Great Music Anthropology - Essay Example

Farzeela Faisal Standard Academia Research "Music Anthropology" Question Cultural artifacts themselves are useful ideological constructs. As an artistic and cultural form music can be a valuable tool for reading ideological intentions and the changing political and economic tenor of the times. This is evident in its own development and written history as music itself has been endlessly categorized and divided against itself. During the Thatcher/Reagan years, it was received wisdom that ideology was what the other guy had. Capitalist democracy wasn't an ideology, but an ideology is a system of beliefs, which is transparent, which represents it as just 'the way things are', and seen this way it is the apparent naturalness of capitalist democracy that demonstrates its ideological status. And since the 1930s there has been a rebellious sub discipline of sociology called 'critical theory' whose avowed purpose is to expose the workings of ideology in everyday life, revealing 'uncritically' accepted beliefs and so returning to individuals the power to decide for themselves what they will believe for, by presenting themselves as simply 'the way things are', ideologies suppress the very existence of alternatives. Critical Theory developed to become a comprehensive mode of culture critique whose effects have been felt in disciplines as varied as literary studies, film and media studies, art history--and, more recently, musicology. Theodor Adorno, one of the founders of critical theory, was not only a sociologist but also an accomplished musician (he studied composition with Schoenberg's most famous pupil, Alban Berg), and he wrote as much on music as he did on sociology. Critical theory is in essence a theory of power, and it sees power largely in terms of the institutions through which it is channeled. In musicology, this approach has stimulated historical research into the formation of the canon (the repertory of masterworks on display in the musical museum) and the role of musical institutions in constructing, maintaining, and naturalizing this canon. But you can see the process at work today in the most important of such institutions, those at which music is taught (schools, conservatories, and universities). It is most obvious in the repositioning of rock within the academy. Pittman evoked the specific, pre-existing ideological discourse of rock and roll. While on the surface 'rock music' is a neutral label that distinguishes a particular kind of music, it also comprises a set of ideological assumptions about music creation and social life. Rock emerged as not only a musical genre, but a system of discourse through which the effects of the commercialization of music and the industrialization of music production can be negotiated, and by which social inequalities can be activated in a cultural arena. In an ideological division reminiscent of the high culture or popular culture distinction, rock discourse forged a hierarchy within popular music by creating a structure of value against which 'pop' music could be devalued. Rock was made to stand as a higher form of popular music, as the representative of art and artfulness. The commercialization and industrialization of music has dramatically changed the way in which music is created. Music production is organized around the segmenting of creative processes and a hierarchical form of collective production that involves more creators and more stages of creation. To make music within the music industry, musicians work with a number of people songwriters whose songs are chosen for their repertoire (in the event the musician does not write the material); producers of albums; engineers of songs; record company officials who dictate release dates of albums and singles and handle marketing and distribution; and, most recently, directors of video promotion. The separation of individual creators into categories of creative work is a function of the industrial mode of divided labor and helps industry maintain control over production. It is important to the record industry that each music product leave an identifiable creative trail in order to facilitate the management of wage-labor relations and to support the status of the song as a distinct commodity (Laing, Dave. 1985. One Chord Wonders: Power and Meaning in Punk Rock. Milton Keyes, England: Open University Press.) Music is, of course, divided into a multitude of categories, mainly for purposes of marketing. A glance at any recent issue of Billboard will give evidence of the range and scope of today's musical product. The question of authenticity is important in music because of its direct relation to economics and industrialization. As music is commodifled it is seen as losing its power with the people and instead becomes part of a greater ideology, a hegemonic tool of sorts. This is the argument of Jacques Attali, who traces the shift in music from a cultural form, which provides ritualistic force to one, which predicts a capitalist economic system. As Attali states, "A dynamic of codes, foreshadowing crises in political economy, is at work within music" (Attali, Jacques. Noise: The Political Economy of Music. Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota P, 1985.). A benefit, which the music industry sees, is music globalization, which thrives on diversity and, therefore, enhances respect and appreciation for differences and promotes reciprocity as well as shared values among nations, communities, institutions, organizations, and individuals. It facilitates cultural creativity through the free flow of ideas and interchanges among different cultures. Optimists say globalization means more cultural choices for everyone, not global homogeneity. The music globalization is greatly imparting its effects on building cultural market and hence giving some negative results. Paul DiMaggio suggests: "what distinguishes the cultural market is that there are no professional standards for judging the competence of work done. As a consequence artists, and often brokers themselves, can only be evaluated post hoc on the basis of success, or on the basis of reputation and track record". In other words the brokerage system is one where culture coordinating and distributing organizations insist on short-term autonomy for brokers. The commercial quality of results determines whether or not they continue to be hired. The major record companies all own large distribution divisions which make money from distributing an aggregate of records and are therefore much less susceptible to the vagaries of an uncertain market than the production side. Distribution is also capital intensive and this tends to reduce competition and increase concentration. In popular music a condition of accumulation is that radii may traverse the creative field with relatively little direction from the commissioning and distributing music industries. David Byrne is an idealist who is truly disappointed at some of the practices of the music industry. After a first read through the article I wasn't sure of his position on world music. However after a couple of re-readings, I believe that Byrne truly wishes all music could be heard as purely music a form of inspired art. I don't believe he hates the "world music" itself but the way it is governed and handled by the music industry. Byrne believes all music should be treated equally, not be categorized into "world music" and "western pop music". Byrne believes all music should be treated equally. If the music transports your mind or takes you somewhere while listening to it, we should value it. Another reason he is idealistic is because he thinks once one listens to another's music, we should respect it, not treat it as a mere commodity. But that would be a perfect world, and the truth is music is a commodity in the western and capitalist system of thought. Ultimately though, Byrne wishes all music could be on equal standing, but as long as the music industry and record companies exist, there will be an inequality. The music industry is very interested with the marketing of inequality. But they would rather it be 'exoticism' that they are marketing in their world music genre. To keep the 'us' and 'them' concept going gives them a product to market as 'different' which most music-loving westerns would like to have a taste of. I suppose though, that most all peoples are intrigued by the thought of something exotic, something different from what they consider normal and acceptable for them, something from another culture, halfway around the world. The truth is that record companies know this stuff sells. This fact is demonstrated by the case of the nearly all-Japanese salsa band "Orquestra de la Luz". Even though they're not of the culture of salsa music themselves, their music was widely accepted and their album soared to No. 1 on the charts. This shows that boundaries can be erased and music valued simply as music. Peoples can share in other people's cultures and their music traditions. I'm sure this would please David Byrne. I believe the members "Orquestra de la Luz" were treated fairly. However these matters do not concern whether it is right or wrong to have and listen to a part of another culture. It is a matter of who gets paid when the pop star's record sells a lot of copies and the money begins to flow. The music industry is definitely responsible for many of the moral questions raised and the inequalities amplified when dealing with world musicians and their music. As a result, the music industry has created a haze that swirls around the rights of musicians involved in world music. Question 2 Music copyright issues have always been affected musicians. But now, with the growth of the internet, music copyright matters are becoming more important to the average musician. Whether you are recording musician, a songwriter, or both, your understanding of music copyrights can mean the difference between merely surviving and making a good living. The benefit of a copyright deal is that it offers songwriters administrative, financial and creative support while sitting at their homes. You don't have to worry about administering your catalog, and it is the responsibility of the publisher to make sure your money is collected. You also gain the contacts of your publishing company. The cons are also of the same weightage as the songwriters should never rely too heavily on a publisher to exploit their catalog. Another disadvantage is that you're competing with a lot of other writers within the publishing company and you have to be at the top. Copyright law is particularly important in that it transforms whole classes of creative activity into private property that can be bought, sold and stolen like any other goods. As a songwriter, when you pen and obtain a copyright for your original tune, it becomes your personal property. Any record company whose artist performs and records your song, and any person and or organization that broadcast, samples or prints copies of your lyrics and music must pay you to do so. In addition, you will continue to receive payment for almost any new and repeated use of your song during the copyright term (which spans the life of the author or last surviving author, plus 50 years). These earnings are called royalties, and sources for royalty income are vast and are continuously growing with the advent of new technology. As a professional songwriter, you have two primary goals: to get your songs published through as many royalty sources as possible (so that you earn the maximum amount of money possible); and second, to retain ownership of as large a percentage of your song's copyright as possible (to ensure that you will be the one receiving those earnings). According to Rosario, royalty sources can be broken down into four general categories: performance (which includes radio, venue and music video broadcasts, as well as concert and live television performances); mechanical (which is the standard $6.95 per song, per copy sold that a record company and/or artist pays to a songwriter for sampling or recording his tune); synchronization (which covers the linkage of a song to a visual image, such as motion picture scores, background music in a television show or commercial); and print (lyric sheet, hymnal and music book sales). As a professional songwriter, you have two primary goals: to get your songs published through as many royalty sources as possible (so that you earn the maximum amount of money possible); and second, to retain ownership of as large a percentage of your song's copyright as possible (to ensure that you will be the one receiving those earnings). Reaching out to all of your royalty sources and getting a commitment from them to use your songs is time consuming. Music publishing companies are set up to help you exploit your song catalog and get your songs used by as many royalty sources as possible through arrangements known as co-publishing deals. While a publishing deal is supposed to help maximize your earnings, it also requires that you actually give up a percentage of ownership of your song's copyrights. In addition to exploiting your song catalog, co-publishing deals are also set up to help you collect certain foreign and domestic royalties, and administer your catalog. That includes registering yourself, your copyrights and your songs with the Harry Fox Agency-the only U.S. licensing agent that collects mechanical royalties--and with a performance rights society such as ASCAP, BMI or SESA that collects your performance royalties. Co-publishing deals, however, are not the only means to get your songs published, collect royalties or administer your catalog. "There are different kinds of publishing situations," explains Bob Celestin, a New York-based entertainment lawyer who often negotiates music publishing deals. "In a co-publishing deal, a publisher will ask you to give up a percentage of ownership usually around 50% on the copyright on your song in exchange for paying you an advance, collecting your publishing royalties, registering your copyrights and exploiting your songs," he explains. In an administrative deal, which you can also sign with a publishing company, you pay the company 5%-15% of your publishing income for collecting your royalties during the term of your contract and throughout the world. "The publisher doesn't own any of your copyright, but he also doesn't work to exploit your song catalog," says Celestin. The third alternative is to set up and administer your own publishing company. "In this situation, you will have to do all of the legwork to exploit your catalog, and you will usually still need to pay a lawyer to collect certain royalties, as well as register your copyrights," he adds. Celestin says the best route to publishing will depend entirely on your financial needs, the popularity of your music catalog, and how willing you are to handle business details. Claude Mitchell, senior creative director for PolyGram Music Publishing, says the benefit of a co-publishing deal is that it offers songwriters administrative, financial and creative support. "You don't have to worry about administering your catalog, and the publisher makes sure your money is collected. You also gain the contacts of your publishing company. I don't know many songwriters who have the time and energy to develop a relationship with every record label. Our job is to go out and pursue opportunities. Not only on records, but TV, film and advertising." But Jocelyn Cooper-Gilstrap, founder and owner of Midnight Publishing, a small publishing house in New York, warns that songwriters should never rely too heavily on a publisher to exploit their catalog. "The disadvantage is that you're competing with a lot of other writers (within the publishing company) and you have to be at the top of your game," Cooper-Gilstrap says. "Having a publishing deal doesn't mean you just sit back and write. You have to pound the pavement and visit A&R (artist & repertoire) reps." Co-publishing deals can offer songwriters sizable advances and substantial services, but they also offer publishers one major benefit: long-term earnings. Most deals cover a service term of three to five years. Since a co-publishing deal actually provides the publishing company ownership of a percentage of a songwriter's copyrights even after its services to the songwriter have ended the publishing company can continue to make money off any songs in the catalog at the time of signing. And unless negotiated differently, a publishing company can retain its ownership until the end of a song's copyright. Rosario advises songwriters to try to negotiate a 'right of reversion' clause into their co-publishing contracts. This would limit the amount of time a publisher can hold interest in your copyright. She adds, however, that this can be a difficult concession for new songwriters to obtain. Established songwriters, however, can more easily limit the time a co-publisher can retain ownership in their copyrights. This was the case for Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis when they signed a co-publishing deal for their company, Flyte Tyme Tunes, with EMI Music Publishing three years ago. The terms of their deal call for an eight-figure advance and a 50/50 split of the publishing royalties, with EMI's interest decreasing over the life of the five-year deal. When the deal expires, so does EMI's interest in their copyright. Now-a-days, one of the most lucrative means for established writers to earn income off their catalog is through sampling. Jam and Lewis have had a number of their songs sampled, including Foxy Brown's recent use of 'No One's Gonna Love You' (originally recorded by the S.O.S. Band) on her hit single 'No One.' Songwriter/producer James Mtume, who hit it big in the late 1970s and early '80s with such hits as "The Closer I Get To You" (Roberta Flack), "You Know How To Love Me" (Phyllis Hyman) and his own singles "Juicy Fruit" and "You, Me and He," has also had a number of his tunes sampled by other songwriters. "I've had more than 200 samples on 'Juicy Fruit' alone," he says. Though Mtume has earned substantial income from sampling, he warns that songwriters need to realize they give up a significant amount of their own publishing royalties every time they sample someone else's composition. "I get 50% of the publishing [royalties] every time someone uses one of my songs," he says. In addition, he notes that unless writers hold rights to the original song, publishers are going to be reluctant to exploit a tune that has samples because they lose part of their income to another songwriter. In recent years the international music companies have begun to stress that they are global organizations. Globalization in their case, and as reflected in company annual reports, means the organization of production, distribution and consumption of cultural goods on a world scale market. The flow of information, ideas and cultural artifacts on a global scale has greatly increased in recent decades, due in part to the many developments of new communication technology. Appadurai (Appadurai, Arjun (1990) 'Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy', in M. Featherstone (ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity. London: Sage.) suggests five dimensions of cultural flow: ethnoscapes, technoscapes, finanscapes, mediascapes and ideoscapes, which are all interconnected. Ethnoscapes are made up of the landscapes of people representing the world we inhabit. Amongst these we find tourists, immigrants, refugees, and other groups of migrant people who are on the move. Technoscapes refer to the global arrangement and rapid movement of technology. Finanscapes consist of the disposition and transfer of global economic capital. The fourth dimension of global cultural flow, mediascapes, describes both the distribution of information technology and the images of the world that the media create. The final dimension, ideoscapes, are linked to the building of politically or ideologically defined images. In simplified terms, Appadurai's five dimensions apply to the global flow of people, machinery, money, images and ideas. According to Appadurai, it is no longer fruitful to try to understand the new global cultural economy by using old models of conflict that contrast the centre versus the periphery. In most of these models of 'cultural imperialism' an underlying concern or fear of 'cultural homogenization' and/or 'cultural synchronization' (Hamelink, Cees (1983) Finance and Information. New Jersey: Albex) is expressed in the wake of growing Americanization and commodification. What is clear is that in the 1990s the international media environment is far more complex than that suggested by earlier models of media imperialism. It is important at this point to note that the international activity of the major phonogram companies is partly determined by their interaction with other international organs such as the international copyright organizations. The recording industry has its own international lobby organization, the International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Producers (IFPI), which is active in intergovernmental debates regarding the protection of the rights of composers, recording artists and producers. The primary aim of the IFPI is to encourage governments to adhere to the existing international copyright conventions, which will enable the industry to increase its earnings from the secondary usage of recorded music such as from songs played on the radio or television. Over the last decade new means of distribution such as satellite transmissions and interactive cable broadcasting systems have exposed the consumer to far greater access to sound recordings. Given the increasing exploitation of sound recordings by broadcasters, it is clear that in the future, income generated from performance rights must constitute an equally increasing part of record company revenues, and IFPI will seek to ensure that transfrontier transmissions are covered by adequate copyright law and fair remuneration to producers. The revolution that is transforming the growing deregulated broadcasting landscape must provide record companies, performers, musicians, publishers and authors with proper levels of reward for the use of their works. (IFPI. International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Producers, Annual Reports and Newsletter). At the beginning of the twentieth century the music industry was premised on the sale of printed sheet music. The publishers producing such music did so on a truly enormous scale. Perhaps twenty million copies a year were printed in Britain alone, and the best-known pieces sold in the hundreds of thousands. Most of the businesses dominating this field were family firms committed to upholding traditional standards of taste and aesthetic value. Not just concerned to exploit the value of "dots" (as musical notation was termed), they proudly nurtured personal as well as professional relationships with artists such as Stanford and Elgar. Most of their sales were of a relatively small number of wildly successful songs, which, as they were fond of pointing out, cross-subsidized the many that were only modestly successful or that failed outright. The details of pricing, however, were regarded as confidential, and this encouraged rumors that the firms acted in concert to keep them artificially high. They actually sold songs at about a shilling and four pence each, which does not seem exorbitant - unless you knew that a pirate would sell you the same song for two pence. Two profound changes made such piracy possible, one of them technological, the other cultural. The first was the development of photolithography. This allowed pirates for the first time to reproduce what was for all intents and purposes an exact copy of an original. Gone were the typographical errors of earlier pirated versions of sheet music; it often took an expert to tell a reproduction from the original. The second crucial development was the late-Victorian appearance of 'piano mania.' As middle- and lower-class incomes rose, money became available for leisure, and in the last quarter of the nineteenth century a number of novel ways of spending it came into being. Pianos were among the most notable. Suddenly every aspiring family wanted what one commentator called 'that highly respectablising piece of furniture.' The social character of music changed radically as professional virtuosity diverged from, and increasingly disdained, a burgeoning realm of amateurs trained by an equally burgeoning - and utterly unregulated crowd of 'professors.' By 1910 there was one piano for every ten people in Great Britain. Where pianos went, piano music had to follow. The result was a huge new demand among middle- and lower-class amateurs for sheet music - the cheaper the better. Music piracy had long existed, of course. Indeed, until the 1770s music was conventionally regarded as lying beyond the purview of copyright altogether, so publishers sold unauthorized reprints freely. By the late nineteenth century, legislation had eliminated that kind of freedom. But the new mass market transformed the nature and implications of piracy, making such laws practically moot. The implications extended from music-hall songs to works by Massenet, Sullivan, Gounod, and Mascagni. In the early 1900s, pirates copied any music that was genuinely popular, be it a Puccini aria or a Sousa march. In reaction, the established industry giants band together to lobby the government for a radical strengthening of copyright law one that many see as threatening to civil liberties and principles of privacy. And in the meantime they resort to underhand tactics to take on the pirates. They are forced to such lengths, they say, because the crisis of piracy calls the very existence of a music industry into question. Bibliography Adrian Johns, Pop Music Pirate Hunters, Journal article, Daedalus, Vol. 131, 2002 Gage Averill, A Day for the Hunter, a Day for the Prey: Popular Music and Power in Haiti, University of Chicago Press, 1997. Jason Toynbee, Making Popular Music, Musicians, Creativity and Institutions, London, 2000. Lisa A. Lewis, Gender Politics and Mtv: Voicing the Difference, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 1990. Nicholas Cook, Music: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2000 Paul R. Kohl, Reading between the Lines: Music and Noise in Hegemony and Resistance, Journal article, Popular Music and Society, Vol. 21, 1997. Robert Burnett, The Global Jukebox, The International Music Industry, Routledge, 1996. Shawn E. Rhea, Turning Melodies into Royalties: The Real Avenue in the Music Business Is in the Ownership Rights to the Hits. Here's How to Publish and Not Perish, Magazine article, Black Enterprise, Vol. 28, December 1997 Read More