On May 29, 1789, professors of the Conservatoire de Musique gave a concert for a pair of Asian elephants, Hanz and Marguerite. The concert was part of a scientific experiment intended to determine whether music stirred the passions of listeners in a natural state.
The experiment was a success. The swift and direct effect of music upon sensitive listeners uncorrupted by the monarchy was confirmed. A rough correlation between particular types of music and specific response could now be made. Most important, the passionate impact of military music, just as the Greeks had chronicled, now seemed indubitable. The central lesson of the experiment was just what Ginguené had said earlier in the decade: music acts most strongly when listeners respond most naturally. The report offered a lofty conclusion: "Such is the empire of music over all beings endowed with life and with sensitivity, that men may make use of it. . .to civilize themselves and regulate their morals."
(James H. Johsnon, Listening in Paris, p. 131)
Johnson touches on without answering the questions "What is music?" and "What is listening?" The latter question suggests how Johnson would go about answering the former. The question "How is collective experience possible?" also arises from his work. These are all good questions. Johnson's work has forced me to acknowledge my own prejudices regarding music, to realize that my thoughts about music are culturally, historically shaped. My prejudices about music are also personally shaped to such an extent that I notice that nobody really shares exactly my views of what music is or what it means.
I spent some time this morning listening to Dr. Chandrakant Sardeshmukh's cd, Celebration. "Happiness Forever: Raga Hemant" is in 16, so it was good to work out to–I do all my exercizes in reps of 16; 32 of these, 48 of those, 64 of the other, 96, 128, 192....–though perhaps not as good for working out as the Ohio Players. My counting was a bit of a distraction. Is this an unnatural way to listen to "Happiness Forever"? Well, is there a natural way to listen to "Happiness Forever"? It was a live recording but the audience was silent until the very end when they all burst into applause. That was nice, I thought. Would I want to call that unnatural? Dr. Sardeshmukh links to the following video clip on Youtube, make of it what you will:
I'll add a thought. Is it the case that there's one activity called "listening" that people pursue in various ways, with varying intensity, with varying degrees of attentiveness; or is "listening" in fact a label for diverse activities that would be given different names were our common language more precise. If one follows the latter path, what must one say about music? Oh, and since I'm at it, what does the phrase "aesthetic imperialism" suggest to you?
Labels: elephants, James H. Johnson, listening, music, Sardeshmukh
3 Comments:
Heh, I think i've seen you demonstrate the phenomenological manouevre twice recently.
Moving from what qualms are 'of' to the nature of qualming (etymological or otherwise) and now the move from what one listens 'to'
to the nature of listening....
This would indicate that the ph. method is more interested in the 'nature' of experiencing than the objects of experience....to which you might be tempted to say 'duh' what else could it be about?
I have occas. been to concerts (sometimes jazz or indian) where there has been a kind of overstudious 'listening' - as if it was 'the right way to behave'. It is palpable. A certain kind of imperialism?
One gets the same thing in other cultural events - film or theatre -
The attitude that this must be good and one should appear to like it even if one doesn't understand or really like it!!!
I'm sure most of us have fallen prey to that one - esp. when young and gullible (smile).
Typically indian to use term 'Dr' for a musician.
In Oz politicians are fond of using their dubious academic titles.
I notice in the states esp. how authors will use their suspect titles to impressive - esp. on those self-help books where you will find a pic of a couple conservatively dressed, with the infamous white teeth. Drs x & y....who have spent their lives researching this subject - just to help you (smile).
p
This would indicate that the ph. method is more interested in the 'nature' of experiencing than the objects of experience....to which you might be tempted to say 'duh' what else could it be about?
Funny how I think sometimes. I don't even notice it until it's pointed out.
RE qualms, I had an idea in mind of thematizing the about, as in qualms about or even representations about (because of just wasn't cutting it), and it would have come down to "What is the nature of the experience of the about?" Oi Weh.
p.s. I have occas. been to concerts (sometimes jazz or indian) where there has been a kind of overstudious 'listening' - as if it was 'the right way to behave'. It is palpable. A certain kind of imperialism?
Yes, a kind of aesthetic imperialism. I think this is what Johnson is aiming to unmask with his book, but I think it will come at the cost of not merely acknowledging but resigning oneself to an aesthetic empire. I am genuinely worried that the sucklings of the muses have no voice in this order. Look at Sardeshmukh, at how he is listening to the tabla player. Of course he is also performing. It is complicated. I see a performance like that and I feel like shouting. (In some settings I will shout, "Tell it, baby," "Uh huh," "Yeah.") Well, people have different responses–changing moods, varying circumstances and so on. It's hard for me to put a finger on what listening really is.
Post a Comment
Fido the Yak front page