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.
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".
No comments:
Post a Comment