the outsider: Nettl describes his outsider as “the legendary ‘ethnomusicologist from Mars’” (8), claiming that this ethnographer “comes to the Heartlands with no knowledge and thus experiences everything from scratch” (8). While I agree that all experiences are new for the outsider, it is impossible for anyone with no knowledge to perform an ethnography. Any outsider’s observations will naturally be in the context of his home culture or cultures that he is familiar with; thus, different outsiders could also interpret the same culture differently. Again, polyphony seeks to bring in as many voices—insiders and outsiders alike—as possible, and this is not accomplished with one author assuming two general roles.
Writing an ethnography while assuming different roles, such as the insider and the outsider, does have some advantages. Specifically, the diverse viewpoints on the same aspects of culture generated by these different perspectives can be illuminating. However, as helpful as this can be, it is not polyphonic. No matter how hard someone tries, it is impossible to truly remove all personal biases and past experiences when analyzing a part of a culture, and this does not satisfy the requirement that many different insiders and outsiders must be included for a writing to be polyphonic. Therefore, although this writing style does improve on experiential or interpretive discourses, it cannot be categorized as true polyphony.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Critical Review #9: Campbell 1997
Campbell writes mainly about the changes in shape-note singing in the South following the Civil War. He mentions the incorporation of gospel music and the creation of seven shaped notes, as well as attempts by Aldine S. Kieffer to spread this "new" tradition. He also describes five revisions of The Sacred Harp: William Cooper's The Sacred Harp, Revised and Improved, three revisions by J. L. White (the first in conjunction with his brother B. F. White Jr.), and Joseph James' The Original Sacred Harp. At the time, most singing conventions wanted a revision, but without corrections other than typos, without any songs in the gospel style, and with new songs at the end of the book. Campbell also goes into much detail about how James "sold" his book to both traditionalists, by emphasizing the features that kept the old traditions, and modernists, by appealing to their "obsession with numbers, output, and quantification" (182). Interestingly, James did not limit himself to the musical style found in The Original Sacred Harp: he also published two other books. One included many newer gospel tunes, and the other was "specially arranged so its compositions can be easily played on instruments" (183). Regardless, Campbell did effectively prove that the shape-not tradition was not interpreted in any unique way, and that it was evolving.
Discussion Question: Do you think that James' revision, The Original Sacred Harp, would have been as popular if he did not include notes describing the traditions his book preserved as well as elements appealing to the more progressive?
Discussion Question: Do you think that James' revision, The Original Sacred Harp, would have been as popular if he did not include notes describing the traditions his book preserved as well as elements appealing to the more progressive?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Fieldwork Notes 5
A performance!
10/22, J. Walter Wilson lobby, 3:00 (that's the agreed-upon starting time. But they actually don't start until around 3:30). They are in the little nook across from University Mail Services (by the main entrance facing Waterman St.)
Dress is casual for all. I think they just wore whatever they were wearing that day for class.
The performance is a "surprise" for most people. It has not been announced.
Before the performance starts, I ask Sarah where I should sit so I "don't look creepy." I wonder how other bystanders/passerby feel about me, as I attempt to hide in a corner.
No announcing of music to be played. Brian is not there--no non-playing conductor.
One of Sarah's friends walks by, they say hi and Sarah asks him if he wants to hear the saxtet play. He asks why they're playing; she replies, "'Cuz the saxtet just wants to play before the first Wind Symphony concert" (their first "official" performance).
Marc is telling Sarah the order of songs that they will play--Scriabin first, then a Fugue, a Scherzo, and a Fugue from Marc's collection.
Micah (to me and Mike): "I hope we don't hit the resonant frequency of these bricks…The corporation will definitely kick us out of Brown if that happens." We laugh.
In general, there are interested looks from passerby, but no one stops to listen.
They retune after the first song.
A mail worker comes out to watch. The two workers behind the University Mail counter are talking and glancing over with smiles. Also [2 students--names deleted], friends of saxtet members (and me). Two construction workers pause as they exit the building.
No one claps after they finish playing.
They're trying to figure out who starts the next song: "Who starts?" "You start."
Two observers now, one reading his mail. They leave together in the middle of the song.
There is the sound of a hammer from the construction workers outside. It doesn’t distract the group, which surprises me because its "beat" is slower than the tempo for the Fugue and sometimes irregular.
The behavior is mostly similar from rehearsal behavior.
I can't see their faces. I'm sitting behind and to the left of them so I don't intrude. They are in an arc facing University Mail Services. From left to right (facing the group), it is Mike, Sarah, Micah, and Marc.
Then, they play the Scherzo. An older man comes in to watch. He's standing in front of them. When they finish playing, he asks how many Selmers (sax brand) are "over there." It's just the (Brown-owned) soprano. He says, "great" and leaves. We (collectively) wonder who he is after the performance is over.
I wonder how my presence is affecting them, because usually audience members are not behind performers.
There is applause after the Scherzo, mostly from the mail workers (no students watching). The group re-tunes again. They talk about how someone famous (didn't catch the name) played the same concert in a subway station that he did at Carnegie Hall the night before. Time-lapse photography showed that only a few people stopped to watch, though a couple did for significant periods of time.
They now start "Fugue 7." Micah is moving more than he did during reherasal. Sarah cuts them off on this piece; there is no applause.
They wonder if they should play anything else, but the group consensus is that nothing is ready, though Marc seems to want to "read" something. They decide to migrate to Faunce by the Blue Room. There is a meeting in the Peterruti Lounge at 4, and the group wants to "catch" people as they walk in.
The group packs up, and a construction worker jokes about the group leaving as they come in. The boys go to check their mail (Sarah did before the performance). On the way to the Blue Room (I'm carrying a soprano sax, it's case, and a sax stand), Mike jokes that I'm a roadie, and Sarah jokes that I'm doing participant observation.
When we get to the Blue Room, I tell the group I'm leaving because I have an advising meeting at 4, and I start to leave, but then I realize that my meeting is in University Hall, so I "sneak" back into the Blue Room to observe the "audience." I can't see the group from where I am sitting.
They tune, and almost no one reacts--one person goes to look, and mimes closing the door to the people she was sitting with. Then she closes the door. [I drew a sad face in my notes here] Soon, Sarah opens it.
They start off with the Scriabin again. That group (I think they were studying) moves closer to the windows facing the Main Green. Someone from the group (different person as before) gets up to look and see who's playing, says, "I can't close it." A different girl throws out her trash by the doorway where the group is, looks at the group curiously, and leaves.
There is silence (for a significant moment), then they play the Bach. A Blue Room worker dances for a couple seconds. The cashier steps around the door and looks at the group for a while. The studying group is moving again (I heard someone say "library"). I wonder how the saxtet's music is "worse" than the babble of voices.
Another Blue Room worker goes to investigate, then goes back to work, half-dancing and half-walking.
Again, there are no announcements for what the piece is playing, or the group name.
They start the Scherzo. A table of 3 kids tries to get everyone to start clapping on the beat, but they stop after only 3-4 claps and no one else joins in.
And I'm off to my meeting...
10/22, J. Walter Wilson lobby, 3:00 (that's the agreed-upon starting time. But they actually don't start until around 3:30). They are in the little nook across from University Mail Services (by the main entrance facing Waterman St.)
Dress is casual for all. I think they just wore whatever they were wearing that day for class.
The performance is a "surprise" for most people. It has not been announced.
Before the performance starts, I ask Sarah where I should sit so I "don't look creepy." I wonder how other bystanders/passerby feel about me, as I attempt to hide in a corner.
No announcing of music to be played. Brian is not there--no non-playing conductor.
One of Sarah's friends walks by, they say hi and Sarah asks him if he wants to hear the saxtet play. He asks why they're playing; she replies, "'Cuz the saxtet just wants to play before the first Wind Symphony concert" (their first "official" performance).
Marc is telling Sarah the order of songs that they will play--Scriabin first, then a Fugue, a Scherzo, and a Fugue from Marc's collection.
Micah (to me and Mike): "I hope we don't hit the resonant frequency of these bricks…The corporation will definitely kick us out of Brown if that happens." We laugh.
In general, there are interested looks from passerby, but no one stops to listen.
They retune after the first song.
A mail worker comes out to watch. The two workers behind the University Mail counter are talking and glancing over with smiles. Also [2 students--names deleted], friends of saxtet members (and me). Two construction workers pause as they exit the building.
No one claps after they finish playing.
They're trying to figure out who starts the next song: "Who starts?" "You start."
Two observers now, one reading his mail. They leave together in the middle of the song.
There is the sound of a hammer from the construction workers outside. It doesn’t distract the group, which surprises me because its "beat" is slower than the tempo for the Fugue and sometimes irregular.
The behavior is mostly similar from rehearsal behavior.
I can't see their faces. I'm sitting behind and to the left of them so I don't intrude. They are in an arc facing University Mail Services. From left to right (facing the group), it is Mike, Sarah, Micah, and Marc.
Then, they play the Scherzo. An older man comes in to watch. He's standing in front of them. When they finish playing, he asks how many Selmers (sax brand) are "over there." It's just the (Brown-owned) soprano. He says, "great" and leaves. We (collectively) wonder who he is after the performance is over.
I wonder how my presence is affecting them, because usually audience members are not behind performers.
There is applause after the Scherzo, mostly from the mail workers (no students watching). The group re-tunes again. They talk about how someone famous (didn't catch the name) played the same concert in a subway station that he did at Carnegie Hall the night before. Time-lapse photography showed that only a few people stopped to watch, though a couple did for significant periods of time.
They now start "Fugue 7." Micah is moving more than he did during reherasal. Sarah cuts them off on this piece; there is no applause.
They wonder if they should play anything else, but the group consensus is that nothing is ready, though Marc seems to want to "read" something. They decide to migrate to Faunce by the Blue Room. There is a meeting in the Peterruti Lounge at 4, and the group wants to "catch" people as they walk in.
The group packs up, and a construction worker jokes about the group leaving as they come in. The boys go to check their mail (Sarah did before the performance). On the way to the Blue Room (I'm carrying a soprano sax, it's case, and a sax stand), Mike jokes that I'm a roadie, and Sarah jokes that I'm doing participant observation.
When we get to the Blue Room, I tell the group I'm leaving because I have an advising meeting at 4, and I start to leave, but then I realize that my meeting is in University Hall, so I "sneak" back into the Blue Room to observe the "audience." I can't see the group from where I am sitting.
They tune, and almost no one reacts--one person goes to look, and mimes closing the door to the people she was sitting with. Then she closes the door. [I drew a sad face in my notes here] Soon, Sarah opens it.
They start off with the Scriabin again. That group (I think they were studying) moves closer to the windows facing the Main Green. Someone from the group (different person as before) gets up to look and see who's playing, says, "I can't close it." A different girl throws out her trash by the doorway where the group is, looks at the group curiously, and leaves.
There is silence (for a significant moment), then they play the Bach. A Blue Room worker dances for a couple seconds. The cashier steps around the door and looks at the group for a while. The studying group is moving again (I heard someone say "library"). I wonder how the saxtet's music is "worse" than the babble of voices.
Another Blue Room worker goes to investigate, then goes back to work, half-dancing and half-walking.
Again, there are no announcements for what the piece is playing, or the group name.
They start the Scherzo. A table of 3 kids tries to get everyone to start clapping on the beat, but they stop after only 3-4 claps and no one else joins in.
And I'm off to my meeting...
Fieldwork Notes 4
This is the first rehearsal that I've been to without Brian. According from Mike (from his interview), these rehearsals basically run the same way, just Brian isn't there. In fact, he says that they're almost more productive, because there are fewer side conversations (though they still do occur). I must not let this "prior knowledge" affect my observations today.
They talk about performing on Wednesday, but say it's probably not going to happen (weather? They wanted to play outside). But then Marc says he hasn't been to the new mail room yet and wants to check it out--could they play there? Micah asks to end rehearsal at 7:10 so he can get ready for jazz band (rehearsal) because he has to break in some new reeds. Marc says the Bach sounds like a good thing to start with (out of the Larry Teal book). Mike says they should try to get stuff ready for their "performance" on Wednesday.
Apparently the correct "standing order" is Alto 1, Alto 2, Bari, Tenor, or Alto, Bari, Soprano, Tenor. (The group got into an order and Mike said, "Isn't this how it's supposed to be?") They go for the "correct" order when Sarah plays alto, but to make "the logistics" (Micah) easier, they're not going to make her move. Sarah says this shouldn't be a big deal because she and Micah will still be in the middle, just not in the correct order. They tune. Mike has a tuner; they use that to get Marc in tune and then try to match him. Then they play an A major chord, and then Mike suggests that they go bottom up and try to make something that sounds good (one note/player at a time). Micah's ready now and tunes. Marc jokes that he was out of tune earlier because he was listening to a baroque band today and tuned to them.
Marc seems to be taking control of this rehearsal. They're talking about the slow section of this piece. Marc asks the group what they can do to make the part sound less "plodding." Micah says that's how he interpret this section, but Mike says that it says dolce in his part. Marc says he can hear the dolce. They decide to follow the rule: if the line goes up, go up, if it goes down, quiet down. Mike asks about rubato--they decide it's ok for Mike to do a little. Micah tells Mike he can stretch however much he wants, just he may have to shrink too the accompanying part lines up. They kind of converge around Mike; Marc says that he thinks that Mike has basically a solo, so play out. "It sounds good, I hear those blocks right now, rather than the whole 8 bars." They're going for separate 4 bar statements. Marc has some suggestions for Mike. One is something he says Brian tells them to do a lot--to accelerate and crescendo into the ending of the phrase for directions. Mike tries it by himself. Micah and Mike say they don't like it. Micah says they shouldn't' do too much with the tempo. They're talking about phrasing. They're skipping the repeats.
Marc's final comment: He says he feels it at a point, and not so much at other places, but they decide it's good enough for the post office. Mike says, "or gov't work." Sarah says he doesn't understand; Mike says it's kind of like "good enough for jazz" and she understands.
They're now playing a Scherzo by Rimsky-Korsakoff.
There was a problem. They stopped because someone (or more than just one) came in right. Mike asks about tonguing. Marc says they're tonguing everything, but Mike says he has slur two tongue two for groups of 4, tongue groups of 3, and tongue/slur/tongue for 6. Micah and Marc say they like tonguing everything better. Micah asks how he should interpret the eighth notes; Sarah says they're separated but not staccato, and Marc says they're almost bell tones. Marc says to think of this as a march and to build up to the fourth eighth note in each beat, to build up to four and one (it's in 6/8). He then counts it off in 6…Marc stops the group and asks Mike to play his eighth notes a bit longer and flatter, not as harshly, more like da's than ta's, but to still leave the space in.
Matt McGarrell comes in to start setting up for jazz band and they (and me) say hi. Mike's phone rings. Marc asks who it is, Mike says his parents and stops it from ringing, saying, "denied."
They start again…Micah says that the last note should be longer, almost a full beat but not quite. Mike says that they should start at 110. Sarah says it was a wind symphony cut off--the lowest note was the last one to cut off. This comment was for Matt, as it references the last note in the Holst suite that we performed last Friday. Matt replies that it is the best way to do it.
This Scherzo is not perfect note-wise, but is musical nonetheless.
Marc stops the group to address a dynamic issue--piano at 90 that "I didn't hear us do."
Mike mimics the phrasing Micah did when his part was similar earlier (or the last time they played it?). They decide it's good enough.
Now they're discussing the spelling of Scriabin, where sometimes there is a "j" because there isn't a corresponding English letter to the Cyrillic alphabet (Scrijabin?). Mike says something that I'm not going to post, but I make a face at Sarah and she makes a different one expressing the same idea (awkwardness) back.
They (finally? They’ve been out of tune—sharp—for a while now) decide to re-tune. Mike holds the tuner for Micah, and the rest join in and tune themselves when he is in tune.
They start the Scriabin. This piece is slower. Micah is conducting this one--he has the "solo" part. Sarah (at least) looks at him when there's a fermata (I think), and the entire group cuts off together. Micah cuts off the last note with a circle similar to the expressive ones he was drawing. Marc says there weren't too many dynamics, so Micah suggests that they do it again so that they can actually do them. They're talking about an earlier fermata, where Micah is the only one holding. He says it'll probably be short because he'd like to make it through a prior measure without taking a breath. He says probably one or two beats, and then he'll cue them in like he did.
They start again. Mike looks at Micah a lot. The others don't really look up from their music, but perhaps they can see him out of the corner of their eyes (Mike is the only one not next to Micah). Mike says "I don't know about you guys, but I can memorize about a phrase at a time, so we should do that and watch each other." They talk about a forte (?) that they missed, and resolve to do it. Mike asks for it one more time. Marc says, "Micah, I feel like you could really sing, add some vibrato, really sing."
They then decide to try Mediterranean from the Bagatelle. But Marc forgot his music…They then decide to try something old (a Fugue) because Sarah hasn't seen them on Soprano yet.
Talking about the Fugue, Marc says he didn't come down as fast as he should have--wasn't following Standard Fugue Procedure (again something Mike mentioned). He conduct the retard at the end with knee bends, and usually bends his knees on the beat--sometimes every two, and sometimes he sways to the left or right instead. Marc tells Mike and Sarah to "sing." Sarah cuts them off at the end with a circle drawn with the bell of her (soprano) sax, but Marc's definitely conducting the rest of the Fugue. I think he was the arranger.
There really are much fewer side stories now as compared to rehearsal with Brian.
Movement while playing, based on observations during the entire rehearsal:
I think Mike is technically responsible for conducting (as the 1st alto player), but he isn't doing too much. However, the group are excellent musicians so at least in terms of time, they don't need anything. He bends forward at the waist with the beat sometimes, but beyond that is fairly motionless.
Micah is relatively motionless in terms of keeping time, but likes to move his sax up and to his right when emphasizing things such as the last note of phrases. For slower music (Scriabin): Micah also draws circles with the bell to his left.
Marc sways to the left and right and bends his knees on the beat, but also on eighth notes, for example, for emphasis.
Sarah sways up and down like Marc, but not as much. Her left arm (top arm) is normally held out just shy of horizontal, and she moves it up to horizontal on the beat.
They talk about performing on Wednesday, but say it's probably not going to happen (weather? They wanted to play outside). But then Marc says he hasn't been to the new mail room yet and wants to check it out--could they play there? Micah asks to end rehearsal at 7:10 so he can get ready for jazz band (rehearsal) because he has to break in some new reeds. Marc says the Bach sounds like a good thing to start with (out of the Larry Teal book). Mike says they should try to get stuff ready for their "performance" on Wednesday.
Apparently the correct "standing order" is Alto 1, Alto 2, Bari, Tenor, or Alto, Bari, Soprano, Tenor. (The group got into an order and Mike said, "Isn't this how it's supposed to be?") They go for the "correct" order when Sarah plays alto, but to make "the logistics" (Micah) easier, they're not going to make her move. Sarah says this shouldn't be a big deal because she and Micah will still be in the middle, just not in the correct order. They tune. Mike has a tuner; they use that to get Marc in tune and then try to match him. Then they play an A major chord, and then Mike suggests that they go bottom up and try to make something that sounds good (one note/player at a time). Micah's ready now and tunes. Marc jokes that he was out of tune earlier because he was listening to a baroque band today and tuned to them.
Marc seems to be taking control of this rehearsal. They're talking about the slow section of this piece. Marc asks the group what they can do to make the part sound less "plodding." Micah says that's how he interpret this section, but Mike says that it says dolce in his part. Marc says he can hear the dolce. They decide to follow the rule: if the line goes up, go up, if it goes down, quiet down. Mike asks about rubato--they decide it's ok for Mike to do a little. Micah tells Mike he can stretch however much he wants, just he may have to shrink too the accompanying part lines up. They kind of converge around Mike; Marc says that he thinks that Mike has basically a solo, so play out. "It sounds good, I hear those blocks right now, rather than the whole 8 bars." They're going for separate 4 bar statements. Marc has some suggestions for Mike. One is something he says Brian tells them to do a lot--to accelerate and crescendo into the ending of the phrase for directions. Mike tries it by himself. Micah and Mike say they don't like it. Micah says they shouldn't' do too much with the tempo. They're talking about phrasing. They're skipping the repeats.
Marc's final comment: He says he feels it at a point, and not so much at other places, but they decide it's good enough for the post office. Mike says, "or gov't work." Sarah says he doesn't understand; Mike says it's kind of like "good enough for jazz" and she understands.
They're now playing a Scherzo by Rimsky-Korsakoff.
There was a problem. They stopped because someone (or more than just one) came in right. Mike asks about tonguing. Marc says they're tonguing everything, but Mike says he has slur two tongue two for groups of 4, tongue groups of 3, and tongue/slur/tongue for 6. Micah and Marc say they like tonguing everything better. Micah asks how he should interpret the eighth notes; Sarah says they're separated but not staccato, and Marc says they're almost bell tones. Marc says to think of this as a march and to build up to the fourth eighth note in each beat, to build up to four and one (it's in 6/8). He then counts it off in 6…Marc stops the group and asks Mike to play his eighth notes a bit longer and flatter, not as harshly, more like da's than ta's, but to still leave the space in.
Matt McGarrell comes in to start setting up for jazz band and they (and me) say hi. Mike's phone rings. Marc asks who it is, Mike says his parents and stops it from ringing, saying, "denied."
They start again…Micah says that the last note should be longer, almost a full beat but not quite. Mike says that they should start at 110. Sarah says it was a wind symphony cut off--the lowest note was the last one to cut off. This comment was for Matt, as it references the last note in the Holst suite that we performed last Friday. Matt replies that it is the best way to do it.
This Scherzo is not perfect note-wise, but is musical nonetheless.
Marc stops the group to address a dynamic issue--piano at 90 that "I didn't hear us do."
Mike mimics the phrasing Micah did when his part was similar earlier (or the last time they played it?). They decide it's good enough.
Now they're discussing the spelling of Scriabin, where sometimes there is a "j" because there isn't a corresponding English letter to the Cyrillic alphabet (Scrijabin?). Mike says something that I'm not going to post, but I make a face at Sarah and she makes a different one expressing the same idea (awkwardness) back.
They (finally? They’ve been out of tune—sharp—for a while now) decide to re-tune. Mike holds the tuner for Micah, and the rest join in and tune themselves when he is in tune.
They start the Scriabin. This piece is slower. Micah is conducting this one--he has the "solo" part. Sarah (at least) looks at him when there's a fermata (I think), and the entire group cuts off together. Micah cuts off the last note with a circle similar to the expressive ones he was drawing. Marc says there weren't too many dynamics, so Micah suggests that they do it again so that they can actually do them. They're talking about an earlier fermata, where Micah is the only one holding. He says it'll probably be short because he'd like to make it through a prior measure without taking a breath. He says probably one or two beats, and then he'll cue them in like he did.
They start again. Mike looks at Micah a lot. The others don't really look up from their music, but perhaps they can see him out of the corner of their eyes (Mike is the only one not next to Micah). Mike says "I don't know about you guys, but I can memorize about a phrase at a time, so we should do that and watch each other." They talk about a forte (?) that they missed, and resolve to do it. Mike asks for it one more time. Marc says, "Micah, I feel like you could really sing, add some vibrato, really sing."
They then decide to try Mediterranean from the Bagatelle. But Marc forgot his music…They then decide to try something old (a Fugue) because Sarah hasn't seen them on Soprano yet.
Talking about the Fugue, Marc says he didn't come down as fast as he should have--wasn't following Standard Fugue Procedure (again something Mike mentioned). He conduct the retard at the end with knee bends, and usually bends his knees on the beat--sometimes every two, and sometimes he sways to the left or right instead. Marc tells Mike and Sarah to "sing." Sarah cuts them off at the end with a circle drawn with the bell of her (soprano) sax, but Marc's definitely conducting the rest of the Fugue. I think he was the arranger.
There really are much fewer side stories now as compared to rehearsal with Brian.
Movement while playing, based on observations during the entire rehearsal:
I think Mike is technically responsible for conducting (as the 1st alto player), but he isn't doing too much. However, the group are excellent musicians so at least in terms of time, they don't need anything. He bends forward at the waist with the beat sometimes, but beyond that is fairly motionless.
Micah is relatively motionless in terms of keeping time, but likes to move his sax up and to his right when emphasizing things such as the last note of phrases. For slower music (Scriabin): Micah also draws circles with the bell to his left.
Marc sways to the left and right and bends his knees on the beat, but also on eighth notes, for example, for emphasis.
Sarah sways up and down like Marc, but not as much. Her left arm (top arm) is normally held out just shy of horizontal, and she moves it up to horizontal on the beat.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)