I think that I mean that orientalist works are pretty much part of the western tradition, and so we come equipped with all of the equipment we need aesthetically to deal with such things, and that we can view any innovations in the word as we would western pieces. I'm not sure that comparison
Maybe we could simply judge orientalist works without reference to actual music from the 'Orient', but I'm not sure if that would necessarily work in their favour?
I'm not quite short what you might be getting at. In my mind, I'm constantly comparing orientalist music to "genre novels"; I can see that I don't think it's a good idea to write something off as being a piece of "genre music", as, well, that might be seen as being quite belittling - is this danger of subcategorization what you're getting at?
No, I'm not meaning to do that (nor to write off 'orientalist music' in general, either, just be aware of its context and limits). I come back again to this ubiquitous term 'mediation': what counts is not necessarily the genre, source, etc. so much as how it is transformed and individuated. But that statement itself becomes complex when, as is sometimes the case with music that in one sense or another alludes to orientalist music or ideas, the whole idea of individuation and associated self-expression are problematised. Also, the very sources and genres, however much mediated, do bring their own set of attributes which inform the final result. What I meant by the statement concerning judging works independently of actual music from the 'Orient' has to do with jettisoning the very things that sometimes are invoked in
support of such works, through claims of spiritualism, mystification of simple 'difference' and so on. These things are inevitably rather finite and often amount to little more than affectations: work X 'evokes the distant, far-off world of ....., one suffused with timeless sensuality', and that sort of thing - those sorts of claims are frequently predicated upon some supposed world that actually does entail such qualities, more often than not a fiction. Of course fantasy and fictions are intrinsic to imaginative creation, but in one sense or other they have to be judged on their own merits (by which I don't mean in terms of the 'purely musical', which is another form of mystification, simply in terms of their wider meanings to us, now) rather than somehow rendered immune to such things by unbreachable assertions of 'difference' ('this music doesn't speak to you because you don't appreciate that non-Western philosophy' and so on).
Many of them advertise their orientalism very blatantly (through titles, texts, and so on), and are keen to be seen as a representation; this can sometimes provide a type of 'justification' for what otherwise might be seen as merely repetitive, over-dependent on stock gestures, static and so on.
Of course, that such names might make a difference in how well a piece of music is received doesn't mean that the piece is weak, right? No more than if pre-chopin waltz-lovers had had Chopin's polonaises inflicted upon them, as I see it (I'm getting at the fact that "oriental pieces" as coming form a bunch of roughly-defined musical forms).
Sure, and I doubt we very often respond to a piece entirely independently of its title (even titles such as
Composition 1973 #2 bring their own set of connotations). I suppose when there seems to be some major discrepancy between title and its implications on one hand, and the sonic work on the other, a discrepancy that is not particularly meaningful, then it's fair to examine it critically.
This is as if one might compare Chopin's waltzes to actual waltzes that were made for waltzing to? The post-Chopin Waltz, seems to me to be developed to a level of abstraction and general robustness that it has established itself as a member of a consequent but largely self-sufficient piece. Even if I agree with myself though (it's hard to tell this time of night), there's little evidence that the same can be said for the various orientalist genres, which is maybe an important point to make? (that is to say, I think the main issues that came up here with orientalist genre music are entirely absent when one compares Liszt's Hungarian music, or Chopin's polish music, or the Spanish music of albeniz or granados, &c.).
Absolutely. Chopin's waltzes are highly mediated works, not intended for dancing to, which just use the genre as their starting point (this perspective, alas, would be a red rag to certain postmodernists who decry such mediation as some egotistical attempt to 'dominate'). I suppose I'm not sure if some of the orientalist genres really achieve the same.
Just some musings - interested in your further thoughts. Rather interested also to know what you or others think of the phenomenon when, say, Indian musicians start adding electric guitars and drums to traditionally-inspired idioms?
Well such things can do great damage to a tradition if not used wisely; it might be like giving the technology of the nuclear age to ... people not technologically advanced .... Of course this sounds very condescending; a guitar's a guitar, after all - but it's in the interest of the western musical tradition to assimilate more than bulldoze all the others, neh?
I sort of have mixed feelings about this, really not sure. If we associate such things as electric guitars exclusively with 'the West', it may be a case of assimilation and/or bulldozing. But maybe the development of such instruments and techniques (I don't know if there are such things as 'electric sitars' as well?) is part and parcel of the whole process of industrialisation, which comes inevitably to the non-Western world as well? What I suppose I'm getting at is that the whole notion of doing damage to a tradition may be very real, especially when it is driven primarily by the need to absorb it for Western consumers, at the same time it's also dangerous to imagine those traditions as ideally static, unchanging entities (except when changed from outside), which itself would be an orientalist paradigm?
