Comments on Leen’s Response to Challenge Question #2

http://leenrhee.blogspot.com/2008/11/response-to-challenge-question.html

Leen,

You present a well-organized and thoughtful response to the types of present-day musical transmission methods and their subsequent effect on how we interpret a music-culture’s character. Regarding your thoughts on the oral and aural aspect of musical transmission, you bring up a great point when you mention that the aura of live performances is not reproducible, and the raw emotions and power behind live performances are things that you have to experience firsthand. I am curious as to what you think about recordings of live performances versus studio recordings. Making the connection between the oral/aural media and recorded media form of transmission, even though some may argue that live recordings are the closest you can get to being there, there are still crucial things, aside from the obvious visual component that is missing, that are left out in terms of the sound of a live recording. Just as taking a picture of a towering building does not seem to come out on paper as immense as you had seen it with your own eyes, so to does music lack the same quality once it is collected on a roll of tape or a piece of vinyl.
When you acknowledge the fact that recordings hinder the conception of music, denying listeners the freedom of imagination and creativity, I feel like you could look at this both ways. Sure, excessive editing can destroy a recording’s genuineness, but can some editing cause one to appreciate a certain piece in a different way, thereby enhancing the imagination and creativity of the listener? Taking all of the critiques into account, could you not then make the argument that the oral/aural form of transmission is the ultimate form of musical transmission, being the purest, most direct path from performer to listener? (I couldn’t agree with you more that variety is key, but I just offered this up as a possible counter-argument.) On the other hand, to what extent then does accessibility override quality as a determining factor for understanding a music-culture? That is, it would be impossible for an ethnomusicologist to attend every live performance of the music-culture he or she is studying, but at the same time is it ever okay to practice armchair ethnomusicology out of convenience? How does one achieve the ideal balance?