Critical Review #7: Moore 2002 and Manuel 2006

I find it interesting the wide range of varying formats of ethnographies. Moore's starts out explaining the structure of the essay to come, almost an abstract of sort in the introduction. Many of the studies we’ve been reading don’t do this as much and just dive into the material, or maybe start out outlining a personal experience or graphic memory. I find it useful to read essays discussing similar material in different ways such as this as it allows for the reader to use different mental perspectives when approaching the material, in addition to the contrasting messages from the content of the article. Something I also find interesting and am still deciding if it is useful or not is more or less the disclaimer that Moore puts out within the first page. He addresses the sources used and their reliability, rather than only listing them in his bibliography (as he does anyway). This does give the reader more power in terms of critical thinking and his or her responsibility in evaluating the accuracy of the material presented. However, is this the responsibility of the author? Certainly to some degree, but by reminding the reader of these margins of error (which are somewhat implied to be a part of any ethnography) does it also undermine the point the author is trying to make and diminish the strength of their argument? I wonder what the ideal balance is between trying to present a case and make one’s point confidently and relaying the degree of accuracy of one’s research. Because even if the government sources and accounts of the interviewees are biased, doesn’t this in part become part of the truth of what is going on in society? Where does the line of what the truth actually is blur between what people say they feel (for whatever reason) and what they really feel?

I also find it really interesting that some of the best music, or at least popular, well-known music, has come from countries that are culturally oppressed in some way. Such as in Cuba where freedom of speech is limited and the arts are politically controlled, and similarly in the communist Soviet Union back in the days of Prokofiev where a lot of propaganda was commissioned by Stalin. Dictators like him commissioned works that are now considered to be valued for their quality or at the very least are famous/popular. Is it just that the artists find a way to trick the government and find clever ways of expressing their true political feelings within their music? Or is music simply just able to thrive under these conditions for whatever reasons? I suppose since the music was still funded and supported it allows for censored creativity to still be produced successfully.

I wonder for new successful performers in Cuba what comes first sometimes- the chicken or the egg. Whether successful/popular/talented composers gain popularity and then gradually learn to aim their music towards socialist accepted viewpoints, or whether those that are most blatantly and enthusiastically in support of the government are selected and supported by them. Basically, how much does talent factor into the success of Cuban artists? Clearly they have to create enjoyable music to some extent for the consumers to want to listen, but how often are genuinely innovative and perhaps more talented composers overlooked or removed because of their ideology? Do they still find other outlets for their music that are more low profile? Is this not feasible/worth the risk?