iDIDJ Australia Didgeridoo Cultural Hub

[pacdidj]

Hi all,

I made this point on one of the legislative reform threads, but I think perhaps not strongly enough. I think the concept authenticity is not only hard to pin down, it is at times damaging. What follows is why I think so. This post is going to get quite long, a bit geeky and academic before I'm done, so if that's not your thing feel free to skip it.
In the past few days a thread was started on the SS forum called "Trad or Not?".

Longdog opened with the question of whether a yidaki with a particularly large bell made by Djalu' Gurruwiwi is really traditional or not. Now, I know Longdog didn't intend it this way, and that it was only a question, but it really gave me pause for a minute. In effect, by asking whether an instrument made by Djalu' is trad or not, we are calling into question the authenticity of an instrument made by a man who is one of the primary inheritors and proponents of the tradtions of yidaki.
I would like to make a distinction here between "traditional" and "authentic." I think perhaps too often we use these terms as a gloss for the same concept. Traditional just means something that is part of a tradition. A tradition can be anything that is done repeatedly, often in the same way, often with slight changes, and sometimes major changes. Traditions can start within a single lifetime, even a single year, and they can also potentially continue for many, many years or lifetimes. Authentic on the other hand, refers to a degree of "purity" in any given thing or process, and how closely it is connected with "the original" or its "roots," real or imagined, whatever they may be. As far as these concepts go, I think traditional is perfectly innocuous, as long as we keep in mind that traditional is not the opposite of contemporary, and doesn't imply historicality or timelessness. Authenticity is another story.
I'm going to introduce two theoretical terms here, which I am borrowing from Tom Turino, an ethnomusicologist who has published extensively on music in the Andes and in Zimbabwe, so bear with me for a bit. The terms are: cultural formation, and cultural cohort.
A cultural formation is a group of people united by many shared habits that are doxic. Doxic here is a term borrowed from the theorist Pierre Bourdieu, and means something that is so low in focal awareness that it is simply taken as natural, an unquestioned part of everyday life. Doxic habits are things like stopping at red lights when you drive, speaking your native language, if you come from a devout Christian family going to church, for many men in the West not wearing dresses, etc. These doxic habits are mostly learned through early formative experience in childhood. Cultural formations can be as small as a family, or potentially as large as a country. Turino argues that there are some trans-national cultural formations as well, such as cosmopolitan lifeways in major urban centers from Hariri to Tokyo to New York.
Cultural cohorts on the other hand, are groups of people united by a smaller set of habits that are part of their group identity. Identity here meaning characteristics that one chooses to represent oneself, or characteristics seen as salient to oneself by others. Cultural cohorts are groups of people such as bikers, baseball teams/players, emo fans (and fans in general), and yidaki and mago enthusiasts.
One of the key points in Turino's formulation is that it is only people who make music in a cultural cohort that seem concerned with "authenticity," whereas people who make music as part of a cultural formation don't seem to need or use the concept. Turino discusses this construction of authenticity in the context of old-time stringband and contradance traditions in the United States and Canada. He observes that people from rural communities and families that have been playing old-time music since the 19th century when their families bought a banjo and a songbook from the Sears and Roebuck catalog, don't seem to care or talk about authenticity. For these people old-time music is doxic, it's just a part of everyday life that doesn't need to be questioned.
Another group group involved with old-time string band however, seems deeply concerned with issues of authenticity. This group of people, largely from urban and suburban areas, started playing old-time music after the folk revival of the late fifties and sixties in the US. This group makes old-time music as part of a cultural cohort. The music making itself is what brings the group about, its members often not being connected in any other way, and the habit of old-time music making is not doxic for these people. This is perhaps what gives rise to the need to find "authenticity" or a connection to the "real roots" of old-time music. Turino observes that in playing old-time music with these groups, he has frequently been admonished for his banjo, which has an electric pickup built in. People tell him, "that's not the old-timey way." Though, this was never a problem when making music with people for whom old-time music is doxic. Turino's point is not that one of these ways of making music is better than the other, but that they are separate traditions and should be recognised as such.
The point here is that the concept of authenticity in music is employed mostly by those for whom the music is not doxic, not a natural part of everyday life.
Based on my limited experience with Yolngu people, the same seems to be true with the yidaki (And PLEASE, if I'm wrong here, someone with more experience jump in and set me straight). Yolngu certainly play yidaki as part of a cultural formation. It is a deeply doxic thing learned in early childhood, and is deeply connected to at least some Yolngu cosmologies. But, Yolngu use the words yidaki and didjeridu interchangably in everyday speech, and don't always seems to make a big distinction between instruments made in or outside of Arnhem Land. Last year at the Dreaming festival I saw M*lk*y play a borrowed didjeridu brought by a group of Aboriginal people from the southeast during a bunggul performance. I think the instrument was made from mallee, not stringybark, and was certainly not what many of us on this forum would call a yidaki. I also saw an instrument made outside of Australia used in Nhulunbuy as part of Yolngu funerary ceremony. These observations seem to indicate that at least some Yolngu are not terribly concerned with whether any given didjeridu is or is not authentic, but rather whether it suits the purposes at hand.
On the other hand, for those of us on these forums who are not Yolngu, Bininy, Mialli, or otherwise traditional custodians of Yidaki or Mago, these instruments are what bring us together as a cultural cohort. Yet it is we who are primarily concerned with what is or is not an authentic yidaki.
The hitch is that since these music traditions are not doxic for us, we are not privy to the esoteric knowledge associated with them, "authenticity" for us will always be based on an imagined reality of what makes a didjeridu a "real," "pure," or "authentic" yidaki or mago.
Now, I am most emphatically NOT saying here that we should not support craftsmen who make fine yidaki and mago. These people are masters of their musical traditions, with truly impressive skill and knowledge. Further, instrument crafting is an important source of sustenance for some Yolngu, as I would imagine mago is for people in WAL. I understand why we are inclined to construct discourses of authenticity. We want others to be aware of these people, these special places, and the amazing music that comes from them.
The point though is that authenticity is a double-edged sword. It is not an inherent quality in yidaki or mago, but rather is a discourse created by trad heads like us, and not necessarily one that is important or even relevant to the traditional custodians of these instruments. It is also hard to pin down, and thus lands us on a slippery slope, which can lead to saying that an instrument made by an inheritor of the tradition is perhaps not authentic (I know this really isn't what you were saying Longdog, and I appreciate your question because it gave me quite a bit to think about ).
We should recognise the danger in this though. If all of us trad heads were to decide that big-belled sticks really aren't authentic (or traditional if we're glossing the words together as I'm trying to caution against), and decide to stop buying them, that would have a major negative impact on the livelihoods of craftsmen like Djalu'. He would either have to change his craftsmanship practices, something he may be quite disinclined to do if he has good reasons for making his instruments a certain way, or find another way to make money.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents, or 2 dollars, or 200, depending on how long and boring you found this post.
I'm not asking for universal agreement, but I am trying to stimulate some serious thought and discussion about these issues. And I'd like to say that I'm really glad we have the space on these forums to hash things like this out.

All the best,
Phil

[ididjaustralia]

pacdidj wrote:

But, Yolngu use the words yidaki and didjeridu interchangably in everyday speech, and don't always seems to make a big distinction between instruments made in or outside of Arnhem Land. Last year at the Dreaming festival I saw M*lk*y play a borrowed didjeridu brought by a group of Aboriginal people from the southeast during a bunggul performance. I think the instrument was made from mallee, not stringybark, and was certainly not what many of us on this forum would call a yidaki. I also saw an instrument made outside of Australia used in Nhulunbuy as part of Yolngu funerary ceremony. These observations seem to indicate that at least some Yolngu are not terribly concerned with whether any given didjeridu is or is not authentic, but rather whether it suits the purposes at hand.

Good point and excellent observation skills!

I think it comes down to context, because Yolngu wear many hats. In festival environments, the atmosphere is about fun, friendship and sharing and what better way to show respect for each other than to exchange gifts, musical instruments, etc. A bit like after a football match, whether in South America, the UK, or Australia, when players swap guernseys. No-one for a moment will think that this act of swapping guernseys signifies that the other team is regarded as equal or better than one's own football team!

Same thing during the Dreaming Festival, at Garma, or whenever Yolngu and other countrymen travel overseas to attend workshops and festivals.

However, change the context and sentiments change accordingly. Anyone who has been to Garma or heard Djalu talk about yidaki will know his staunch stance on custodianship issues. Bring Djalu, M*lk*y or any other Yolngu who is reasonably well-versed in intellectual and cultural property issues to a conference on, say, copyright, and they will no doubt give people a piece of their mind.

So whether Top Enders are concerned with "whether any given didjeridu is or is not authentic, but rather whether it suits the purposes at hand" depends on context. On occasions of celebration (festivals, public ceremonies), it would seem that functionality and prestige are more important so 'foreign' instruments are acceptable, even desired, because knowing overseas people or Indigenous people from other places and having had an instrument gifted from them is inherently prestigious - issues of quality and authenticity aside.

But talk about economics and cultural heritage to Top Enders and things change, and I have recorded evidence where countrymen talk exactly about these things.

pacdidj wrote:

I understand why we are inclined to construct discourses of authenticity. We want others to be aware of these people, these special places, and the amazing music that comes from them.

As outsiders, I think we're well placed to observe and to comment purely because of our access to information. We do what we do because we can. However, for 99.9+ % of Top Enders, they would have no clue really as to what goes on in the world as far as the global trade of didgeridoos are concerned. And if they don't know, they don't care.

Some Yolngu are aware, like Andy Watjuku, and I have video material of Andy talking about this that I will upload to YouTube at some stage.

pacdidj wrote:

The point though is that authenticity is a double-edged sword. It is not an inherent quality in yidaki or mago, but rather is a discourse created by trad heads like us, and not necessarily one that is important or even relevant to the traditional custodians of these instruments.

I think you're right there about the discourse being created by non-Top Enders. But I disagree that the discourse is not necessarily important or relevant to traditional custodians. On the contrary, I would say that it is vitally important and relevant to traditional custodians when they know about the issues.

pacdidj wrote:

If all of us trad heads were to decide that big-belled sticks really aren't authentic (or traditional if we're glossing the words together as I'm trying to caution against), and decide to stop buying them, that would have a major negative impact on the livelihoods of craftsmen like Djalu'.

Interesting thoughts...

Big-bells have been used for a long time and I think we'd be hard-pressed to agree that they are not 'authentic' or 'traditional'.

See pic below of 3 old instruments in the iDIDJ Reference Collection, all made and used before I was born. The bottom instrument is from NE Arnhem Land. The middle item an old pandanus stick from the NW Northern Territory region. And the top stick a mago from Western Arnhem Land.

But the point is valid though... who decides and what criteria are used to determine what is and is not authentic or traditional. The bulk of instruments from traditional areas would be uncontroversial and easily determined. But what of the stick made in the 1980s by a Groote Eylandt man in Alice Springs from local timber? I've got such a stick and to me, it is an abberation or anomaly... but then again, it is a one-off so it doesn't matter really.

Guan

_________________
iDIDJ Australia - Didgeridoo Cultural Hub
E-mail: info@ididj.com.au
Web: www.ididj.com.au
YouTube: www.youtube.com/ididjaustralia

[kdidj]

I've played 2 of those sticks and they are wonderful natural belled specimens, proof, as you say Guan, that one would be hard pressed to claim that large bells are a modern phenomenon.

_________________
www.kdidj.com
www.myspace.com/kylemaplesden

[pacdidj]

Hi Guan,

Thanks for the reply!

Quote:

I think you're right there about the discourse being created by non-Top Enders. But I disagree that the discourse is not necessarily important or relevant to traditional custodians. On the contrary, I would say that it is vitally important and relevant to traditional custodians when they know about the issues.

Of course you're right about this. The discourse becomes vitally important to people like Djalu' and family who derive major sustenance from sale of crafts like yidaki, precisely because this discourse has the potential to impact them, and not necessarily in a good way.
Personally I see a big difference, and in some cases an unbridgeable gulf between discourses of authenticity and issues of cultural property. Given that authenticity is often constructed by those for whom music tradtions aren't doxic, and cultural property is often a concept held by those for whom they are, the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. In fact, in many cases authenticity is constructed with no regard or respect for people's cultural property.
Authenticity also has a tendency to lead to reification, or a fixed, rigid notion of what is or is not traditional, which can lead to the atrophy of previously vital traditions.
One example often given by scholars is the blues revival in the United States. In the 1940s and 50s blues artists like Muddy Waters and John Lee Hooker were selling hit records. They were very popular in the African American community, and had a vibrant, up-and-coming, urban and urbane image. That is, they were cool, hip and with-it.
In the 60s, many outside the African American community became interested in the blues, but for them it was construed as a folk tradition. What they wanted was the "real" "authentic" "rootsy" blues, though many were not quite sure what this was. Eager to capitalize on this, Chess records, Muddy's label, and other record companies started releasing compilation records of Muddy, John Lee Hooker, Howlin Wolf and others, with titles like "The Real Folk Blues". They started booking these artists, who, with their hard-edged, urban, electric sounds, who had actively worked to distance themselves from rural, folksy stuff, at folk festivals, and marketing them as salt-of-the-earth, hayseed, "folk" artists.
Because the crowd expected, "authentic" "folk" blues, many of these artists felt constrained, and boxed in, unable to keep pushing the blues tradition as they had previously. Big Bill Broonzy is a great example of this. He had been one of the pioneers of urban blues, but during the revival he abandoned the ensemble driven, electric style, and went back to playing solo bottle-neck guitar, and even recorded some fairly hilarious stuff, such as a folk-song arrangement of the Tin Pan Alley jazz tune "Bill Bailey" for Smithsonian Folkways.
Anyway, the point is that, though we can argue about the vitality/vibrancy of the blues today, after the blues revival of the 60s it was no longer a popular music. Many scholars attribute this decline to the reification and ossification of the blues tradition caused by a discourse of authenticity, based on imagined notions of what the "real" "authentic" blues was, during the blues revival.
Now, I'm not saying us trad heads have anywhere near the kind of influence on yidaki makers that record producers had on American blues artists in the 60s, but I think our actions and buying habits could potentially have an impact. I for one don't want Yolngu artists to feel constrained or boxed in by market pressure created by what others have come to think is the "real" or "authentic" shape or painting materials/colors for yidaki. It doesn't really matter to me that big bells were common in the past, though I'm sure they were, because they are common and part off the tradition today. If the bulk of Yolngu craftsmen were to change their fabrication practices tomorrow, I think we should be prepared to acknowledge that they may have very good reasons for doing so.
In the end, as regards "authenticity" I think it is quite possible to simply respect these great music traditions for what they are, with out the need for talking about what they should be, or what makes them "authentic".

Best,
Phil

[ididjaustralia]

pacdidj wrote:

Personally I see a big difference, and in some cases an unbridgeable gulf between discourses of authenticity and issues of cultural property. Given that authenticity is often constructed by those for whom music tradtions aren't doxic, and cultural property is often a concept held by those for whom they are, the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. In fact, in many cases authenticity is constructed with no regard or respect for people's cultural property.

Well said, and it is a shame that is the case. It seems most discourses have too much of an academic slant which I think it dangerous. It tends to ostracise and marginalise those who are not part of this circle.

I've gone out of my way especially to be inclusive on this Forum which is why we've had Indigenous Australians, even traditional owners of the didgeridoo, expressing their views here. I think this is crucial for advancing discourses and for advancing the interests of traditional owners.

pacdidj wrote:

Authenticity also has a tendency to lead to reification, or a fixed, rigid notion of what is or is not traditional, which can lead to the atrophy of previously vital traditions.

Yup, which is why it is imperative for countrymen from the Top End to participate in discussions of this nature. Absolutely imperative.

pacdidj wrote:

Now, I'm not saying us trad heads have anywhere near the kind of influence on yidaki makers that record producers had on American blues artists in the 60s, but I think our actions and buying habits could potentially have an impact. I for one don't want Yolngu artists to feel constrained or boxed in by market pressure created by what others have come to think is the "real" or "authentic" shape or painting materials/colors for yidaki. It doesn't really matter to me that big bells were common in the past, though I'm sure they were, because they are common and part off the tradition today. If the bulk of Yolngu craftsmen were to change their fabrication practices tomorrow, I think we should be prepared to acknowledge that they may have very good reasons for doing so. In the end, as regards "authenticity" I think it is quite possible to simply respect these great music traditions for what they are, with out the need for talking about what they should be, or what makes them "authentic".

You've got no argument from me there Phil. Bravo and well said!

I'm very happy to talk about what isn't authentic though, as in instruments that are cloaked as genuine but are fakes as NT Arts Minister Marion Scrymgour phrased it. I think this is the other side of the discourse coin and an important thing to discuss, especially with input from traditional owners.

Guan

_________________
iDIDJ Australia - Didgeridoo Cultural Hub
E-mail: info@ididj.com.au
Web: www.ididj.com.au
YouTube: www.youtube.com/ididjaustralia