Reading
Bruno Nettl’s essay An Introduction to
Folk Music in the United States made me think about folk music in a
different way. One thing that can definitely be determined by everyone that listens
to folk music is that it doesn’t have a set definition. If I were to give my
own definition of folk music, I would say that it is a simplistic style of
music played by all types of people. It is a very old style of music that is
directed towards various audiences. By saying it’s old however, I mean that it
was created a long time ago, but it can always be modernized.
The importance of origin comes up numerous
times in Nettls’ essay. For example, when someone who is a professional
composes a song it is most likely not considered folk music. However, when
someone who is untrained makes it, it is more likely to be called folk music.
There is also the opinion that a folk song can still be considered folk if
written by a composer, just as long as you don’t know exactly where it came
from.
When speaking of my own definition
of folk music, the first thing I mentioned was that it was simplistic. This
relates to the category of simple vs. complex mentioned by Nettl in his
writing. In folk music, simple is considered just a few instruments playing a
non-complex rhythm. I consider folk instruments to be certain types of string
instruments and maybe some percussion. The factor of complex music is that it
usually has a lot more instruments and it usually is composed, mostly like an
orchestra.
Simple music can also be determined
by how it is viewed by an audience. It is said to be participatory, where
people are entertained by the music. This I thought was an obvious assumption
because all music is created for someone to enjoy. When you get involved with
the music that is playing for you, it is always ten times more entertaining. This
relates to the passive vs. participatory complex that is brought up in Nettls
writings as well.
I think that these two aspects of
folk music are the most important and also the most controversial. Honestly,
the term simple seems to give the quality of folk music a bad name. When you
think of the word simple, it doesn’t necessarily sound like it’s going to be
good. When in reality, folk music is a great genre of music. Whilst being
simple, it could also very easily become complex as well. The layers of
harmonies and different melodies played in folk music can give it a complex
aura that doesn’t usually go with the “definition” of folk music. I think that
calling it simple can actually be degrading, because I believe that almost all
music is complex.
I believe that a lot of people
contrary to the masses, think that folk music is passive instead of
participatory. Just because a type of music might be older or slightly
underappreciated, does not make it a passive genre of music. I believe that all
music is participatory just because you are listening to it. Even when you are
sitting listening to an orchestra, you are still participating by being there
and listening to the various instruments play for your own entertainment.
I think Bruno Nettl gave most of the
information that we already know, that folk music does not have an easy way to
define it. I=It is met by some constraints by the listeners of the music
because most people judge it way too fast. Just because something’s origins are
older or it may seem to be “simple”, it does not mean that it is not good
music. I think Bruno Nettl helped me understand the controversial topic of folk
music more and made me interested to delve into the topic more than I probably
ever would have. Folk music to me is for everyone’s ears, and it can never be
defined, it is just enjoyable music.
No comments:
Post a Comment