cultural isolationism---good or bad

Does anyone else see the irony in berating Western-culture for not
embracing the other musics of the world, when many of those very musics
developed to their great heights by remaining isolated themselves? OK,
that's not accurate, to be sure, but surely Western-art-music of today is
nearly unique in the presence of this insistent clamoring for "absorption
of extra-cultrual influences"? I'm fairly certain that most other
musical cultures around the world, when they did absorb the music of other
cultures, it was a gradual and much-fought-against process. I know, for
example, that there are Japanese art/music/theatre forms where to break
1000year-old rules, or to "mix" the form with other cultural influences,
is considered a serious sin or crime. Why is it OK for "exotic" cultures
to engender these attitudes, but not for a Western-art-music?

I guess my point is, I can see "isolationism" can produce just as valuable
music as "inclusiveness." And in fact, though I consider myself a very
inclusive composer, I wonder whether it's not a bad thing. . . .after all,
I'd much rather listen to a real Indian raga than , for example, Henry
Cowell's 11th (?) symphony that "integrates" Indian elements, rather
lamely, in my opinion.

And of course. . . "integration" and "subsumption" of world -music
elements always carry that dark tone of imperialism underneath.

However, I think that it's inevitable, sociologically, that inclusion and
cross-cultural influence are going to happen. They always have. And
musically, (in terms of quality), these things take time. . . Henry
Cowell made a brave, if failed, attempt, and 80 years later, music by,
say, Kraig Grady represents far more powerful and effective syntheses.

I am saying then, that I feel that there IS a place for music that
isolates itself, or for a composer that isn't voraciously hungrily
searching out there amongst the world's distant cultures for stuff to
plunder, that I respect a composer who chooses a small set of issues and
really focuses on them, and devloping a powerful,
expressive grammar, syntax, etc. Again, I am saying this as a composer
who considers himself to BE voraciously hungry, but realizes that there
are other legitimate attitudes, that can produce great music.

So to tell a composer that he/she is "out of touch" and "worthless" or
"useless" because they're not opening up to world-influences, is I think,
the wrong approach. If you don't like the music, that's fine, but
changing it into a moral argument is mistaken, because
a) there are holes in the argument as I've pointed out, and
b) The same sorts of arguments (pointing the other way) were
used by those composers that I'm sort of defending (i.e. Ferneyhough, or
his modernist predecessors).
Do we really want to continue in ther same line of
argumentation?

(Sometimes, I actually think the answer to this question might be
"Yes", that such battles are healthy for culture .. . . )

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:

> Does anyone else see the irony in berating Western-culture for not
> embracing the other musics of the world, when many of those very musics
> developed to their great heights by remaining isolated themselves?

What I think is a bit ironical is assuming that applying mathematics to tuning questions is Western-culture centric. I also think that this is the 21st century, and we now have a world culture.

>

Hello Chrisopher!
I think this is not quite what i had hoped to convey or just the context in which it was meant.
My comment was inspired by the fact that we are surrounded by cultures that are from our point of view microtonal yet we tend to avoid them for a large part in favor of non microtonal works that could be , as one example. It is possibly fruitful line of investigation and many have gotten something out of it. To me it seemed disproportional considering our line of investigation. If i were interested in
serialism, the investigation of other world music would provide few meaningful models. So i was not making a blanket berating of western Culture just what appears to be a disproportional balence in the line of investigations.
There are no "pure" musical cultures and most have developed by interaction with the music of their neighbors , colonialist or even enemies as you have pointed out and in the past served as part of an important identity. As we get older as a race and transportation being what it is, the amount of mixture and a comunication between different groups is on the rise.
But you reminded me of one of my favorite quotes is by Goethe who states.(paraphrase)

A person can not do anything of any worth unless they isolates themselves.

And this is how these different musics developed in some form of isolation. and the best composers likewise.
we each can only be true to our own callings and the natural directions from which we grow and like a tree we will always have our roots in the same place from where we started. There will always be western music that by its own accord will have nothing to learn from elements outside of it s own culture (maybe ). You imply that my work might be a synthesis of various cultures. Possibly it might be seem that way but
the process has been more of already doing something in a certain way and finding this done places I had not realize. Without knowing this though might have resulted in failing to recognize its full worth. . Regardless of what i know of other cultures the gap is always wider in some respects than we imagine and usually lead to mistakes. We should not be afraid of making mistakes for this is always the first step.
We have to accept that others tribes interpeted in the context of where we are in our own other and inner tribe. These interactions are subtle just how they are of the exchange of ideas even within a single culture will manifest in variation.
One point we cannot overlook or i can not overlook is that all these cultures are not on a same footing. Western culture has no possibility of become exsinct yet many world musics are in the same way that various plants are being destroyed be fore they can even be cataloged. And at least this needs to be done in a way more rigorous than ethnomusicology seemed inclined. So yes i am inclined as a music maker
(folk musician i imagine) or being interest in preserving as well as creating music. To use what is foriegn and outside of us would be a mistake but to ignore or discover the "foriegn within" oneself and ignore it is a crime against one own being.

>
>
>
> From: Christopher Bailey <cb202@columbia.edu>
>
>
> Does anyone else see the irony in berating Western-culture for not
> embracing the other musics of the world, when many of those very musics
> developed to their great heights by remaining isolated themselves? OK,
> that's not accurate, to be sure, but surely Western-art-music of today is
> nearly unique in the presence of this insistent clamoring for "absorption
> of extra-cultrual influences"? I'm fairly certain that most other
> musical cultures around the world, when they did absorb the music of other
> cultures, it was a gradual and much-fought-against process. I know, for
> example, that there are Japanese art/music/theatre forms where to break
> 1000year-old rules, or to "mix" the form with other cultural influences,
> is considered a serious sin or crime. Why is it OK for "exotic" cultures
> to engender these attitudes, but not for a Western-art-music?
>
> I guess my point is, I can see "isolationism" can produce just as valuable
> music as "inclusiveness." And in fact, though I consider myself a very
> inclusive composer, I wonder whether it's not a bad thing. . . .after all,
> I'd much rather listen to a real Indian raga than , for example, Henry
> Cowell's 11th (?) symphony that "integrates" Indian elements, rather
> lamely, in my opinion.
>
> And of course. . . "integration" and "subsumption" of world -music
> elements always carry that dark tone of imperialism underneath.
>
> However, I think that it's inevitable, sociologically, that inclusion and
> cross-cultural influence are going to happen. They always have. And
> musically, (in terms of quality), these things take time. . . Henry
> Cowell made a brave, if failed, attempt, and 80 years later, music by,
> say, Kraig Grady represents far more powerful and effective syntheses.
>
> I am saying then, that I feel that there IS a place for music that
> isolates itself, or for a composer that isn't voraciously hungrily
> searching out there amongst the world's distant cultures for stuff to
> plunder, that I respect a composer who chooses a small set of issues and
> really focuses on them, and devloping a powerful,
> expressive grammar, syntax, etc. Again, I am saying this as a composer
> who considers himself to BE voraciously hungry, but realizes that there
> are other legitimate attitudes, that can produce great music.
>
> So to tell a composer that he/she is "out of touch" and "worthless" or
> "useless" because they're not opening up to world-influences, is I think,
> the wrong approach. If you don't like the music, that's fine, but
> changing it into a moral argument is mistaken, because
> a) there are holes in the argument as I've pointed out, and
> b) The same sorts of arguments (pointing the other way) were
> used by those composers that I'm sort of defending (i.e. Ferneyhough, or
> his modernist predecessors).
> Do we really want to continue in ther same line of
> argumentation?
>
> (Sometimes, I actually think the answer to this question might be
> "Yes", that such battles are healthy for culture .. . . )
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST