In these two Eastern European scenes, talk about the similar and different instruments (like your previous assignment), and then discuss other interesting things you noticed in the film.
Similar instruments that come up in the different scenes are the violin and the accordian. They seem to be the centerpiece of the music in this film. An exception to this is the scene with the ensemble of guitars and cello.
A different instument that I saw in the scenes was the jug and the two-spoon percussion instrument. It is interesting to see that the instruments that varied were percussion instruments while the more consistent instruments were melodic.
This film actually really touched me. I liked how music express a full spectrum of emotions. The train scene displayed lyrics that were full of despair and sadness. Then the scene after showed a scene where a boy cheers her mother up with a wandering band. It showed me what the music meant to the people and how it helped them cope with their seemingly hopeless situations.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Thursday, May 3, 2007
1. Can you think of any examples in our day and age in which real life influences theater (or film or music or music video) and in turn these representations influence society?
I personally think that film and music are both mediums that are influenced society and in turn become an influence. Musicians and flim directors use their own life experiences and express them in their respective art forms. The film then gets exposed and the idea is expressed.
Hip hop is the strongest example that comes to mind. Generally, hip hop originated as not only a musical expression, but a cultural movement of inner city youth (mainly African Americans). In this art form, their view of life, their dissatisfaction with authority figures, the joys in their lifestyle were all manifested in their music, art and dance. As this culture grew exponentially in the 80's and 90's, hip hop came to influence the whole world. Other countries who obviously did not have the same experiences as the inner city youth in America adopted the culture and expressed themselves through hip hop as a medium. Today, the styles of hip hop are as diverse as the people in different countries. It became a worldwide movement and affected the world.
Flim is also an extremely influential medium for change. Documentaries on real life issues cause citizens to become concernes. This then causes social movements thus causing change.
I believe that art forms such as music and film are very effective ways to get an idea out. It is more effective than stating your opinion in plain words.
I personally think that film and music are both mediums that are influenced society and in turn become an influence. Musicians and flim directors use their own life experiences and express them in their respective art forms. The film then gets exposed and the idea is expressed.
Hip hop is the strongest example that comes to mind. Generally, hip hop originated as not only a musical expression, but a cultural movement of inner city youth (mainly African Americans). In this art form, their view of life, their dissatisfaction with authority figures, the joys in their lifestyle were all manifested in their music, art and dance. As this culture grew exponentially in the 80's and 90's, hip hop came to influence the whole world. Other countries who obviously did not have the same experiences as the inner city youth in America adopted the culture and expressed themselves through hip hop as a medium. Today, the styles of hip hop are as diverse as the people in different countries. It became a worldwide movement and affected the world.
Flim is also an extremely influential medium for change. Documentaries on real life issues cause citizens to become concernes. This then causes social movements thus causing change.
I believe that art forms such as music and film are very effective ways to get an idea out. It is more effective than stating your opinion in plain words.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Week #4
Question 1: Why does she say that this music is not as "ancient" as it is marketed to audiences? (Just answer in one paragraph) Question 2: In a different way, why did Western scholars accuse the modern Chinese orchestra as not being "authentic" enough? What do you think of these arguments? Does authenticity exist on a continuum like identity? In other words, are there a lot of gray areas?
The author claims that Modern day Naxi music is not as "ancient" or rather "authentic" because of the purpose of the performances. "True" Naxi music was played for ritualistic occasions and entertainment for the locals. According to the author, today's Naxi music is performed to cater to tourists and to educate outsiders about the culture. On top of that, the author asserts that the music has been heavily influenced by the styles of Han music. The music has a distinct Naxi feel but the structure is unmistakably Han. Westerners do not think this is authentic because they think that authenticity is defined by ideas and culture that are unique to a certain area. In this case, the Naxi area.
Western Scholars do not think Chinese Orchestra is "authentic" because Western influences have permeated into the components of the Chinese music. I personally think that both sides have a valid arguement. However, I would have to say that authenticity is relative and cannot be a concrete label. Although it is evident that the effects of globalization have infused western thoughts, ideas and sounds into the music of the east, I believe that music can still be original with the influences of different cultures.
Who is to say what authenticity is? How do we know for sure that the music of the "ancients" were not an eclectic mix of surrounding cultures? When we are talking about authenticity, are we talking about the creative element of the music or the traditional feel? These modes of think produce very different answers. As for the term "Ancient", the word is self-explanatory. The music is old. Authentic? Maybe. It is tempting to use terms like "authenticity" "original" and "ancient" interchangably. But I think it is wrong. I think the "originality" of music is violated when the musician creates music to mimic the music of the ancients. Music is changes constantly over time and should conform to the current state of the culture. So in today's case, the world is experiencing globalization. Therefore the music should have western influences to match what is going on in today's world. Even though the music contains western elements, the music is still distinctively Chinese.
The author claims that Modern day Naxi music is not as "ancient" or rather "authentic" because of the purpose of the performances. "True" Naxi music was played for ritualistic occasions and entertainment for the locals. According to the author, today's Naxi music is performed to cater to tourists and to educate outsiders about the culture. On top of that, the author asserts that the music has been heavily influenced by the styles of Han music. The music has a distinct Naxi feel but the structure is unmistakably Han. Westerners do not think this is authentic because they think that authenticity is defined by ideas and culture that are unique to a certain area. In this case, the Naxi area.
Western Scholars do not think Chinese Orchestra is "authentic" because Western influences have permeated into the components of the Chinese music. I personally think that both sides have a valid arguement. However, I would have to say that authenticity is relative and cannot be a concrete label. Although it is evident that the effects of globalization have infused western thoughts, ideas and sounds into the music of the east, I believe that music can still be original with the influences of different cultures.
Who is to say what authenticity is? How do we know for sure that the music of the "ancients" were not an eclectic mix of surrounding cultures? When we are talking about authenticity, are we talking about the creative element of the music or the traditional feel? These modes of think produce very different answers. As for the term "Ancient", the word is self-explanatory. The music is old. Authentic? Maybe. It is tempting to use terms like "authenticity" "original" and "ancient" interchangably. But I think it is wrong. I think the "originality" of music is violated when the musician creates music to mimic the music of the ancients. Music is changes constantly over time and should conform to the current state of the culture. So in today's case, the world is experiencing globalization. Therefore the music should have western influences to match what is going on in today's world. Even though the music contains western elements, the music is still distinctively Chinese.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Ratna Ayu and Gamelan Bali Nyepi video comparison.
I found it interesting that music from the same culture can have very different elements given a different setting. Both pieces were performed at the same time and both are Balinese Gamelan and were performed in the same year. Yet, the pieces gave off a different feel and a different sound.
An obvious difference was the visual presentation. In the Ratna Ayu, the audience was presented with ambient lighting, dancers and props. The music seems to be the secondary element to the performance thus making it seem more like a play. The dancers and the props are the centerpiece of the performance. It seems this way because the musicians are set aside and blended into the background of the stage with the help of the stage lighting. Rather than the dancer corresponding to the music in the conventional sense, it seems that the purpose of the music is to accompany and add to the effect of the dancer's movements. This performance also included a vocal element in the music. The lyrics of the music may tell a story and add to the theme of a play instead of a pure audial performance.
The Gamelan Bali Nyepi video clip lacked all the visual elements listed above. It seems the sole purpose of the performance is to present the audience with audial stimulation. There was no vocal elements that the listeners were presented with. The only thing to see was an ensemble of musicians playing on a beach. The simplicity of the performance gave way to the musical elements instead of a full-on broadway presentation.
The second video, Gamelen Bali Nyepi, seemed more authentic to me. I was given more of a musical statement than all the flashy effects. It seems as if the Gamelan performed by the California Institute of the Arts took elements of Gamelan and added American superficiality to the presentation to please the audience. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was great. But I felt like I was watching "The King and I" on broadway when I was watching the American performance.
An obvious difference was the visual presentation. In the Ratna Ayu, the audience was presented with ambient lighting, dancers and props. The music seems to be the secondary element to the performance thus making it seem more like a play. The dancers and the props are the centerpiece of the performance. It seems this way because the musicians are set aside and blended into the background of the stage with the help of the stage lighting. Rather than the dancer corresponding to the music in the conventional sense, it seems that the purpose of the music is to accompany and add to the effect of the dancer's movements. This performance also included a vocal element in the music. The lyrics of the music may tell a story and add to the theme of a play instead of a pure audial performance.
The Gamelan Bali Nyepi video clip lacked all the visual elements listed above. It seems the sole purpose of the performance is to present the audience with audial stimulation. There was no vocal elements that the listeners were presented with. The only thing to see was an ensemble of musicians playing on a beach. The simplicity of the performance gave way to the musical elements instead of a full-on broadway presentation.
The second video, Gamelen Bali Nyepi, seemed more authentic to me. I was given more of a musical statement than all the flashy effects. It seems as if the Gamelan performed by the California Institute of the Arts took elements of Gamelan and added American superficiality to the presentation to please the audience. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was great. But I felt like I was watching "The King and I" on broadway when I was watching the American performance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
