(It’s not a proper alliteration…but I like it.)
Greetings, all.
Before I get to blogging, I’d like to apologize for my lengthy absence. I had accepted both a full-time job and an extra online job for the month of August, and while I’d fully planned to continue posting filk-inspired ideas on this page, it turned out that my personal time had been reduced to nearly nothing. Before that, it did seem that everyone had been enjoying sharing arguments regarding the nature of filk, and I hope that my behavior has not disappointed you so much that you won’t be interested in continuing the discourse. I’ve certainly been enjoying this, and am of course indebted to you for your input.
And now, on to the show. Er…blog.
One of the questions I had to ask myself when working on 18th-century parody song (vaudeville) in France was why more work on the topic hadn’t been attempted by musicologists. The practice was so pervasive in that particular culture that it permeated anything that had to do with the written word—stacks of vaudeville collections were compiled, and anyone taking a stroll down the market streets would have heard hawkers bellowing them to the crowds. They were even the basis of the beginning of French comic opera (opéra comique)…and musical theater as we know it, actually, with The Beggar’s Opera in England.
Despite its popularity in its time, few scholars have devoted published words to this genre. Over the past two hundred years, there are only a handful of individuals who have attached their name to it on paper. None of these were scholars of music; they were usually literature or communication historians. Only recently has the musical world taken notice of this practice, with two collections of essays coming out of Europe. In our current general music history textbooks, vaudeville is usually only given one sentence in the 1.5 pages devoted to French comic opera.
I was equally surprised to find that I can locate no writings on filk (a modern folk practice that includes strict musical parody as a tool) by musicologists and ethnomusicologists. This is not to say that I feel that only writings on music by musicologists matter; on the contrary, I’m adamant that any topic should be studied from as many different angles as possible. I’m simply bothered by the fact that contemporary popular parody song in general has been neglected by a field of study that should take the topic under its wing as a matter of course. It has received some serious treatment by Henry Jenkins and several others, as we know, but it has not been a topic on which music scholars have published.
And I have yet to find a book that deals specifically with popular parody song as a musical form.
I’d be silly if I didn’t rejoice a little at the fact that my current interest has been largely untouched, and is almost completely unknown by, the musicological world. Every scholar does a little happy dance when they find such a neglected source of scholarly fun. But the question still remains: Why has (ethno)musicology tended towards ignoring popular parody song?
The answer may be that parody song is, in a large way, mostly a literary form. The music is not new, and it is not usually complex. So the main interest in specimens of this type seems to lie in the following: a) The new text that is being shared, b) the relationship between the old and new texts, and c) the relationship between the old music and the new text. Until recently (somewhere in the last century, with the emergence of ethnomusicology), musicology was not very interested in the study of music in culture, so even this last point wasn’t of much interest to musicologists.
This is a decent answer to my question, but it’s a “surface” answer. There must be more to it, right?
Perhaps (ethno)musicologists are not frequent attendees of SF and Fantasy conventions, and because filk has not become widely known outside of this community, word of the practice has not made it into any semi-interested musicological circles. Regarding the historical practice, it’s possible that, because vaudeville collections were only sometimes published with music, scholars simply viewed it as more of a literary practice than a musical one. Perhaps these scholars would simply rather spend their time pursuing thoughts of Monteverdi and Stravinsky—or of the Indian Diaspora and the Balinese gamelan—all of which are perfectly pleasant and interesting tracks of scholarship. And, of course, we can wonder whether a lack of imagination—of being able to creatively question just how uses music uniquely—has contributed to its barely-sideline status in musical scholarship.
I hope that I don’t sound accusatory; that’s certainly not my intention. Every scholar must choose what he/she wants to spend a lifetime pursuing. I simply believe that the reasons for this phenomenon run deeper than a simple lack of interest, and I’m curious as to what those reasons may be.
In any case, I do feel that popular parody song has been underrepresented in the (ethno)musicological world, whether as a historical or contemporary practice.
Thoughts? Do you think that I’ve missed an important idea in this ramble? I’m certain that you guys would know if an (ethno)musicological survey of filk (or popular parody song) has actually been undertaken in the last several decades. Certainly do flame call me on it, if that’s the case.
Cheers!
