Year: 2018
Type: article
Abstract: In this essay, I critique and critically reflect upon two questions derived from Action Ideal VIII of the MayDay Group: "We commit to understanding the wide range of possibilities and the limitations that technology and media offer music and music learning."Before we can address the "how," it is necessary to know the "why," which I offer here.This includes questioning dichotomies based on beliefs that either no longer hold true and/or are based on a presumptive fallacy-first, that making music in the 21st century is an "either/or" proposition-i.e. one either makes music acoustically or digitally but not both, and second, an implicit belief that hands-on acoustic face-to-face music making is always preferable to making music digitally-either by one's self or with others through technological mediation -for various reasons.I conclude with a discussion of the impact that corporate power on the Web has and continues to have on music making, and by extension, music learning, in the 21st century.Keywords: "bi-contextuality," "long tail" musics, Web as "sociotechnical construct," Web 2.0, online music communities, data mining.he rapid pace of technological change over the last decade, particularly in relation to social media and network connectivity, has deeply affected the ways in which we interact socially (and musically) among individuals, groups, and institutions to the point that it has become difficult to grasp what it would be like to lose access to this everyday aspect of modern life.To paraphrase William Gibson, "the future is with us now, only spread around thinly." 1 Although Gibson wasn't referencing music (and music making) specifically, his words aptly describe current 21st century music making (and music learning and teaching) practices.Like the fish that can't perceive the water in which it swims, neither can we easily comprehend the importance of digital technology and communication in our daily lives.Because of technology's all-encompassing pervasiveness, it is also T Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 17 (1) Waldron, Janice.2018.Questioning 20 th century assumptions about 21st century practices.Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 17 (1): 97-113.doi:10.22176/act17.1.9798 not easy to recognize the implications of the challenges it brings either.Which brings me to the point of this essay, the purpose of which is to critique the below two questions derived from MayDay Action Ideal VIII:1) Given the pervasive use of digital technology and communication, how do we integrate alternatives; for example, acoustic, live, hands-on, face-toface, and culturally situated interactive music making, as an essential component of human cooperation and community?2) How can we use contemporary media and technology to empower people to assert their own local and personal identities, and to critically resist the onslaught of global marketing and branding aimed at their particular demographic?My initial (and short and cynical) response to both questions above is: 1) we can't, 2) why would we?, and, 3) it is already here and happening but we are not aware of it (and to which I think Gibson would agree). 2 However, flippant answers aside, the larger implicit "meta" concern both inferred in and underlying the above questions can be explained by what communications scholar Henry Jenkins believes is "the moral panic about digital technology [that often is] a case of adults not understanding a world that has not been a part of their childhood experiences" (in James 2014, xviii).Although Jenkins writes from his perspective as a new media educator, his thoughts here also encapsulate the fear (and/or naiveté) surrounding similar issues in music education.As is often the case with new "things" in music education-ideas and/or technologies-by the time most of us in academia are aware of them (and, more importantly, the effects they have on what we do), not only is the "horse already out of the barn," it is usually long gone and racing over the hills into the next county.3 While what Jenkins identifies as the "moral panic of digital technology" is the "macro" concern/assumption underlying the above questions, within both questions also lie several additional "micro" assumptions that need further unpacking.I explain and offer my critique of each below, beginning with Question One and continuing on to Question Two. Critique: Question OneGiven the pervasive use of digital technology and communication, how do we integrate alternatives; for example, acoustic, live, hands-on, faceto-face, and culturally situated interactive music making, as an essential component of human cooperation and community?
DOI: 10.22176/act17.1.97
Author: Janice Waldron
Institution: University of Windsor
Language: English
Subfield: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Field: Computer Science
Domain: Physical Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W2885583676