iDIDJ Australia Didgeridoo Cultural Hub

[Peter Lister]

Great debate, unfortunately because I've not had access for two days I've missed my opportuity to comment to a certain degree.

None of us can really speak for what a trad owner/player of a piece really thinks - we'll just have to leave it up to them. But I can't help but interpret what they have said in relation to the importance of their playing as being that it holds cultural significance.

Josh asked "Do others think it is wrong for outsiders to learn songs like Dolphin or West Wind?" and I assume Josh is referring to some of Djalu's recordings here. While it might seem OK to learn a rhythm such as the one used to represent dolphin, we're not to know that certain parts of that rhythm contain sounds that represent the voice of the dolphin, for example, and to me that's cultural knowledge and property and we shouldn't touch it.

Maybe it was never said outright by yolngu or bininy, but I think it may have been inferred by them - they're teaching technique but they're not giving us the rhythms to use. They're demonstrating the use of technique in context, and of course it'd be boring to just have a CD of sounds in a mash rather than take the opportunity to make a recording of specific pieces for your own cultural posterity. I'm certain there has been a twofold reason for these discs - a cultural bridge and an assertion of music rights. They're demonstrating their musical and cultural depth so that we, as outsiders and dominant might respect that and leave it unassailed. Without a doubt this was the crux of some of the transcription/translation work I did with yolngu - to maintain and demonstrate culture and to preserve it for their children and so on. (And I might add that some were keen to record things in order to assert differences betwen their own group and other yolngu as they had a fear that others might "steal" aspects of that story or ceremony and make out that it was their own groups' knowledge).

[Darth Ak-sar-ben]

Willie Nelson once said "If you steal from enough people, somehow you wind up doing your own thing..." Sounds like their cultural music has been "borrowed" extensively from clan to clan.

_________________
Cheers!
Vern

"You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

http://www.vernsdidj.com

[flyangler18]

Quote:

They're demonstrating the use of technique in context, and of course it'd be boring to just have a CD of sounds in a mash rather than take the opportunity to make a recording of specific pieces for your own cultural posterity. I'm certain there has been a twofold reason for these discs - a cultural bridge and an assertion of music rights. They're demonstrating their musical and cultural depth so that we, as outsiders and dominant might respect that and leave it unassailed.

Absolutely, Peter. Yolngu did not give up the rights to their cultural knowledge in the recording of their songs, but rather showed the greater world that there was knowledge to be shared.

I've often thought about this disconnect in questions of 'ownership' over cultural knowledge within Aboriginal society and the dominant culture. Going back to the early photographic and audio record by Moyle, Jones, Elkin, Le Brun Holmes, et al., Aboriginal peoples chose to share something of themselves with us through song, dance and art and demonstrated connection to and ownership of land and law.

For Balanda to perform and benefit from traditional songs just doesn't make sense to me- because (a) it's sacred music to them and meaningless to us and (b) performing anything without a complete understanding just seems proposterous and 'poseurish'. And it ultimately comes down to respect- to take the knowledge that has been made public through the dissemination of archival recordings and the more recent tuitions and respect Yolngu for what they are as well as learn something from them to do something new for yourself on a personal level. And I believe that is what can be practically applied from this discussion... that by listening to the many voices coming from Yolngu and Bininy will give us a sense that there is neither a consensus re: non-Aboriginal use of didjeridu and that by simply acknowledging this deepens and shapes our cultural identities.

Quote:

Sounds like their cultural music has been "borrowed" extensively from clan to clan.

In what way, Vern?

_________________
www.jdidj.com

[Darth Ak-sar-ben]

Peter said, "(And I might add that some were keen to record things in order to assert differences betwen their own group and other yolngu as they had a fear that others might "steal" aspects of that story or ceremony and make out that it was their own groups' knowledge). "

Given the fact that they (Yolngu) et al are people of clans, and that they have been closely intergrating within a narrow area of land these several hundreds (or more) years, it would seem reasonable that things got borrowed back and forth. Some of the songs of one clan may have intermixed with that of another. Is this possible? If possible then they are intermixing their songs, rituals, and cerimonies over many generations. Those of the tribes that play the Mago may have developed different styles from Yolngu, but their possibility of inter-clan mixing of chants, songs and rhythms would seem quite likely.

_________________
Cheers!
Vern

"You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

http://www.vernsdidj.com

[flyangler18]

Quote:

Some of the songs of one clan may have intermixed with that of another. Is this possible? If possible then they are intermixing their songs, rituals, and cerimonies over many generations.

Researching some of the older recordings will yield similarities in song subject between various clan groups with some structural similarities, but the clan-specific rhythmical patternings are more conspicious markers between, say, Galpu and Rirratjingu. Further, there are probably closer similarities between clans with historic close proximity, cultural affiliations, and common moeity.

Jason

_________________
www.jdidj.com

[pacdidj]

Hey all,

The issue of what it means to own something such as traditional songs and song styles is an interesting one. This is one of the reasons I recommended Nancy Williams's book The Yolngu and Their Land over on the SS forum. One of the things I found interesting about Williams's account was her perception of the differences between Yolngu concepts of ownership and those derived from English common law. If I remember right I believe she's saying that one of the important differences is that Yolngu ownership of a given thing does necessarily entail the same rights of alienation from and disposal of that thing, which concepts of ownership derived from English common law do. In other words, when Yolngu own something like a song, design, or area of land they are not free to do as they please with it, as many in the West are. Rather, Williams seems to imply that Yolngu concepts of ownership in fact entail a certain responsibility to that thing, and the maintenance of whatever it is that's important about it. Hope that's not too vague.

Musically speaking, this seems to jive with what Peter is saying about teaching discs published by Yolngu being aimed both ways to a certain degree. The recordings make these trad playing styles available to Yolngu youth, and perhaps serve as a statement of proprietary interest in those songs to members of other clans. At the same time, they present these songs to trad heads like us as examples of Yolngu propietary interest and maintenance of these songs.

Quote:

Given the fact that they (Yolngu) et al are people of clans, and that they have been closely intergrating within a narrow area of land these several hundreds (or more) years, it would seem reasonable that things got borrowed back and forth.

Vern,

As I understand it, there are certain songs, designs, and ceremonial practices that get exchanged between members of different Yolngu clans. But, rather than a sort of casual borrowing, I think there are very specific legal and political processes for this type of exchange. Here's a blurb from Nicolas Peterson's field notes about a film he made of the Djungguwan ceremony, which demonstrates an instance of this kind of exchage:

Quote:

At Yirrkala there is but one man who has the right to make the Djungguan ceremony; he is the ritual leader of the Riradjingu. According to him his grandfather met the grandfather of some present day Mandalpui people near Elcho Island and they exchanged ceremonies. The Mandalpui gave the (sacred) emblem to the Riradjingu and received in return sacred objects from the dua Narra ceremony.

[ididjaustralia]

Quote:

At Yirrkala there is but one man who has the right to make the Djungguan ceremony; he is the ritual leader of the Riradjingu. According to him his grandfather met the grandfather of some present day Mandalpui people near Elcho Island and they exchanged ceremonies. The Mandalpui gave the (sacred) emblem to the Riradjingu and received in return sacred objects from the dua Narra ceremony.

That would be Gimindju, David Gulpilil's father, who died at Yirrkala even though he is Mandhalpuyngu clan. I've heard this same story first-hand amongst Djinba-speaking people.

Guan

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

[Peter Lister]

OK, well now we're getting into things that are more complex to explain without being long-winded.

We need to be clear about terms such as "clan" because this is something quite specific. For Yolngu, clan is a piece of owned and managed land - an estate - clan land. It contains its' own sacred objects, songs, performances etc. and has a complex history of ownership, both patrilineal and matrilineal. Sometimes such areas have been lost to a group through invasion by a hostile group and they have subsumed some of the knowledge with this new ownership. Clan lands often have links to one another through kinship and so there are songs and stories that connect such estates and are therefore shared between groups. Such groups then have shared rights to perform such songs and dances (or to paint designs or use words from that area). I wouldn't describe anything that I've heard of as "borrowing" - one would have to get permission from the rightful owners to borrow something and this would be unnecessary unless the group requesting this has lost their own songs etc. There may be instances of where a particular part of a performance has been "traded" in some fashion, but this would be a special arrangement.

"Intermixing" such material would create all sorts of problems because aspects of musical performance are identifiers at a ceremonial event for example. One group can identify another and their role in the performance by their body design but also by the music being performed. As I've written in other places, these things are somewhat akin to clan tartans and anthems and flags and logos at a superficial level. They're about identity so they are significant facets of cultural identity and therefore cultural knowledge.

As far as WAL goes, they're a completely different cultural group to yolngu. You may have noticed that their languages bear little similarity, in fact they're completely different structurally. I expect that when it comes to clans and their estates that similar rules apply though.

Between these two geographic and culturally different areas though, there is country where the people (such as Rembarrnga) hold a rather unique position where they have the best of both worlds. They share musical traditions either side of them - from both bininy and yolngu. Remarkable. In 2001 I was at WOMAD in Adelaide to see Darryls' grandfather and the White Cockatoo Group perform. I was very fortunate to meet and chat with that old man there. One thing revealed in our little chat was that he was quite capable of playing yolngu-style pieces but didn't, simply because it was not a part of his tradition. He flippantly said it was rubbish, which was his way was saying it was less important than his own - he wasn't being disrespectful or derogatory. I believe he'd also been asked about yolngu-style playing when he toured the US prior to then.

[flyangler18]

Quote:

One of the things I found interesting about Williams's account was her perception of the differences between Yolngu concepts of ownership and those derived from English common law.

I think this singular point is of the highest importance, if we are to attempt to understand Yolngu cosmology and ideologies, as well as the complex systems of ceremonial exchange. 'Ownership' is indeed a complicated thing, and I think that majority of cross-cultural conflict between Yolngu and the dominant culture can be distilled down to this point.

Jason

_________________
www.jdidj.com

[Josh Staley]

Quote:

Josh asked "Do others think it is wrong for outsiders to learn songs like Dolphin or West Wind?" and I assume Josh is referring to some of Djalu's recordings here. While it might seem OK to learn a rhythm such as the one used to represent dolphin, we're not to know that certain parts of that rhythm contain sounds that represent the voice of the dolphin, for example, and to me that's cultural knowledge and property and we shouldn't touch it.

My only experience with such things is seeing the ididj youtube videos, I don't yet own any Djalu CDs. While I haven't made any efforts in this regard, it just seems natural to me that aspiring players would try to learn these songs, just like a beginning guitar player might learn Led Zeppelin songs. In our culture this is not considered improper, nor is performing the songs as long as one does not take it as their own. Recording the songs is a violation however. This seems to be where I get confused. Am I right in assuming this standard does not hold true in when dealing with this issue?

I have seen a lot about the different cultural understanding of ownership, but I have yet to see an explanation of the different form of ownership in the cultures of Arnhem land that I understand.

To me secret knowledge is just that, secret, meaning only known to a few and not widely disseminated. We can't comment on these because we don't know them. There may be special understandings of the sounds in a song, but unless they make them widely known, we can't touch them anyway.

[Ahaw]

Hi there !

I think the main comprehension barrier between Occidentals and Aboriginals is that along with our scientific point of view of the world, we have walked away from pure Belief, from Magic...

Art always was tightly associated with Belief/Religion/Magic.
In every culture all over the world.
Art was Sacred.
It had an intrinsec "Holly" message that could only be understood by "wise" men.
But since science developped to a point that we now rationalise everything, Art has taken another meaning. It now is "only" pure esthetics.
Meaning behind it is merely graphic evocations of some feelings.
It does not have that "Mystic power" it used to have anymore.

When I talk about Art, I include graphic arts (bark, canvas and body paintings) as well as dances and songs.

So maybe it is our conception of Music, Songs, Dances, Paintings that really cause a problem between traditional people (same for Africa or else) and modern people.
We're just not talking about the same things...

[flyangler18]

Quote:

I have seen a lot about the different cultural understanding of ownership, but I have yet to see an explanation of the different form of ownership in the cultures of Arnhem land that I understand.

I would recommend you read two books to lay down some foundational knowledge:

1) 'The Yolngu and their Land', Nancy M. Williams
2) 'Why Warriors Lie Down and Die,' Richard Trudgen

Jason

_________________
www.jdidj.com

[pacdidj]

Josh Staley wrote:

it just seems natural to me that aspiring players would try to learn these songs, just like a beginning guitar player might learn Led Zeppelin songs. In our culture this is not considered improper, nor is performing the songs as long as one does not take it as their own.

Josh,

I think many Yolngu would agree that it is fine to use these recordings for individual learning in your own home. The rub comes when you start performing the yidaki parts to manikay publicly. Perhaps Randy could speak to this better, as his research is geared in this direction. But, from what I understand, some Yolngu consider it stealing for other people to play yidaki parts to manikay even without the context of the singer/song/words and clapsticks. I gather that many Yolngu think that it's good for other people to learn Yolngu style, that is how to make the correct sounds on the yidaki, but not to copy Yolngu songs.
I think this may indicate one difference in concepts of ownership and copyright between Yolngu and European-derived knowledge systems. Here in America, as you say, it's common for an aspiring guitarist to learn Led Zepplin songs. Our copyright laws are such that said guitarist even has the right to perform those Led Zepplin songs publicly as long as he doesn't make any money from it. If it stinks, oh well, no one's deeply offended, perhaps just sorry that they wasted their time listening. In other word's there are no criteria for determining who has the right to play Led Zepplin songs, as long as there's no money involved.
I believe things are significantly different with Yolngu manikay. And perhaps here also someone else could help elucidate. But from what I understand, to sing manikay, and perhaps even to play the yidaki parts, one first has to have some connection with the songs. They must either be one's own clan's songs, or it's common for Yolngu to play yidaki for their mother's clan's songs as well. Also, a prospective singer, and perhaps yidaki player, must have an adequate knowledge of the songs, and their meanings. Manikay have multiple levels of both public and inside meanings. I'm sure there are other criteria as well for determining who has the right to sing/play any given song.
So, to make an analogy (hopefully one that fits), me performing the yidaki parts to Yolngu manikay publicly, might be a bit like if I, who have very little knowledge of economics and certainly no degree or training, went to give a talk at an academic colloquium in accountancy. On the one hand it would be ridiculous for me to represent myself as holding deep levels of knowledge that I simply don't. It also might cause offense and indignation, as to even be allowed to present at an accountancy colloquium, I would have to misrepresent myself as holding a kind of status that I don't, in this case a Ph.D. in accounting or economics.
If you're interested in this topic, I'd encourage you to read the books that Jason suggested as a starting point.

All the best,
Phil

[Josh Staley]

Quote:

But, from what I understand, some Yolngu consider it stealing even just to play yidaki parts to manikay out of context. I gather that many Yolngu think that it's good for other people to learn Yolngu style, that is how to make the correct sounds on the yidaki, but not to copy Yolngu songs.

Isn't Larry Winiwini playing the yirdaki part of Dolphin on youtube already out of context, if the traditional context is ceremony? Do some Yolngu disagree with this kind of exhibition?

Quote:

So, to make an analogy (hopefully one that fits), me performing the yidaki parts to Yolngu manikay publicly, might be a bit like if I, who have very little knowledge of economics and certainly no degree or training, went to give a talk at an academic colloquium in accountancy. On the one hand it would be ridiculous for me to represent myself as holding deep levels of knowledge that I simply don't. It also might cause offense and indignation, as to even be allowed to present at an accountancy colloquium, I would have to misrepresent myself as holding a kind of status that I don't, in this case a Ph.D. in accounting or economics.

The trouble with this analogy is that it involves someone misrepresenting themselves, basically engaging in fraud. I think that for the case at hand it would be more analogous to say that one doesn't have the right to give economic advice (even without profit) to others based on what they heard from an economist on TV. They could repeat it alone in a room but as soon as someone else is present it violates the ownership of those ideas. I think that would indeed be a vastly different idea of ownership than we have.

I really don't know much about these things, two months ago I wasn't aware of Yolngu, yirdaki, or even Arnhem land. The didgeridoo had already taken a sacred spot in my personal spirituality, and I was looking for a better understanding of its meaning and significance to the originators of this wonderful instrument. That search led me to ididj, the youtube videos, and some very complicated territory of cross-cultural understanding. I think that most didge players have a deep respect and even reverence for the instrument and the culture from which it spawned, I know that I do. I certainly would never want to behave in a way that was offensive to indigenous Australians, and I think most other players would also feel this way. So with that in mind is there even a problem with 'balanda' infringing on the rights of indigenous Australians with regards to songs, teaching traditional songs, or misrepresenting themselves as experts of indigenous Australian tradition?

[pacdidj]

Josh Staley wrote:

Quote: But, from what I understand, some Yolngu consider it stealing even just to play yidaki parts to manikay out of context. I gather that many Yolngu think that it's good for other people to learn Yolngu style, that is how to make the correct sounds on the yidaki, but not to copy Yolngu songs. Isn't Larry Winiwini playing the yirdaki part of Dolphin on youtube already out of context, if the traditional context is ceremony? Do some Yolngu disagree with this kind of exhibition?

I should rephrase. Some Yolngu think it is stealing for non-Yolngu to play these yidaki parts even out of its total musical context of song, lyrics, clapsticks, etc.

Quote:

The trouble with this analogy is that it involves someone misrepresenting themselves, basically engaging in fraud.

That's exactly the point. For some Yolngu, the public performance of these songs by someone who is not qualified to do so may be as offensive and repugnant as fraud or other illegal behavior here, perhaps more so.