2nd Floor Music Room, Hillel House
(These are my notes, taken on my computer during the rehearsal)
Warming up - tuning. Present there is a violinist (Andrew), trumpeter (Sam), clarinetist (Sara), electric bassist, flutist, bassoonist
I’m given a CD they made last spring.
Sara calls rehearsal to order - I am then introduced to the group.
Group explains how they are used to this - ethnomusicological study. Nat Seelen did it as his thesis, another student had done it last year. Bassoonist notes that it’s funny a bunch of “white, american students” come together to play Jewish music, and all of a sudden it’s a subject of ethnomusicological study. The vocalist, a pragmatist, says it’s not really possible to go to Russia to hear Jews there.
The group splits into the melody section and other (I’m assuming rhythm). The melody section goes outside (including trumpet, violin and flute).
The rhythm section starts to play some lines from a piece. The two chord progression vamps between two chords a whole step in distance with an unusually rhythmic transition (making it a bit difficult).
The music seems to be very melodically driven. The melody is in a harmonic minor key, with a fair amount of augmented 2nd steps. The rhythm section is teaching the bass players the changes - he appears to be new to the group.
Their music doesn’t seem to be written - they are teaching the bassist from a recording made last spring as well as orally.
The section of music that both the melody and rhythm sections are playing involves a lot of fast runs. It sounds more traditional (in the sense that it is attempting to be more of a replication of the past than a reinterpretation).
This snippet of an entire piece makes me curious of the scope of the piece - as well as the absent parts. Does the drummer or vocalist alter the interpretation of tradition? The two are not presently playing.
The rhythm section continues playing different sections of the same piece. “AABBCCDAABBCCD” is described as the form of the whole piece. They’re taking the whole tune at tempo, and it has come together. Instead of teaching, the clarinetist has assumed the role of player.
The bassoonist is relearning the D section, completely by ear, from the clarinetist.
Another tune is started. It’s a faster, and the clarinet and bassoon are in harmony. They just play a phrase from it. Stylistically it seems pretty similar, a little faster.
The rhythm group is now waiting for the melody group to finish up and join them. Meanwhile a new bass-line is being created for a different tune.
Briefly they talk about inviting new members. They are hesitant to take on a pianist for the tunes a piano doesn’t work with.
My only questions really arise on how the band views themselves. Are they a traditional klezmer band, trying to respect and preserve tradition? Do they think of themselves as ‘newer’ and more ‘progressive’ in their reinterpretation of traditional music?
My observations for the day lean more towards the first; they are more traditional than re-interpretative.
4 comments:
It's interesting that the group is used to being used as an ethnomusicological study. Maybe this is one reason they were trying more to be a "traditional" klezmer band. I was also impressed that no music was written down and everything was learned by ear - did you find out the source of the music (how it was at first transmitted to Brown students)?
You also seem to have taken all your notes on the computer when the rehearsal was going on; I like that the notes are in the present tense. How much did sitting behind your computer "brand" you as an outside observer / authority? Did it make them less aware of you or more conscious of your presence?
From your notes, I get the impression that you have experience with this type of music. You use the term "traditional," and so I wonder on what you are basing this association. Perhaps in your actual ethnography, you can include a little about your own background and experience with the music. I think this would be interesting and informative for the reader.
Your use of computer stuck out to me as well. Did you feel like you missed anything by typing the whole time, or do you feel like you have a more accurate account of events because you recorded them as they were happening? Besides your note at the beginning about the members of the group acknowledging that they are used to being studied, did you have any other interactions with members of the group?
The fact that this group plays without written music is very interesting. Such an attribute is characteristic of improvisational bands, but this group seems to have prewritten songs. This practice of orally passing down songs to new band members is very similar to the topic of tradition, and how entire cultures do this over hundreds of years. It begs the question, do these songs change as the group does?
Your attention to matters of transmission and tradition is great to see. I'm intrigued by the implications of the group members' responses to being studied. Was the bassoonist implying that s/he wouldn't expect ethnomusicologists to ever study a bunch of white American students unless they were doing something strongly marked as "ethnic"/traditional music? Like, ideally you would be in Russia listening to the Jewish musicians there, but instead you're making do with them? I wonder what your own thoughts are about this, based on what you've learned about ethnomusicology and its goals. I'm also curious about how many current group members are Jewish, and how that informs their experience with klezmer and with this group in particular.
Post a Comment