Introduction and MethodologyWhen I became a student of Hindustani classical music performance I questioned my place in American Hindustani music culture. What thwarted further reflection on this question was the fact that I did not know the nature of the music culture I was entering. My research at the Carleton College library and other sources revealed nothing substantial. Hindustani classical music has been a part of the American musical scene for much of this century--Ravi Shankar himself first toured America in 1932 (Shankar 1968: 68); yet a comprehensive document has yet to emerge on the subject. What has been written however, are books concerning the practice of Hindustani classical music in India. One book in particular, Daniel Neuman's The Life of Music in North India (1980), piqued my curiosity. Since its main focus is on the balance of tradition and change in the Hindustani music culture of India, it made me wonder how the American musical environment has treated the tradition of music culture from which it takes root. So, from this book, I established the research methodology for my examination of the American social domain of Hindustani music as a determinant of continuity and change within the music culture itself. This pilot study hopes to provide the beginnings of other studies in this area. I structured the interviews I would subsequently conduct around the definition implicit in Neuman's book, of music culture comprising the music, its producers and consumers, the context of musical events, and the technology of production and reproduction (Neuman op.cit.: 203). To this I added questions regarding controversial but relevant statements which emerged from my readings. Although I approached the interviews with my own agenda, I frequently counterchecked with my interviewees whether they found my questions to be relevant. Also, at the end of the interviews, I often asked them whether they would like to add anything further. From this practice I discovered the limits of the models from which I worked, and added several questions to my study. I conducted fourteen interviews in all (see appendix 1). From two initial contacts in New York provided by my sitar teacher at the time (Arn Burghardt), my list of potential interviewees grew very quickly. In order to present a balanced picture of the music culture under scrutiny, I chose interviewees across a broad spectrum: melody instrumentalists, tabla players, singers; men, women; performers of the Indian diaspora, Non-Indian-Americans; restaurant musicians, mehfil and large audience performers, amateurs, and recording and non-recording artists. Often, communication within the Hindustani musicians' community had travelled faster than I, and I found my presence in town and requests for interviews to be known and anticipated. As a student of music, the musicians with whom I interacted invited me to several mehfils and were always glad to share their insights. Thus, I found myself plugged into the Indian community, especially in New York City, where I conducted most of my interviews. Many of the conclusions derived about the American Hindustani music culture are supported by or originally suggested by those interviewed. These conclusions are not without room for disagreement and debate. The same can be said for the structures I have chosen to use to explore my area of study. I do not believe that this is a flaw, but rather an indication of the richness of the music culture and the varied levels of interpretation embedded therein. Music functions as a polysemic sign-vehicle for the transmission of culture. Although there is a cohesive integrity in both the music and its cultural context, room for intracultural negotiation, such as its realization and interpretation, exists.
On to the next section
|