In the introduction and first chapter of Heartland Excursions, Bruno Nettl begins to describe the "Music Building" (i.e., midwestern American classical conservatory/music department) culture - a culture to which he belongs. He compares its structure to that of a religion; the music faculty constitute the clergy, while the master composers of Western art music are the pantheon of deities. Mozart and Beethoven are particularly prominent, and Nettl examines how the myths surrounding them affect the performance and perception of their music (the tendency, for example, to insist on finding greatness in all of their work).
Nettl says that he intends to remain as impartial as possible, but suspects that his readers will feel his work is critical of the culture he describes. In light of the following question, it's not hard to imagine why. "Why do the denizens of the Music Building," Nettl asks, "love so well a kind of music that grows from principles they would probably dismiss as characteristic of an unkind society?"(42) Our class seems, for the most part, to be comprised of these very "denizens." So how do we answer Nettl's question? Is his portrayal of Music Building culture as based on "principles...characteristic of an unkind society" accurate (or relevant)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Sure it is relevant. By criticizing a model which is part of our reality nowadays doesn't contradict our speech itself beforehand. On the contrary, leads towards a rather more conscious performance of actions, more coherent.
Walter Mignolo, as a mere example of critic authors, brings many of this kind of questions in society in general... so here we can definitely use his approach to discuss what model of society we are in today, when most societies are "colonial" in every aspect.
That's my simple opinion; I also think that critical approach is always needed in all areas, in any human way expression: arts, politics, economy, etc.
Post a Comment