There is no such thing as music. Music is not a thing at all but an activity, something that people do.
It should go without saying that “music” (and, by extension ritual), in all its manifestations, is not some trivial diversion; nor is it some disembodied object for solitary contemplation. Rather, it’s a basic part of what makes us human.
Musicking: the meanings of performing and listening (1998), by Christopher Small (1927–2011), is already a classic. While his insights have long been part of the basic credo of ethnomusicology, the book is more accessible than some weightier tomes, and deserves a far wider readership—not least in Daoist ritual studies…
A deeply personal work, it’s also part of a corpus that approaches WAM with the same mindset that we would apply to any genre of world music (cf. Nettl, Kingsbury, McClary, Taruskin, Finnegan, and more recently Cottrell; note also Ethnomusicology forum 20.3 (2011), “The ethnomusicology of Western Art Music”, with Laudan Nooshin’s introduction here), inviting a global view of the meanings of performance within social interaction (cf. Das land ohne Musik).
It’s worth citing the opening at some length, as it expresses such a basic way of understanding:
In a concert hall, two thousand people settle in their seats, and an intense silence falls. A hundred musicians bring their instruments to the ready. The conductor raises his baton, and after a few moments the symphony begins. As the orchestra plays, each member of the audience sits alone, listening to the work of the great, dead, composer.
In a supermarket, loudspeakers fill the big space with anodyne melodies that envelop customers, checkout clerks, shelf assistants and managers, uniting them in their common purpose of buying and selling.
In a big stadium, fifty thousand voices cheer and fifty thousand pairs of hands applaud. A blaze of colored light and a crash of drums and amplified guitars greet the appearance onstage of the famous star of popular music, who is often heard on record and seen on video but whose presence here in the flesh is an experience of another kind. The noise is so great that the first few minutes of the performance are inaudible.
A young man walks down a city street, his Walkman clamped across his ears, isolating him from his surroundings. Inside his head is an infinite space charged with music that only he can hear.
A saxophonist finishes his improvised solo with a cascade of notes that ornament an old popular song. He wipes his forehead with a handkerchief and nods absently to acknowledge the applause of a hundred pairs of hands. The pianist takes up the tune.
A church organist plays the first line of a familiar hymn tune, and the congregation begins to sing, a medley of voices in ragged unison.
At an outdoor rally, with bodies erect and hands at the salute, fifty thousand men and women thunder out a patriotic song. The sounds they make rise toward the God whom they are imploring to make their country great. Others hear the singing and shiver with fear.
In an opera house, a soprano, in long blond wig and white gown streaked with red, reaches the climax of her mad scene and dies pathetically. Her death in song provokes not tears but a roar of satisfaction that echoes around the theater. As the curtain descends, hands clap thunderously and feet stamp on the floor. In a few moments, restored to life, she will appear before the curtain to receive her homage with a torrent of applause and a shower of roses thrown from the galleries.
A housewife making the beds in the morning sings to herself an old popular song, its words imperfectly remembered.
So many different settings, so many different kinds of action, so many different ways of organizing sounds into meanings, all of them given the name music.
But none has succeeded in giving a satisfactory answer to the question—or rather, pair of questions—What is the meaning of music? and What is the function of music in human life?—in the life, that is, of every member of the human species.
It is easy to understand why. Those are the wrong questions to ask. There is no such thing as music.
Music is not a thing at all but an activity, something that people do. The apparent thing music is a figment, an abstraction of the action, whose reality vanishes as soon as we examine it at all closely. This habit of thinking in abstractions, of taking from an action what appears to be its essence and of giving that essence a name, is probably as old as language; it is useful in the conceptualizing of our world but it has its dangers. It is very easy to come to think of the abstraction as more real than the reality it represents, to think, for example, of those abstractions which we call love, hate, good and evil as having an existence apart from the acts of loving, hating, or performing good and evil deeds and even to think of them as being in some way more real than the acts themselves, a kind of universal or ideal lying behind and suffusing the actions. This is the trap of reification, and it has been a besetting fault of Western thinking ever since Plato, who was one of its earliest perpetrators.
Note how he could have used more “exotic” examples from further afield, but rather chooses cases that we take for granted in Western society. As he goes on to unpack the meanings of a symphony concert with Geertzian thick description, he doesn’t belittle his (and my) heritage, but asks What’s really going on here? In a personal passage that will strike chords, he observes:
It is my heritage and I cannot escape it, and I understand well the continuing urge on the part of performers, as well as of musicologists, theorists, and historians, to explore those repertories and learn their secrets. I myself continue to love playing such piano works of that tradition as are within the reach of my modest technique and take every opportunity to do so, both in public and in private.
But from the moment when I began to attend large-scale public concerts, I have never felt at ease in that environment. Loving to hear and to play the works but feeling uncomfortable during the events at which they are presented has produced a deep ambivalence that has not lessened over the years. Now, in my seventy-first year, I have come nearer to pinning down what is wrong. I do not feel at ease with the social relationships of concert halls. I can say that they do not correspond with my ideal of human relationships. For me there is a dissonance between the meanings—the relationships—that are generated by the works that are being performed and those that are generated by the performance events.
It seems obvious to me that performing these works under certain circumstances generates different meanings from performing them under others. For instance, when I, an amateur pianist using material provided by Josef Haydn under the name of Piano Sonata in E-flat and charging nothing for admission, play the piano to a couple hundred of my fellow citizens of the little Catalan town where I live, people from a variety of occupations that could be called working-class as well as middle-class, most of whom I know and who know me, at least by sight in the street, I think: we are together making different meanings from those made when a famous virtuoso pianist performs from that same material to an anonymous paying audience in a big concert hall. At the same time, since we are both playing from the same material, making more or less the same sounds in the same relationships, there must also be a residue of meanings that are common to both performances. Maybe if we knew completely where the differences and the similarities lay, we should understand completely the nature of musical performance. In any case the first step is taken when we ask the question What’s really going on here?
Contrasting the social behaviour reflected in and encouraged by earlier buildings (like the Rotunda at Ranelagh Gardens, painted by Canaletto in 1754, with people standing or walking about, talking, coming and going), Small unpacks the assumptions of modern concert-going—such as architecture, planning, organization, tickets, programming, programme booklets, sponsorship, dress codes, behaviour.
On the 19th-century invention of the concert hall, sealed from the outside world, with its “quiet opulence” and discreet colours:
Perhaps the most interesting thing about this building is that it is here at all. For musicking, even large-scale musicking, does not need a building such as this.
and the audience:
A grand ceremonial space such as this imposes a mode of behaviour on those who are unaccustomed to it. They become somewhat self-conscious, lowering their voices, muting their gestures, looking around them, bearing themselves in general more formally.
The very form of the auditorium tells us that the performance is aimed not at a community of interacting people but at a collection of individuals, strangers even, who happen to have come together to hear the musical works. We leave our sociability behind at the auditorium doors.
Small cites George Lipsitz’s comment on sharing “intimate and personal cultural moments with strangers”. Indeed, as in other contexts like theatre, sporting events and popular concerts,
the building is designed to discourage social contact between performers and listeners.
By contrast with the premiere of the Rite of spring,
today’s concert audiences pride themselves on their good manners, on knowing their place and keeping quiet.
At rock festivals, as at any kind of musical event, there were, and are, right and wrong ways to behave, right and wrong ways to dress, to speak and respond, both to one another and of course to the musical performances.
Comparing WAM musicking in the 18th century and today,
That audience took from the performance what they wanted, and we take from it what we want. Like any other building, a concert hall is a social construction, designed and built by human beings in accordance with certain assumptions about desirable human behaviour and relationships. These assumptions concern not only what takes place in the building but go deep into the nature of human relationships themselves.
Musicking is reduced to consumers and producers. Meanwhile scholars of Western music,
rather than directing their attention to the activity we call music, whose meanings have to be grasped in time as it flies and cannot be fixed on paper, have quietly carried out a process of elision by means of which the word music becomes equated with “works of music in the Western tradition.”
This privileging of Western classical music above all other musics is a strange and contradictory phenomenon. On the one hand, it is claimed to be an intellectual and spiritual achievement that is unique in the world’s musical cultures; […] on the other hand, it appeals to only a very tiny minority of people, even within Western industrialized societies; classical music records account for only around 3 percent of all record sales.
It is regarded as somehow unique and not to be subjected to the same modes of inquiry as other musics, especially in respect to its social meanings. […] It is in fact a perfectly normal human music, an ethnic music if you like, like any other and, like any other, susceptible to social as well as purely musical comment.
He rails against the concept of “autonomous art”, encapsulated in Walter Benjamin’s maxim “The supreme reality of art is the isolated, self- contained work” (sure, discredited in more enlightened circles, but still widespread), where
What is valued is not the action of art, not the act of creating, and even less that of perceiving and responding, but the created art object itself. Whatever meaning art may have is thought to reside in the object, persisting independently of what the perceiver may bring to it. It is simply there, floating through history untouched by time and change, waiting for the ideal perceiver to draw it out.
It suggests also that music is an individual matter, that composing, performing and listening take place in a social vacuum; the presence of other listeners is at best an irrelevance and at worst an interference in the individual’s contemplation of the musical work as it is presented by the performers.
Neither the idea that musical meaning resides uniquely in musical objects nor any of its corollaries bears much relation to music as it is actually practiced throughout the human race. Most of the world’s musicians—and by that word I mean, here and throughout this book, not just professional musicians, not just those who make a living from singing or playing or composing, but anyone who sings or plays or composes—have no use for musical scores and do not treasure musical works but simply play and sing, drawing on remembered melodies and rhythms and on their own powers of invention within the strict order of tradition.
Music’s primary meanings are not individual at all but social. Those social meaning are not to be hived off into something called a “sociology” of music that is separate from the meaning of the sounds but are fundamental to an understanding of the activity that is called music.
On orchestral musicians, Small’s remarks anticipate Cottrell. As he notes, they live in a paradoxical world. Highly tuned virtuosi, proud of their skills, generally well paid, their profession enjoying a social status that is respectable and even considered glamorous:
Although any glamor they themselves might initially have felt the job to have quickly wears off under everyday work pressures, [cf. Alan Bennett!] they do feel themselves generally to be heirs and guardians of a great tradition.
But most orchestral musicians do not investigate their feelings about this very deeply. […] They resemble, in fact, the members of any other occupational group in that they will engage in any amount of shop talk, gossip, and locker-room humor.
In general their attitude is more that of the craftsman than that of the autonomous artist.
Like Cottrell, Small notes the “guerrilla warfare” they wage on over-paid conductors.
With its rigid division of labour and social hierarchy,
the modern professional symphony orchestra is in fact the very model of a modern industrial enterprise.
What for members of the audience may at its best be a transcendental experience of communication with a great musical mind, for the orchestra members may be just another evening’s work and even, for some, a time of boredom and frustration.
On the conductor—a rather recent job-description, with a defined geographical base, of course—Small discusses the changing authority of the “heroic” conductor (or industrial boss), “the incarnation of power” (cf. Lebrecht):
He is the magus, the shaman, who immerses himself in the sacred book and summons up the spirit of the dead composer.
He goes on to unpack the myth of the Great Composers, and the sacrosanct nature of the score. Again he notes things we take for granted—like the music stand, a humble piece of furniture without which the performance could not take place. As he observes, notation is the exception rather than the rule in human musicking.
Invoking Susan McClary, he explores the dramatic conventions of tonal harmony, and is disturbed by the violence of Beethoven.
This is the great paradox of the symphony concert, that such passionate outpourings of sound are being produced by staid-looking ladies and gentlemen dressed uniformly in black and white, making the minimal amount of bodily gesture that is needed to produce the sounds, their expressionless faces concentrated on a piece of paper on a stand before them, while their listeners sit motionless and equally expressionless listening to the sounds. Neither group shows any outward signs of the experience they are all presumably undergoing. It is no wonder that members of other musical cultures should find it a curious, if not downright comical, scene.
All this is punctuated with three theoretical Interludes exploring the nature of performance—The language of gesture (based on Bateson), The mother of all the arts (on ritual), and Socially constructed meanings.
While it is fruitful to view WAM as just another genre of world music, it may seem like an eccentric form of behaviour in many respects. But despite the prestige claimed for it by elites, it is far from a dominant form of musicking worldwide.
Though the book has been criticised, it’s a refreshing and valuable tirade. Those deeply invested in WAM will feel threatened (tough); even ethnomusicologists have reservations about his romantic contrast with ideal local communities.
In the final chapter he evokes a solitary African herdsman playing the flute. Even with no clear social relations involved, he imagines the technology of the instrument’s construction (based on personal relationships), and the generational experience involved in mastering its playing, with its different style of complexity from which musicians in Western industrial societies enjoy, and its delicate inflections, timbre, and rhythms.
Whatever he is playing, it will not be invented from nothing. No human being ever invents anything from nothing but is guided always in his invention by the assumptions, the practices and the customs of the society in which he or she lives—in other words, by its style.
How he plays will be within the limits of the style he has received from the group, and in playing in that style he will be exploring, affirming, and celebrating the concepts of relationships of the group, as well as his own relationships within it and with it.
Such relationships, he notes, stand along a continuum of conformity–innovation.
He himself notes that some of his friends found this characterization
too much like a totalized representation of the “other” that has beset European thinking about the rest of the human race.
In the Postlude he contrasts the Western divorce of musicianship from society with the way that children grow into music in traditional societies.
I report this, not to demonstrate any inherent superiority that Africans may have in this regard (it happens, in fact, to various extents and in various ways, in most traditional societies), and certainly not in any sentimental spirit of harking back to imagined “simpler” times, but to show that the universal distribution of musical ability is not a fantasy but in many societies and cultures an everyday reality.
The big challenge to music educators today seems to me to be not how to produce more skilled professional musicians but how to provide that kind of social context that leads to real development and to the musicalizing of the society as a whole.
Earlier he observes,
What is going on in this concert hall is essentially the same as that which goes on during any musical performance. Members of a certain social group at a particular point in its history are using sounds that have been brought into certain kinds of relationships with one another as the focus for a ceremony in which the values—that is, the concepts of what constitute right relationships—of that group are explored, affirmed, and celebrated.
Despite his explanations, I still take issue with his “explored, affirmed, and celebrated” mantra, when (as he would have been the first to observe) all kinds of performances (whether in the concert hall or the notional village community) are so contested and conflicted, often taking place in social milieux that are far from ideal (cf. Geertz).
* * *
Small’s plea for musics of the world to take their place within academic musicology has to some extent already been realized (though see here). Like other disciplines, ethnomusicology can be arcane, jargon-ridden, and forbidding, but Small spells out its mission in an accessible fashion. Now don’t get me wrong: I’m all for detailed analysis of musicking in every society, including WAM. However—and mutatis mutandis this is a caricature that runs through academia since the 1960s—corduroyed professors churning out earnest lectures analysing Renaissance polyphony are now up in arms that their birthright is being threatened by trendy young whippersnappers presiding over jam sessions with nose-flutes and bongos (cf. the recent spat over Music and the potato). ** “Whatever next—will women will be allowed to vote? PC gone mad if you ask me.”
Small (and indeed ethnomusicology) provides us with the tools not only to appraise musicking in all kinds of changing social contexts (a Prom, a Sardinian festa, a Chinese or Javanese funeral)—to make critical reflections, observing how participants experience such events as successful or flawed.
In the end I love this book for raising issues that were so long submerged.
For many related posts, see under Society and soundscape.
** More harmless fun for all the family: create your own parody of the perfect fusion gig, along the lines of
Throat-singing gala with Dame Kiri and Ry Cooder—Afro-Cuban grooves, Balkan brass, kora, and didjeridu!!! In a yurt, FFS.
For the abolition of world music, see here.
50 thoughts on “Musicking”
Pingback: Sardinian chronicles | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Strings and voices | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Flamenco, 2: gender, politics, wine, deviance | Stephen Jones: a blog
Thanks for the post about Christopher Small. He has been such an inspiration for me personally, it’s great to read about someone else’s response to his work.
However I have to take issue with the headline quote ‘Music is not a thing at all but an activity, something that people do.’ Music, of course, exists without people entirely, though it requires human intelligence (or similar) to appreciate it.
Many early cultures seem to have intuited a connection between celestial motion and music. The stars looked better then, and there was no Love Island to compete for attention. Unfortunately when I studied music, ‘Music of the Spheres’ was code for ‘here be loonies’ and this aspect of music was poked like a turd with a stick. It’s a shame that, just as telescope optics were improving to the state to observer the harmonic motion of the moons of Jupiter, Western scholars decided, with ballsy swagger, they could be all-knowing ‘scientists’, shaking the dust of generations of benighted classical learning from their feet. There must have been something in the water, as this all coincides with the long summer of WAM’s tonal triumph, for better and for worse.
More recently, physicists working in areas like archaeoastronomy, celestial mechanics and string theory have usefully gone back to look at early harmonic models. Check out Peter Pesic ‘Music and the Making of Modern Science’ for a useful overview, from Pythagoras to Planck’s Cosmic Harmonium. I keep returning to ‘Celestial Mechanics’ by Alessandra Celletti and Ettore Perozzi for an understanding of the role of resonance in establishing ‘tidy chaos’, the Greeks and Trojans of the asteroid belt, the objects of the Kuiper belt, and the rings of Saturn and the amazing harmonic moons of Jupiter. There’s a very good model of Jupiter’s moons, and the way Io, Europa and Ganymede dance in double ‘octaves’ but never line up, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
The musical resonance that really makes my guts rumble is the notion of the Nice Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_model and the related theory of the Jumping Jupiter Scenario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping-Jupiter_scenario. These theories, associated with Hal Levison of the Southwest Research Institute in Colorado, both observe that the planets of our Solar System cannot have formed in their current positions, and must have been flung there by a massive event. Working back in a dynamic simulation from the current position and orbit of our planets, it is suggested that the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn once passed through a 1:2 mean motion resonance (the biggest octave since the Big Bang), which eventually caused perturbations, forcing the bodies to change their orbits and positions. The thought of the harmony created by such massive objects makes my brain roll.
As a modern Stadtpfeifer, I’m very much aware of the role of wind players as guardians of this association. Indo-Iranian music theory is very much focussed on this link with orbital motion and the calendar, and ceremonial wind music has always celebrated our place in a harmonic universe, whether as the blowing of the shofar for the New Moon or Rosh Hashanah
as the naubat playing at sunrise and sunset
or the many members of the Bach family that ascended the tower twice daily to sound the cockcrow of the Gallicinium and the evening’s gute Nacht
While ‘people’ can incorporate elements of harmonic resonance in our dialogue with natural phenomena, an ever-varying music will continue perfectly well without us.
All very interesting but I think Small overstates the ‘good manners’ and lack of engagement within audiences or between listeners/performers, which have surely varied enormously in different settings and times. Just to give a vivid example from my own family history: my father was based in Sicily for part of WW2 and was occasionally able to visit the opera house in Catania where this quiet, reserved Yorkshireman was much struck by the passionate responses of the local audience, quite unlike what he’d been used to in the West Riding. “If they liked a bit they would just shout and cheer until they sang it again”, I remember him telling me (cf the first performance of Figaro – and many other operas no doubt – where almost every number was encored). Later, after acquiring our first gramophone, he bought an LP of Cavalleria Rusticana (which he’d heard in Catania) and would listen quietly and nostalgically, occasionally humming along…
A fine vignette! And Small does indeed have his critics. As he observes, even in WAM the relationships between “performers” and “audiences” have changed substantially since the 18th century (and since the 1940s?!). Still, I think he makes a valid point about “folk” vs. art worlds…
Pingback: Our modern ears | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Detroit 67 | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Viola jokes and maestro-baiting | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: This season’s Proms | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: The shock of the new | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: The Proms, YAY | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Mahler 3 at the Proms | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: The art of the miniature | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Is music a universal language? | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Analysing world music | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Blind minstrels of Ukraine | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Room service | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Musicking worldwide: a new category! | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Moon river | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Festivals: the official—folk continuum | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Why music matters | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Musical cultures of east Europe | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Cheremis, Chuvash—and Tibetans | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Guide to another year’s blogging | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: The folk–conservatoire gulf | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Das Land ohne Musik | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: A brief guide to Chinese fiddles | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Italy: folk musicking | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: South Jiangsu: beyond silk-and-bamboo | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Mozart for winds, and “genius” | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Morocco: Paul Bowles | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Buildings and music | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Another great NYO Prom | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Tchaik 6, conductors, applause | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Shawm and percussion bands of South Asia | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Pizzica at the Proms | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Iran: chamber music | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Northern soul 北靈 | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Society and soundscape | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: World music abolished!!! | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Criticizing Confucius | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Unpacking “improvisation” | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: In memoriam Bruno Nettl | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Late Beethoven quartets | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Heartland excursions | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: Reviving culture: the Yazidis | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: The changing musical life of north India: social structure, and the sarangi | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: The Celibidache mystique | Stephen Jones: a blog
Pingback: French organ improvisation! | Stephen Jones: a blog