Re: Musical Correctness - a conversation
Great conversation. Thank you George for beginning it and AC members for keeping it going.
As people are playing with the idea of codifying "correctness" (reflecting George's title for this thread) covering music during the Civil War era, blackface minstrelsy, and any other music for that matter, it will be important to account for the variety of ways in which we not only interpret the material today, but also seek evidence regarding the variety of interpretations that likely took place during the Civil War era and the wider part of the 19th century. This means, in part, that we need to account for the aural nature of the music. While I believe that this is an unwieldy task due to the ephemeral nature of music, I also believe it is an important exercise within our reenactment community to have the conversation about what factors need to be considered and what genuine tools can we use--those that might balance our personal involvement with our imagined and researched understanding of the past.
One perspective that may help us come to a conclusion comes in an academic article I read in the last year: John Spitzer. 1994. ‘Oh! Susannah’: Oral Transmission and Tune Transformation. Journal of the American Musicological Society 47, no. 1. (Spring): 90-136.
I believe that if a sense of historical musical correctness might ever be attained this will be the place to start. Here is the author's abstract:
(begin author's quote)
Early prints of "Oh! Susanna" by Stephen Foster transmit versions of the tune that differ strikingly from one another [30 versions from at least 16 publishers]. It is likely that these variants arose as "Susanna" was orally transmitted among minstrel-show performers. Variant readings are compared in order to establish a stemma that shows not only the filiation of sources, but also the ways in which oral and written aspects were mixed in the transmission of "Susanna." The variants in versions of "Susanna" demonstrate four general tendencies of oral transmission: (I) a tendency to alter rhythms in order to clarify the beat; (2) a tendency to pentatonicize the melody; (3) a tendency for a salient harmony to draw the melody to the chord root; and (4) a tendency to eliminate differences between parallel passages. Analysis reveals that the four tendencies are also present in the transmitted versions of other songs from the repertory of nineteenth-century American minstrelsy.
(end author's quote)
As I've mentioned in other online forums, I always try to remember that a significant portion of this historical music was played in a diversity of contexts and by a diversity of people. I caution that to suggest that we can uniformly come up with a single, generalized way of playing stands a great chance of marginalizing multiple historical possibilities.
Ultimately, I think it's important that we 1) examine our own biases as we interpret materials, 2) the biases of people during this time period and the authors of the primary source material, and 3) how what we are doing affects those around us while we seek to inform, educate, interact, and remember this important period in our nation's history.
I hope this is meaningful to AC members and substantively adds to this important conversation.
Sincerely,
Greg Adams
--
Greg C. Adams
Project Director, Banjo Sightings Database Project (Vernacular Music Material Culture in Space and Time)
NEH Level-I Digital Humanities Start-Up Grant (http://www.neh.gov/ODH/Default.aspx?tabid=111&id=101)
BSD Blog: http://vmmaterialculture.blogspot.com/
*******
Great conversation. Thank you George for beginning it and AC members for keeping it going.
As people are playing with the idea of codifying "correctness" (reflecting George's title for this thread) covering music during the Civil War era, blackface minstrelsy, and any other music for that matter, it will be important to account for the variety of ways in which we not only interpret the material today, but also seek evidence regarding the variety of interpretations that likely took place during the Civil War era and the wider part of the 19th century. This means, in part, that we need to account for the aural nature of the music. While I believe that this is an unwieldy task due to the ephemeral nature of music, I also believe it is an important exercise within our reenactment community to have the conversation about what factors need to be considered and what genuine tools can we use--those that might balance our personal involvement with our imagined and researched understanding of the past.
One perspective that may help us come to a conclusion comes in an academic article I read in the last year: John Spitzer. 1994. ‘Oh! Susannah’: Oral Transmission and Tune Transformation. Journal of the American Musicological Society 47, no. 1. (Spring): 90-136.
I believe that if a sense of historical musical correctness might ever be attained this will be the place to start. Here is the author's abstract:
(begin author's quote)
Early prints of "Oh! Susanna" by Stephen Foster transmit versions of the tune that differ strikingly from one another [30 versions from at least 16 publishers]. It is likely that these variants arose as "Susanna" was orally transmitted among minstrel-show performers. Variant readings are compared in order to establish a stemma that shows not only the filiation of sources, but also the ways in which oral and written aspects were mixed in the transmission of "Susanna." The variants in versions of "Susanna" demonstrate four general tendencies of oral transmission: (I) a tendency to alter rhythms in order to clarify the beat; (2) a tendency to pentatonicize the melody; (3) a tendency for a salient harmony to draw the melody to the chord root; and (4) a tendency to eliminate differences between parallel passages. Analysis reveals that the four tendencies are also present in the transmitted versions of other songs from the repertory of nineteenth-century American minstrelsy.
(end author's quote)
As I've mentioned in other online forums, I always try to remember that a significant portion of this historical music was played in a diversity of contexts and by a diversity of people. I caution that to suggest that we can uniformly come up with a single, generalized way of playing stands a great chance of marginalizing multiple historical possibilities.
Ultimately, I think it's important that we 1) examine our own biases as we interpret materials, 2) the biases of people during this time period and the authors of the primary source material, and 3) how what we are doing affects those around us while we seek to inform, educate, interact, and remember this important period in our nation's history.
I hope this is meaningful to AC members and substantively adds to this important conversation.
Sincerely,
Greg Adams
--
Greg C. Adams
Project Director, Banjo Sightings Database Project (Vernacular Music Material Culture in Space and Time)
NEH Level-I Digital Humanities Start-Up Grant (http://www.neh.gov/ODH/Default.aspx?tabid=111&id=101)
BSD Blog: http://vmmaterialculture.blogspot.com/
*******
Comment