The Importance of Being a Global Citizen

In October of 1492, Christopher Columbus voyaged to the Americas, marking the beginning of European colonization in the western world.  Many years before that, Leif Ericson, a less iconic explorer than Columbus, became widely known as the first person to land on the shores of North America.  And, even before that, people in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East traveled to different areas than their native countries.  These cross-world treks included long days sailing on the ocean, starvation and not even a clear idea of which direction to navigate towards.  A lot has changed in the past 500 years, to say the least, in terms of communication in a worldwide sense.   In 2012, one can connect with people around the globe by means of the World Wide Web, telephones, video chat capabilities, or even via standard mailing systems.  If a person wishes to travel from New York to Australia, he can simply book an airline flight and be across the world in under a day’s time.  Despite accessible means of communication, basic human elements that existed in the time of Christopher Columbus still exist today - one being the inclination to interact with other areas of the world.  The manner in which that interaction occurs, however, may be negative or positive.  And, occasionally, people’s actions unknowingly affect their fellow citizens of the world, in either a negative or positive way.  The decisions that people make are based on their inherent or learned values and practices.  This is where musical practices come into play, along with a variety of other seemingly mundane “activities” such as shopping at the grocery store, buying a new pair of gym shoes or supporting a certain political figure.  Due to this, to become an positively impactful global citizen, one must put global issues into context and reevaluate his actions.

            Many people underestimate the power of music in a centralized society, and, no less, in a global environment.  Music, for centuries past, has served as more than just an art form for its constituents – it is a way of life.  Making music has become such an intrinsic aspect to society that the different fields of music making greatly reflect the values and compartmentalization of society.  Participatory music making, for example, does not allow for a hierarchical ranking – there is no distinction between performers and an audience, as everyone is expected to contribute in whatever capacity possible.  If one were to politicize participatory music, he may suggest that the values of participatory music reflect similar values to those of a socialist system, or to go to an extreme, a communist system.  However, participatory music making can be similarly applied to smaller enterprises, such as a farmer’s market that aims to keep business in the community and also provide buyers with quality food.  The environment of a farmer’s market emphasizes social bonding and connection and little on a person’s aptitude, creating an uncompetitive environment.

Conversely, the fields of high fidelity and studio audio art almost directly oppose the ideal of participatory music making.  Music that is created in a high fidelity environment is a recorded piece in which the instruments normally record independently of the singer, and then a studio engineer controls the mixing of the two aspects to a song.  Because of this, social bonding is placed on a backburner in favor of generating a viable commodity.  Again, if one were to categorize these fields of music making in an economic or social system, it would be a very familiar structure for Americans to comprehend.  High fidelity music and studio audio art value gaining money from a product, similar to a capitalist system.  Most people are heavily exposed to high fidelity music, more so than participatory and even presentational.  Similarly, if a person wishes to go buy groceries, he is most likely to be exposed to a corporate grocery store, such as Kroger, as opposed to a small, local farmer’s market.  What a person does not normally think of when he shops at Kroger, however, is where the food he is buying is actually coming from.  That is how a global aspect becomes involved in such a situation.  Due to the concept of economic globalization, many products and jobs have been outsourced to foreign countries due to cheaper wages and farming land.  By feeding into the capitalist system, one may contend that people harm their local food providers and only aid the massive conglomerates.  In a world of nearly 7 billion people it is difficult to imagine that the simplest of actions can affect a person halfway across the world, but the direct effects do not lie.

  Now, knowing that societies operate differently and that the means to observe these societies are readily available, global citizens must decide what to do with such conveniences at their disposal.  Beginning at a local level, as discussed in class, seems to be the most feasible option.  After all, one has to learn how to crawl before he can walk, and enhancing the views of people is no easy task.  Many people become stagnant in their beliefs, but being a global citizen calls those people to a responsibility that they owe humanity.  Music, in its various forms, can serve as an avenue to arriving at and maintaining such a massive responsibility.   In class, we discussed the differences between a cultural cohort and a cultural formation.  A cohort operates as an aspect to people’s lives; it does not determine a person’s identity, but enriches it.  But, a cultural cohort can eventually shape a cultural formation.  A cultural formation is a bit more than a cultural cohort – it functions as a more identifiable pattern a person’s life follows, such as habitual practices.  Attending a contra-dance event, for example, is a cultural cohort.  However, the same people that attend a contra-dance may be easily recognizable at the local farmer’s market, a community art show, or the like.  From this, one can infer that if people “do” together, they identify themselves with similar life principles, thus expanding their interactions.  Those people become friends because they find a sense of belonging with one another.  It is incredible that a simple activity such as attending a dance lesson once a week with similar “kinds” or people can eventually swell so much that those people adopt similar standards by which they live their lives.       

Ironically enough, the world once feared that the earth was flat; now, it appears that, in some ways, the earth truly has been flattened.  The economic playing field, as a result of globalization, has been flattened.  Barriers among cultures from the west to east, although oppositional in beliefs in some cases, have been flattened.  And, possibly, all things that create intolerance and misunderstanding could be flattened.  The world is a monstrous entity-sometimes it is difficult to comprehend just how the planet truly is.  By looking at the values we deem significant in music, for example, and applying them to other aspects of our lives, maybe we can create a progressively flattened earth.  What is so great about being a global citizen is that we all have the incredible opportunity to make the world a better place.  By instilling accountability in one’s daily life practices and being open minded of the way others choose to live their lives, we can create a sense of sustainability for our future generations.  The empowerment that comes attached to being a global citizen is immense- and we should take full advantage of being put in such a position. 

My Unexpected Contra-Dance Experience

When we received the class syllabus on the first day of IFS, I casually flipped through it, noting the different activities we would partake in and the different assignments we would have to complete.  As I skimmed to the back page, I noticed that one of our assignments was titled “Bloomington Contra-Dance”.  In that moment, I let out an exasperated sigh and was immediately imagining how disastrous it would be if I attempted to dance.  Anyone that knows me understands my complete aversion to dancing in any way, shape or form.  I consider myself to be the least rhythmic person on the planet, and that is in no way an exaggeration.  For example, during a music class in grammar school we had to learn how to square dance and, in short, I ended up with a broken leg by the end of the lesson.  However, despite my severe case of clumsiness, I was quite surprised when I found myself actually having fun at the Boys and Girls club at last night’s contra-dance event.

Initially, since everyone in the class was outside of their comfort zones, most of us partnered up with a person we knew.  However, once the first dance was over, everyone mixed it up and met new people.  Each dance thereafter, my partner was not someone I had known beforehand.  I found this to be extremely indicative of the type of people that go to events such as the contra-dance, and the friendliness of the people in Bloomington.  I never had to ask someone to be my partner, because the “regulars” readily walked up to us newcomers and asked us to be their partners.  That was probably the most surprising thing of the entire experience- the fact that complete strangers wanted to welcome you wholeheartedly into their environment.  Even though my feet and arms were occasionally out of sync and it took me forever to learn a courtesy turn, I never felt awkward because the more experienced dancers were so encouraging.  I think I apologized to just about every person I danced with, and they all responded with uplifting remarks.  I told one older man that I had no idea what I was doing and he answered by saying, “That’s what makes this so fun!"  I hadn’t thought of it in that way, but it was completely true.  Initially, I found myself feeling frustrated and embarrassed when I messed up a move, but eventually I learned to laugh it off and just have fun with it. 

In high school, I absolutely dreaded going to dances.  As I stated before, I lack rhythm, which can make for awkward encounters at a Homecoming dance.  While at a school dance, nightclub, or big party with a dance floor, no one really talks to one another.  In those settings, one would witness a lot of jumping up and down with some indecent “dancing” added in.  This, to me, is not enjoyable at all.  Although I wasn’t very good at contra-dancing, I would much rather contra-dance and actually interact and socialize with the people around me, as opposed to getting a headache from listening to house music and being blinded by strobe lights in a club.  As we discussed in class, the music at a nightclub is so loud that you can barely get in a word edgewise with your dance partner.  While contra-dancing, some of the different people I danced with asked me where I was from, if I was there with a class, how I was adjusting to life in Bloomington so far, etc.  It’s extremely unlikely that one would have such a conversation in a nightclub.  Not only were the people at the contra-dance extremely eager to have new people there for the night, but they actually enjoyed conversing with us, which set the foundation for finding commonalities between one another.

The sense of community and involvement that is instilled through events such as the contra-dance cannot be denied.  There were young people, senior citizens, college students, people that have lived in Bloomington their whole lives, couples, young children, and families that all come together once a week as a cultural cohort to simply enjoy one another’s company despite their varying background and demographics.  This participatory “social action” is greatly related to participatory music making.  At one point, I danced with a person that has been doing the contra-dance for over 10 years, yet he was ever so patient with me at the beginner’s level.  No one goes to the contra-dance to show off their skills or compete with one another, evidenced by the obvious fact that everyone is welcome.  It is simply a tradition that the people of this small town wish to keep alive, and they preserve it well by being so welcoming to people that could potentially make a habit out of attending the contra-dance.  

Unfortunately, however, I do not think I will be one of those people.  While I immensely enjoyed myself, I don’t think I should press my luck with my coordination abilities.  The contra-dance, however, is similar to other community involvement activities, such as attending the farmer’s market or other social events in town.  While I may not frequent the contra-dance sessions very often, Bloomington provides many other ways to join in a participatory environment, and I will most definitely find one that suits my tastes.  I am extremely grateful to have experienced something that I never would have taken to initiative to attend on my own, and I can't wait to discover more of Bloomington's hidden treasures.  

Erin Go Bragh! A Night at The Runcible Spoon

           This evening, we had a great time at a local Irish restaurant named the Runcible Spoon.  Not only does this quaint restaurant offer a delicious corned beef sandwich, but also every Tuesday night its patrons enjoy the music styling of local musicians.  In the front corner of the room exists a booth, similar to the other available seating, for about five to seven musicians to play some traditional Irish music, eat some food and talk about their lives. 

The musicians do not sit on a stage or separate themselves from the audience; in fact, a group of five of us was sitting right next to them, with nothing to differentiate between us except for some instruments.  These included customary Irish instruments such as a bodhran, mandolin, Irish tin whistle, concertina, Irish flute, and bouzouki.  Grey, who we were told is one of the world’s greatest Irish flute players, served as the session leader.  However, we did not discover this on our own, as it appeared that everyone very naturally started different pieces.  Dr. MacDonald told us that the first person to start playing a song is the leader, and that person usually leads a few sets consisting of three to four songs each.  If a member of the group does not know the song that is being performed, he simply sits back, listens, and jumps back in once he recognizes an ensuing song.  Additionally, each person normally comes with his own knowledge of different songs, and occasionally the musicians teach them to one another.  There is no defined set list or time slot that must be filled; they simply sit around a table and play some tunes.  There existed an effortless flow among the musicians, almost a tacit knowledge of when to stop a song and begin the next.  Nothing was forced, however; an end to a song was indicated by a change in tune or a seamless movement into the next song, and once the music and talking stopped, the music playing began again effortlessly.

What immediately struck me was the evident camaraderie amongst the musicians.  As Dr. MacDonald stated, they talk just as much as they play.  This demonstrates that these people do not just get together to play music-it just so happens that they all share a common interest in a certain genre of music, have the ability to play that type of music, and wish to share it with others through a bonding experience.  This sort of cultural cohort allows a person to unite an aspect of his or her identity with others that may have come from different backgrounds, but share a propensity for a specific activity.  The point of the weekly meetings is to catch up on one another’s lives, socialize with a fluid group of people that can change each week, and simply have some fun.  As discussed in the chapter “Old Time Music and Dance- Cohorts and Cultural Formations” in the book “Music as Social Life”, Thomas Turino speaks of a band he was a part of as a young teenager.  It consisted of a group of boys that played music in a garage, put on some forgettable performances at high school events, and generally had a good time enjoying one another’s company.  Turino states that, “Our band was simply about getting together in my basement; it was just something to do”.  A similar sentiment can be felt when observing the musicians at the Runcible Spoon.  They do not get paid, are not advertised as live entertainment for the night, and do not set up any sort of speaker system or lighting.  The group provides valuable entertainment for the patrons, yes, but mostly are there to socialize with one another.

What I found extremely fascinating was that this type of music did not seem to fit perfectly into any of the four categories of music making.  As Dr. MacDonald told us, it was not really presentational music, as there was no distinct separation between band and audience and they weren’t really playing for an audience in the first place.  However, it also was not participatory music, as the entire restaurant was not expected to join the band and play an Irish instrument.  Interestingly, though, was that the music making had the potential to be participatory.  Anyone can join the group, but it is not a necessary component of the social environment.  People seemed to be content by simply enjoying their meals, company, and the live music being played in the corner of the restaurant. 

To conclude, my observations of the evening led me to surmise that when a people choose to play music with one another that is not necessarily the main purpose of the event.  Other aspects, such as socialization, serve as an equally important element.  Additionally, the environment of the place music is played in has an extremely significant role.  People that play music together simply because it is a shared love do not organize concerts at large concert halls or venues.  The musicians at the Runcible Spoon all have the potential to perform a concert, based on the quality of music.  However, they do not go to the comfortable, modest Irish pub once a week to put on a show for diners.  I would imagine that the group does not consider itself a “band”; they use their talents as an excuse to socialize with one another, not create a solely musical group.  It is extremely apparent that the musicians regard a sense of community and social connectivity as significant, which is promising for the future of a general society that does not greatly value music making as a means of creating relationships.  So much of our communication is achieved through mediums such as the Internet or a telephone.  This form of communication, however, provides an added awareness of intimacy because it reaches people on a greater level than the abstract.

I Love Hip-Hop in Morocco: Uniting the East and West

In the documentary “I Love Hip-Hop in Morocco” a filmmaker follows the lives of figures in the Moroccan hip-hop community that greatly stand out.  These artists defy their strict religious codes by dressing in common western-esque hip-hop clothing, rapping in English and singing of their struggles and the oppression that exists in their country. 

Initially, I was struck by the story of Fatima, a teenage girl that reaches for her dream of becoming a rapper in a male dominated society.  For Fatima, rap allows her to express her emotions and beliefs in an environment in which women do not normally have a strong voice.  What was most surprising, other than this young woman’s aspirations, was the immense support she received from her family.  Her parents entrusted her with her own decision-making and allowed her to strive for her goals.  As people from a western culture, we mostly identify Muslim families as extremely constricting of their children, especially of young girls.  It was fascinating to see that her parents acted similarly to how American parents may act in such a situation-as long as she kept her grades up in school, she could pursue her dreams.  This common link illustrates that maybe Americans are not so different from middle easterners in basic social aspects.  When Fatima first performed at the festival, the predominantly male audience booed her as she walked on to the stage.  However, once she finished and demonstrated her true talent, the audience was much more appreciative and respectful towards the female rapper.  This complete reversal indicates that a middle-eastern community is not completely set in its deeply religious beliefs, as they allowed themselves to be tolerant of a woman performing in a man’s setting. 

Additionally, the group H-Kayne broke social barriers in Moroccan culture.  As one of the pioneer groups of its kind, H-Kayne was signed by a record label and pushed heavily for the festival to take place.  The members of the group claim that hip-hop offers them a release from the hardships they endure on a daily basis living in an underprivileged area of the world.  Furthermore, due to the lack of freedom of speech, H-Kayne creatively relays their opinions through symbolic language.  This form of expressing one’s views illustrates how important pop culture is to the youth of society.  Without a creative outlet such as hip-hop, it would be difficult for groups of young people to criticize, or simply comment on society. 

Moroccan leaders greatly disagreed with the uprising of the hip-hop scene in the country.  They view any integration of western culture with their strict Muslim culture to be lethal.  Muslim representatives believed that allowing people to practice western art forms would ultimately lead to the disintegration of Islamic cultural foundations and, consequently, towards an undesirable path of assimilation with its western counterpart.  Due to the views of the government and religious officials, many of the artists presented in the film struggled with the dichotomy of their passion for hip-hop and obeying the rule of their government.  DJ Key, for example, expressed his inner battle on the contrasting ideals.  Despite his love of hip-hop and music-making, he felt guilty for deliberately going against the orthodox practices of his religious community.  Striking a balance between maintaining his core religious beliefs and love for hip-hop was extremely problematic for the talented young man.  Islam pressures its followers to strictly follow traditional laws, but in a global society that includes interaction among cultures, different groups are bound to adopt practices found in other areas of the world.  The example of a western art form arising in Morocco exemplifies just that notion.

The fact that the American Embassy sponsored the festival “I Love Hip-Hop in Morocco” was met with completely opposing responses.  On one hand, the Islamic people most generally viewed the financial and promotional aid of the Embassy to be representative of the United States’ attempt to bridge the gap between western and middle-eastern cultures.  American foreign policy in the Middle East has always been precarious; yet aiding an event such as this sets stage for a new type of relationship and the development of commonality between the two cultures.  Conversely, the absolute government of Morocco would react in a completely different manner.  Because the government fears American influence on its society, it most certainly would not appreciate the US promoting one of its types of music.  Additionally, the perspective of an American must also be considered.  While the specific actions of the American Embassy in various countries is not always explicitly detailed to the American public, it is not hard to imagine the reaction to this strategy in foreign policy.  Most American citizens, in their ignorance, would disparage the Embassy for using taxpayers’ money to sponsor a music festival in a middle-eastern country.  Because of the deeply impressed stereotypes placed on Muslims, Americans would most likely believe that the Embassy could utilize its money by means of a more constructive method.  However, upon viewing the documentary and the attitudes towards America during the festival, it appears that the Embassy chose wisely to help in sponsoring the event.  Being able to express oneself through freedom of speech is not a right of the people in Morocco.   Subsequently, those that attended and performed at the festival quickly adopted the notion that they should have the right to free speech.  Fusing common ideals of seemingly oppositional cultures in a productive way is extremely beneficial for not only Americans, but also for Moroccans that wish to change the tide of their oppression.

In conclusion, the documentary “I Love Hip-Hop in Morocco” illustrates a society’s desire to break free from tyrannical rule while also maintaining core aspects of its culture.  In order to balance both tradition and innovative concepts, the youth culture adopted hip-hop as a way of combining the two.  Some pioneering artists were able to do this seamlessly, by creating a form of hip-hop that allowed them to use traditional Moroccan music while introducing specific western aspects.  This method is not only applicable to an art form; it can also be applied to the lifestyle of a society at large.  By using music as a way to unite aspects of the east and west, Moroccans may ultimately allow for that synthesis to absorb into their everyday social environment.

Reel Bad Arabs: How Popular Culture Shapes Society

Since the first group of settlers arrived in America, the United States has inherently created a separation between races.  It first began with the white settlers against the Native Americans; then it was African American slaves and their white owners, which extended all the way into the 1960s before the Civil Rights protests; and finally, America today mostly targets people of middle-eastern descent, following acts of terrorism by Islamic extremists.  However, what may be surprising is how long racism towards Arabs has existed.  Movies that premiered in the middle of the twentieth century stereotyped Arabs as dangerous villains similarly to how they are typecast today.  One would think that depicting an entire race of people as villainous is unjust; however, as the documentary “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People” illustrates, the popular culture’s general view of a group of people can become so imbedded in societal thinking that such a view is no longer considered “racist” or found on false grounds.  The acceptance of an erroneous view based on a few isolated cases is extremely worrisome for humanity’s future, as it closes people off from gaining a sense of understanding of the cultures surrounding them.

While watching the documentary, there were many key moments that stood out.  Initially, the comparison revealed between the manner in which Hollywood portrays Arabs and the nature of anti-Semitic propaganda during World War II is extremely disturbing.  As Jack Valenti, former President of the Motion Picture Association of America stated, “Washington and Hollywood spring from the same DNA”.  This further demonstrates the connections between the entertainment industry and the political sphere, and the potential for the evolution of propaganda.  Could the United States act as horrifically and tyrannically as Nazi Germany?  Constant reinforcement of the image of Arabs as the enemy could support such a ridiculous concept.  Additionally, after seeing disgusting portrayals of Arabs in countless, unrecognizable movies, I was shocked to see the beloved Disney movie “Aladdin” also portrays middle-easterners in a negative light.  As stated in the documentary, “Aladdin recycled the Old Hollywood stereotype of ‘Arabland’”.  Why would a children’s movie feel the need to feed into the stereotype of a people and expose that stereotype to young children?  Seemingly innocent, movies like Aladdin contain subliminal messages that sadly, are effective at times.  Moreover, the explanation of the Oklahoma City bombing and the media outcry was extremely aggravating.  While an Irish Catholic man was responsible for the terrorist attack, the media immediately stated that the government believed without a doubt that, “middle eastern terrorist groups” were at fault.  This divulges America’s stance towards middle easterners and the immediate and unquestionable association between terrorist attacks and Arabs.  Despite the fact that an Irish Catholic was the mastermind behind a horrible occurrence, it is not the red haired and freckled Irish that must undergo “random” extra security precautions; overwhelmingly, it is the people that dress in traditional Arab garb and have names such as “Muhammad”.  These three moments discussed in the film gave me a new perspective on the effects of the media and entertainment industry on society.

As mentioned earlier, these flawed and generalized stereotypes of Arabs have existed for much of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.  Movies such as “Exodus” from 1960 and “Death Before Dishonor” from 1987 have all casually depicted Arabs as the “bad guys” that must be defeated.  When a society has been exposed to such an illustration of a people for a long period of time, it is extremely difficult to retract those deeply ingrained beliefs.  People primarily receive their information from the media through means of the Internet, television, and even the cinema.  Sadly, there are many people that believe everything they see on television or at the movies, and because of this they become ignorant to the truth.  What does that say about America as a society?  Many take what information they are given and absorb it for what it is, no questions asked.  Has society become so intolerant of others that members of that society will not even express the slightest bit of doubt in the way another group is portrayed?  Unfortunately, that appears so.  We have become a people that agrees with the masses for fear of not being socially accepted.  That is the main reason the film industry gets away with its misleading representation of the Arabian culture- no one wants to be the sole person to speak out against a group much larger and much more powerful than him or her.

While I had only seen about five or six of the films used as examples in the documentary, I recognized many others.  Some of the movies I have seen include “Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark”, “Aladdin”, “Father of the Bride 2”, “Back to the Future” and “Rules of Engagement”.  Each of these films portrays Arabs as terrorists or a stereotyped image of being “sleazy” or “dirty”; however, some were more visible than others.  The movies based around a war conflict obviously were much easier to pick out, but movies such as “Father of the Bride 2” and “Back to the Future” expressed a similar and equally effective idea, just in a less apparent manner.  Unfortunately, I have fallen into the trap of the film industry and seeing a middle-easterner as a villain has become expected.  It might actually surprise me if I saw a “war” movie and the “good guys” were NOT fighting against middle-eastern looking “bad guys”.  Upon viewing this documentary, I have been exposed to a new perspective.  You can bet that the next time I go to see a movie in which there exists a conflict between two groups, I will pay greater attention to the portrayal of the group the viewer is supposed to want dead. 

To conclude, as a society we must focus less on the fiction displayed on our television screens and more so on the truth.  Is it true that several times a group of Islamic or middle-eastern people have purposely caused tragedy on American’s and other innocent people’s lives?  Yes.  Are the actions of a minority representative of an entire population?  Absolutely not.  Just because a small, Islamic extremist group wants for death of Americans does not mean that all 1.9 billion Islamic people of the world wish for death to Americans.  This documentary opens the eyes of its viewers whether they wish to stubbornly hold their beliefs of Muslims or not.  The facts cannot be denied and it is ridiculous to profile all Arabs as leeches of society.  It would be extremely interesting to see how people would react if movies stopped placing Arabs into a specific mold.  Popular culture has an enormous effect on the way a person views others, as many people take depictions in movies and telelvision as mirrors of reality.  That can be said for any stereotype- in a “high school scene”, for example, blonde cheerleaders are normally unintelligent, the handsome jocks are popular, and the student that wears glasses and likes science is a nerd.  Once popular culture stops enforcing that a person must fit into a certain frame based upon they way one dresses, talks, or looks, then society will gradually adopt a similar principle and stereotypes will become obsolete.  If only.

"Shut Up and Sing!": A Political and Social Connection

It is the year 1789 in France, and the French Revolution has just exploded on to the scene.  The United States has just recently gained its independence from Great Britain, and the people of France now seek a similar sense of freedom from their dismal existences under the oppressive governmental system.  Social and political unrest has been at the forefront of everyone’s minds, combined with a vigorous force to correct the tyrannical rule of the absolute monarchy.  If a person is caught speaking pejoratively about the government or its decisions, they are immediately punished by guillotine.  Now, fast forward to a place not too far from France, more than 200 years later.  In a small venue in London, England in March of 2003, the Dixie Chicks put on a performance, while across the pond the United States was gearing up for a war with Iraq.  Head singer of the band, Natalie Maines, made a comment in which she stated that she was “ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas” to express her views on the impending war.  Promptly thereafter, Maines was socially guillotined for employing her First Amendment right to freedom of speech.  Dixie Chicks music was not played on the radio, protests were held outside of their concerts and the President even spoke out in regards to the comment. While the United States of America prides itself on the accessibility of freedom of speech, the consequences of using that freedom can be extremely precarious, despite teachings of tolerance of others’ opinions.  Through the example of the aftermath of the Dixie Chicks’ controversy and other ways the music industry responds to political issues, it cannot be denied that music serves as an intrinsic part to social composition and also functions as an art form to communicate positions on social and political issues.

            As a person thrust into the spotlight, Natalie Maines endured immense repercussions for her statement.  As discussed in the documentary “Shut Up and Sing!”, once word spread of Maines’ statement, backlash occurred almost instantaneously.  Protests were held where people ceremoniously threw away their Dixie Chicks’ CDs, erroneous signs were created and warned that, “support for the Dixie Chicks is support for communism”, and angry callers urged radio stations to ban their music from being played.  Their album that peaked at number one on the Billboard charts plummeted, and their concerts were only sold out because people could not get their money back for the tickets.  The country music industry that had once vehemently backed the band completely changed its position, exemplified by the fact that the three women were not invited to the Country Music Awards.  The reaction by the general public exposes an interesting aspect to society and the way it functions.  Many dissenters maintain that the music industry simply operates as a form of entertainment.  They suggest that people do not listen to music for political reasons, or even based on morals and values.  However, the example of the Dixie Chicks fiasco directly contradicts such an argument.  The notion that country music enthusiasts are overwhelmingly conservative has been ingrained in American society for years.  Because of its inherently “patriotic” lyricism and themes, country music has been adopted as the traditional sound of America.  Thus, when a member of a band that is casually regarded as “America’s sweethearts” spoke out against the actions of the President, she was immediately maligned.  Country music listeners pigeon holed the Dixie Chicks into a group consisting of country musicians that overwhelmingly sing about conservative ideals.  The Dixie Chicks were supposed to align with those views, and when they spoke out against them, their public image was shattered. 

Now, imagine a hypothetical situation.  It is the year 2003 and Democrat Barack Obama is the president.  Jay-Z, Beyonce, or another prominent African American artist is singing at a small venue, not in the United States.  President Obama has recently called for an attack on Iraq, sparking a war.  Jay-Z, Beyonce, or whoever it may be does not agree with the President’s decision and announces so at the performance.  The performer states that he or she is, “ashamed the President of the United States is African American”.  Would not the same reaction occur?  The hip hop/rap scene is mostly comprised of African American listeners, and if one of their staple artists spoke out against an African American President, would it be wrong to assume he or she would receive the same backlash that Natalie Maines did?  No, because an issue such as this defies political party identification.  It is a concern with freedom of speech and how significantly famous musicians’ opinions can impact their core audience.

The fact of the matter is that a country experiences hypersensitivity when entrenched in a period of war.  The explosive reaction to Natalie Maines’ comment perfectly exemplifies such a notion, as does the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001.  As examined in the article “Pop Goes to War, 2001-2004: U.S. Popular Music After 9/11”, many songs were deemed “inappropriate” to play on the radio in the days following the attacks on the World Trade Center.  Clear Channel, “the largest radio chain in the United States”, monopolized essentially all of the radio industry, buying up over 1,200 radio stations across the country.  Due to this, many small, independent stations that were bought out were forced to follow the rules of the corporation. Clear Channel provided a “suggested” list of music that should not be played, as a sign of sensitivity towards those affected by the attacks.  With meetings between government officials and the big leagues of the music industry taking place, their was a tacit agreement that the entertainment industry would “advocate America’s message”.   Nevertheless, some may contend that despite meetings between the government and the music industry, music does not weigh heavily on society’s political views.  However, the basic fact that those government officials met with representatives of the music industry verifies that the political world is well aware of the impact the music industry has on popular culture and the perception of social issues.  People respond to lyrics and create indexical relationships from said lyrics to their personal circumstances.  A political message in lyrical form is no different than that of a presidential candidate speaking from a podium; however, the medium through which that position is relayed and subsequently absorbed is what differentiates the two.

Additionally, the importance that general society places upon the music industry, and entertainment industry as a whole, cannot be denied.  Personally, I have been guilty of hearing favorite singers or athletes express political views that are oppositional of mine, and I have been turned off upon hearing such statements.  I still listen to their music and support their teams, but there was a short period of time in which I wondered if I truly wanted to be a fan of a person I did not share the same beliefs as.  This stirs a deeper question than just whether someone still wants to be a fan of a celebrity they disagree with- why do we care so much about an abstract person’s beliefs in the first place?  Obviously a singer’s music and an athlete’s performance are not the only things we, as outsiders, feel strongly about.  Thus, if we so prevalently examine the political views of a famous person, is that famous person, in turn, responsible for how he or she exercises his freedom of speech?  These people in the public eye have been given a platform to express their views, and when common people use their freedom of speech by choosing to not buy the product of a famous person, does the famous person have the right to be angry and call it unjust?  It is a complex situation no doubt, with no simple or quick answer.  One thing can be concluded, however-music and the general entertainment industry elicit deep emotional responses and affect society’s political, religious, and cultural beliefs more so than may be immediately noticed.

To conclude, society is immensely shaped by the music industry and people look to music for the expression of their personal principles and stances on different issues.  Furthermore, although the Constitution of the United States posits that American citizens have the right to the freedom of speech, that freedom comes with qualifications in today’s society.  As George W. Bush theorized to reporter Tom Brokaw, “Freedom is a two way street”.  Sure, anyone can say whatever he or she pleases, but he or she must understand that with any action, repercussions exist.  Natalie Maines discovered just that with the dissent thrown her way after she made a comment against the President, as have other celebrities that have articulated their views to an audience that generally disagrees with them.  Even looking back at historical events such as the French Revolution, it is scarily easy to draw comparisons to today’s society.  In 2012, a person may not literally have his or her head decapitated due to an outright statement dissimilar to that of the government, but the public’s boycott of said person’s product or social image is the equivalent to literally being guillotined.  Political correctness becomes a great factor in how a person handles his or her public statements, which is a shame in a country that sings its praises as, “the land of the free”.  

B-Town Farmer's Market: A Sketch

Experiencing a day at the Farmer's Market was both interesting and enticing-I've already decided I want to return whenever possible!  Coming from a larger community with little to no local farms in the area, a farmer's market was not something I have routinely experienced.  However, I enjoyed the environment and relished in the closeness of the community.  Food is a way to join people together, and I felt a sense of communion during the small amount of time we were at the market.  Tents set up for food purposes ranged from Amish farm produce and kettle corn, small farms selling meats and vegetables, local restaurants such the Scholar's Inn Bakehouse and Mt. Pilot BBQ, and even some unnamed tables with freshly grown herbs, fruits and vegetables.  While perusing the market, I noticed that in areas where much of the produce and meats were sold, women were heavily prevalent.  While some men were present, most were walking with a woman or children.  This observation aligns with the general social consensus that women buy the food and cook for their families.  However, that does not mean that only women were visible.  People ranging from very young children to senior citizens frequented the various tents.  Obviously, food is necessary to sustain life, and buying food from a place that you know is free from pesticides and other chemicals makes for a healthier lifestyle.  Based on the number of people I saw and the diverse range in age, healthy eating and supporting local businesses is important in Bloomington.

Furthermore, my map displays areas where political initiatives and community involvement programs were present.  They were all grouped in the same area on the northwest side of City Hall, and ranged from topics such as "Monroe County Republican Women", "Save our Democracy", the "Bloomington Garden Project" and "Adopt a Dog".  Each of these were connected to either a political group or program designed to engage the community.  By grouping them all together a little further away from the food, it allows for people to choose if they would like to learn about the different programs.  They were not being forced upon people, which is refreshing.

Moreover, the music scene at the farmer's market was also important to note.  I observed three musical groups that were relatively similar in some aspects, and different in others.  One group was playing behind the political/community involvement tables, and they played softer jazz music.  Across from some of the produce setups was a two man band that played folksy music.  The band comprised of two younger men playing a guitar and harmonica, leaving their guitar case open for donations.  Many people were generous with their money, which was interesting to me.  Where I am from, almost no one pays mind to the musicians that perform on the streets.  Additionally, I also noticed a band that performed near the "restaurant" area.  Along with them being extremely talented, I found it endearing when a young child went up to the singer and asked him about the instrument he was playing.  The singer graciously answered the boy's question and did not look at all perturbed by the interruption.  I thought that this spoke volumes of the type of people in the community.  Finally, there was a table set up for a local radio station called WFHB that was playing music off of a stereo system.  This contrasted greatly with the live music entertainment, and interestingly enough, no one was stopping to listen to the radio music-but they all stopped to listen to the live performances.  This demonstrates that people still value music in a presentational form in everyday life, not just high fidelity music making.

In terms of social structure in relation to musical structure, the farmer's market would most identify with participatory music. The farmer's market gears towards social involvement and bonding, which is similar to participatory music.  For a farmer's market to function properly, there must be a relationship between the sellers and the buyers. The sellers made it a priority to communicate with their potential buyers, but not in a normal business manner.  They were not trying to "strike a deal"- they simply wanted to converse with the people of the community.  They did not want to make a distinction between themselves and the people walking by.  Similarly, in participatory music, there is no hierarchy of artists and audience-everyone comes together as one.  A farmer's market is a good indication of the social values of a community, and the different interactions and tendencies of people that I observed mirror that of a participatory music-making setting.

Four Fields of Music Making

1. Participatory
Participatory music is pretty self explanatory- it is meant for all to participate in.  Any environment where there is music and everyone interacts with one another in some musical form is an environment of participatory music making.  Examples of this particular type of music making may include singing around a campfire or a cultural music experience that consists of an entire group of people offering their musical talents in some form or another, but all completely equal and necessary.  The video I have chosen is a flash mob of sorts in Trafalgar Square in London.  The thousands of people that gathered together in the square were from different backgrounds, ethnicities and social circles, yet they were joined together through an act of music making.  Although the video was created with the aim of marketing T-Mobile, the simple statement "Life's for Sharing" was extremely powerful.  One major way to share your life with others is through music, and it is incredible to see such a diverse group of people join as one.  Also, they sing The Beatles, which is always a plus for me.

What is different about participatory music that we normally do not experience with modern, mainstream music is that the actual quality of the music is not considered the most important aspect of the piece.  What is stressed as important, however, is the feeling of engagement and fraternization.  As we discussed in class, there is no distinction between an audience and a performer- everyone is a performer in whatever capacity he/she can offer.  Participatory music has the possibility to glue a group of people together through the shared experience of creating music.  Because participatory music, at its core, requires total participation, the only limitation would be if not everyone joined the group.  As we discussed in class, no one wants to be the only person in the entire karaoke bar that does not go up and sing.  When a person goes to a place like that, it is expected that he/she will engage in the activity, just as everyone else.


2. Presentational
In terms of performance, and many more aspects of music, it does not get much better than Elvis Presley.  Elvis revolutionized the performance of song and he's renowned as the "King of Rock & Roll" for a reason.  His music still remains extremely popular and he is still an icon when speaking of not only music, but in terms of cultural changes as well.  Elvis's performances were marked by a vigor, with the audience fully engaged and frequently swooning over his charged dance moves.  This type of music making would be considered presentational.  As discussed in class, there is a distinct difference between who is the artist and who is the audience.  The ultimate goal for this type of music would be to create an atmosphere that fully engages the audience, as the audience usually pays to see the performer.  This video shows just that, as Elvis's mere presence can cause an explosion of energy from the listeners.  There is clapping or some sort of physical reaction to his singing, which clearly demonstrates that his show is well received.  The main limitation to this type of music creation would be if the audience could not connect with the performer and respond negatively to the act.  People that pay to go see a concert or show normally enjoy the type of music the specific musician plays or sings, and because of this they expect to enjoy the experience.  Usually this is the case, but at some times it is not, and the audience becomes detached from the artist.  Anyways, here's Elvis, doing anything but boring his audience.

3. High Fidelity
High fidelity music should be the most easily recognizable field of music, as we are exposed to it almost on a daily basis.  Think about it-when you walk into a restaurant, or a department store, or a theme park, are you listening to a live ensemble playing music in the corner?  No, you are listening to a recorded version of song that "indexes live performances" as we determined in class.  High fidelity music generates an illusion that a person is listening to exactly what a musical group sounds like live.  I chose the song "Layla" by Eric Clapton.  In the song there are clearly contrasting parts that were not recorded simultaneously.  However, Clapton has performed "Layla" many times in concert, thus the song falls under the category of high fidelity.  At its highest potential, the listener would imagine themselves truly listening to a live version of the song, free from any background noise or other other hindrance.  The main issue with high fidelity music is that it just further delineates from the idea of music making as a group activity, as different pieces of a song can be recorded hundreds of miles away from one another but still be mixed together into a coherent composition.  Furthermore, I happen to have a soft spot for this song, as I named my dog after it.

4. Studio Audio Art
This final field of music could not be more dissimilar to participatory music.  I chose the song "Pursuit of Happiness" by Kid Cudi, but the remixed version by Steve Aoki.  Aoki took the base song created by Cudi and inserted more electronic influenced sounds, arranged on a computer.  I think remixes are really interesting, solely because a high fidelity song that is already assembled separately and manipulated by a studio engineer is then taken for even further manipulation.   This is not the most intense example of studio audio art, as there is some human interaction involved.  Nevertheless, sounds are created that are not intended to be recreated by any instrument.  One positive aspect about this type of music is that the creator of the finished product has the absolute most influence over the direction of the song.  With a foundation of some lyrics sung by an artist, the "mixer" can use his/her computer and choose the mood of the song by mixing together certain sounds.  However, this field of music almost defeats the purpose of music as a "bonding experience" because of the minimal amount of connection between the artist and the "instrumentalists".