Due 1.31.06 9:20am: Reading II "Ask My Father"
As described in class and on WebCT, you are asked to respond via the "Comments" function to ONE of the questions about the reading. Please complete this "Comment" response to one of the following questions by Tuesday 1.31.06 9:20am.
Carson: “Ask My Father”
“AMF” is essentially about language: about dialog, and about the dialogs that the particularly evocative titles of instrumental tunes can create. He includes extensive quotations from several other authors in this chapter: in fact, as many words in the chapter are written by others as are written by Carson himself.
- Does this somehow relate to the theme of this chapter?
- What is the relationship between words that are borrowed from other authors and tunes that are learned by ear from other musicians?
- How might this concept of “ownership and sharing” relate to or differ from more formal or individual-oriented concepts of ownership?
posted by CJS @ 11:49 AM
15 comments
links to this post
15 Comments:
In my opinion, the relationship between words that are borrowed from other authors and tunes that are learned by ear from other musicians is that there are many different ways to say one thing. Carson makes an interesting point by saying that "names [...]not only help to summon the tune into being, but recall other times and other places where [it] was played." As musicians learn the tunes by ear, they also learn the different names of the tunes. The same concept applies to the words borrowed from other authors.
Carson emphasizes the fact that one tune can go by many different names, since a tune can be so widespread that the name of the tune can be forgotten and be renamed a hundred times differently. There is no one right way to play a tune or one right name for it because it is shared among so many people. “Ask My Father” is largely about the fact that nobody knows the true nature of any song. This may be why Carson quotes so many different authors’ differing opinions.
i think the relationship between the authors and tunes is this feeling of community. if you get a tune from someone else, now that particular combination of pitches and rhythms has an association for the particular people involved. you give me a jig, i'll give you one, and now we have a set that we can play together. the community has a basis because we both know that set, and it grows because we now have a relationship. in the same way, carson creates a community in this chapter by, not only is he giving his opinions, which he accomplishes, but uses other authors' opinions to complement his, or contradictory to his that allows him to comment on.
I think that tunes learned by ear from other musicians, as described by Carson, bears much resemblance to Glassie's descriptions of storytelling in "The Next Day". As Hugh Nolan does with the story from Carleton, so can musicians do when learning a tune by ear. A song can be changed in slight ways to suit the musician, just as Nolan changed stories to suit his own needs and those of his audience. Also inherent to both of these situations is the tendency for a song/story to vary slightly with each musician/teller.
I believe the concept of "ownership and sharing" in the context of this chapter relates to a sort of communal ownership. Music and stories of the type discussed in this chapter are not owned by one single person. Anyone who hears a song or story can take it with them and share it with their friends. When this happens, something in the song or story might change a little bit. The person who borrowed the story/song made it their own. When that person tells it, another person might take it and change it a little. In the end, the way the story/song is performed might change along with a few minor details in the story/song but the main idea of it will remain. The original performer of the story/song expects this to happen. If he did not, there would be no point in performing it. If the performer used a more formal concept of ownership, he/she would not want the story/song to change at all and would want it back after a while. Stories and songs can not work that way. They are owned by everyone and can be shared with others at any time by anyone.
Carson makes his belief of the communal song obvious. He strongly supports the communal ownership of songs to the point that labeling an individual song with a title is unnecessary and misses the point of the music. Carson’s quoting of several different people has significance in several ways. First, it strengthens his argument with other credible sources. More importantly it illustrates a sense of community among authors as well. Carson borrows and even learns words from other people to make his argument stronger. Plus, the fact that the same argument is presented in several different ways, said in several different ways, and interpreted in several different ways, parallels how the same tune can be played several different ways, all of which are “correct.”
This chapter reminds me of the old saying "Don't judge a book by its cover". When I first read the title, I thought Carson would be talking about family or may be how his father impacted his life, but I was way off. One of Carson's main points seems to be that Irish music can not be written down the way music in our culture can, and loses some of its meaning when this is attempted. There is no way for a musician to learn Irish music by simply reading music and never hearing what the song sounds like. You miss ouy on performance practices that can't be notated. By the same token, Carson uses several quotes in this chapter from other authors. To me, this seems like Carson feels he would lose teh meaning of what these authors have to say if he tried to paraphrase their ideas and explain them himself.
The concepts of ownership and sharing in the traditional culture Carson is speaking of, differ greatly from more formal concepts of ownership. Carson's point seems to be that the community owns tunes (sharing being part of the idea of community ownership). Since the object, a tune in this case, is owned by the community, all are entitled to put their own handprint on it (i.e. changing the tune as described in the chapter). The need to have a name for a tune is irrelevant. The community owns the spirit of the tune, takes care of it, nurtures it. The community will ensure it's survival with or without a name, with or without notation, just as an elderly relative would bequeath a priceless heirloom to a younger generation.
When one writes an essay, there are always searches for abstract quotes that pertain to the topic of the paper. If one uses a quote, the writer will acknowledge who authored the quote; however, the interpretation is not delegated by the quote author, but by the writer and even the reader of the essay. In Irish music, perhaps a musician knows a tune, plays it and maybe even knows who first played it, but he makes the tune his own and uses his own flourishes to give it a more personal meaning to be felt by musician and audience alike. The reality is though that many musicians who have learned to play by ear do not know the exact musician who created it. Perhaps they'll hear a similar tune, therefore calling it by a similar name. To me, these represent the old saying or maxims that individuals use in their writings. Most don't know the phrases come from, yet they have hear, say, their parents or grandparents use the words for chatisement or for merry. If some one were to ask, "Well, that's an interesting phrase. Where did you get it from?", most responses would be, "Oh, I heard my mother say it once." This is how I relate Irish music to writing. Whether you know the author or not, it does not stop you from writing. Whether you know who first played a tune or not does not stop the traditional musician from playing it. What matters is how the author or musician perceives the material and how he gives back to spectators by inputing his own opinion or style. I think that by doing this, the original creators are honored because their work is being involved in processes that opens eyes and hearts.
Carson borrrows lots of texts from other authors and makes it part of his pwn writing, just like traditional musicians pick up on other styles and incorporate them as there own. Words that are borrowed can have different meaning just like tunes learned by ear are played and interpretted differently. The idea is that the music, history, and tradition belong to all; whereas, comtemporary emaning of ownership refers something belonging to one person.
Carson includes many quotations from other authors in the text helping to relate the title “Ask My Father” to the idea of sharing knowledge such as that of music and song portrayed in the chapter. The other authors share their words and Carson “incorporates” them into this chapter recreating their context just as the titles of songs are also shared and taken from their “fixed settings”.
I think that basically what Carson is saying is that the tunes belong to everyone. Just like each performance of them is different, each story for when they were learned or first heard and each person they came from is different each time you experience them. When you play the game "Telephone" with a large group, by the time the message gets to the other end, it's dramatically changed. This happens within an oral tradition. While the tunes may resemble the originals, they take on the characteristics of the players and are forever changed. Their names don't matter. Tune names are just words used to recall the melody and to embrace their meaning to the individual.
My sense is that Carson includes quotes from many other people to further his point that a concept, (a written thought, or a particular song) can materialize itself in different ways. Different words, or a differently ornamented piece of music, can communicate more or less the same idea (whether verbal or musical).
How might this concept of “ownership and sharing” relate to or differ from more formal or individual-oriented concepts of ownership?
Carson speaks quite a bit about the titles of songs and what they contribute to the musical content of that song. In a formal sense, when you choose as song, and claim it, if you will, you learn it and try to play it as the original musician did. However, Carson places much emphasis on the fact that when you share these songs, they become yours, and yours to give to other people. He states that each time a song is performed it will be different if it is learned from a musician and not paper. Especially the titles of the songs, although so much is lost by forgetting the title, you know the music, and you know what you call it. It truly makes it yours.
I believe that Carsons quatations of so many different authors, is done on purpose to help convey one of the main themes of the chapter. That is that most songs found in a culture with a strong oral tradition change hands so often and travel so far that its hard to give a song a single name or a universal way of being played. So his use of other authors imitates that even now tradition is viewed differently by different people.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home