ethnographic account: concert production

My major is Audio Engineering Technology, and I've always enjoyed live concert production.  So as soon as I heard about this assignment I knew I wanted to take the chance to describe what I would see at the Christian Showcase this weekend.  I am taking Belmont's Advanced Sound Reinforcement class, so I was required to be there to help out with load-in, load-out, and everything in between.  I thought I knew what I would find: a very distinct set of behavior, clothing, and speech.  That's the way all shows are.

That's not what happened.  I was surprised.  There were a few things of note, that I will get to soon, but overall, most of the audio crew was not acting noticeably different than what I would consider normal.  There were no crude jokes, superfluous fowl language, or even the expected arrogance towards those who don't know as much.  It was weird.  I think because the showcase is supposed to be a learning experience for all those involved, the arrogance must be thrown out the window.  Also, most of the students that showed up to help had never done anything like it before.  They didn't know what to expect.

What did I find, though?  Everyone was wearing black.  This is easily explained: on a dark stage in a dark room, stagehands aren't seen as easily if they wear black.  A yellow t-shirt wouldn't work very well.  This is such common practice that my professor even remarked that he would be present at the show wearing neon green.  We all laughed, and the next day he was wearing black.  A few of the new students hadn't figured this out yet, so the first day there was a little variety in color, but by the second day, everyone working audio had on black.

I definitely didn't experience what I thought would happen, but it's still interesting to see how something as simple as shirt color can give someone away as inexperienced or "illiterate."

fieldworking: frothy monkey.

I went to Frothy Monkey to do some practice note-taking.  I really enjoy coffeeshops, so it was nice to spend some time there actually paying attention for once.  I saw some interesting things...  There was a couple that showed up that looked like they belonged (they were dressed like Nashvillian hipsters, if I can use the term), but they had two kids with them.  I don't think I had ever seen that before.  I wrote: "Hipster meets parenthood?"

A little later, a family came it.  Mom and Dad were in their 50's, with a daughter about 15 years old.  They came in, proceeded to the cash register, ordered drinks (Dad got plain coffee to go, Mom ordered an iced fruit tea, and their daughter got hot chocolate), and then left.  The longest part of their experience was waiting for their drinks.  And those 45 seconds were very awkward for them.  Why didn't they just go through the drive-thru at Starbucks?

I wouldn't say that anything disturbed me while I was there.  After all, I'm as much a part of the culture as any.  I was a little taken aback by the guy that walked in with a 2-3 ft. long beard.  But he didn't seem out of place.  Any other day, I probably wouldn't have thought twice about it.  It's interesting how your perspective changes just because you're paying attention.

ethnography idea:

In the last several years, I have become what some might call a "reader." As such, I really enjoy spending time in libraries, so I have thought that I may study the competing Discourses within and between a few libraries in Nashville. I know that there is a strong secondary Discourse associated with presence in a library, and I think it would be interesting to study how these norms vary from library to library.  I hypothesize that Belmont's library would have a vastly different culture than the downtown public library.  Knowing that Belmont's library is open 24 hours during the week, I would enjoy seeing how the culture changes throughout the day.

I know this idea needs some refining: there is no specific question I have in mind to answer.  But I think it will turn out to be an interesting project.

Competing Discourses: O Brother Where Art Thou

In this clip, taken from the movie O Brother Where Art Thou, I see two distinct Discourses showing up.  The three men share one Discourse: having broken out of a chain gang, they try to get away.  Their language is rough and improper, and they seem to share the unassuming southern drawl with which they speak.  However, the main character, Everett, displays two Discourses, switching between them.  His tone of voice seems to change as he switches to a more proper and educated Discourse.  Watch again from 0:33 to 0:47: he begins in a distinct southern drawl, saying, "Say, any o' you boys smithies?"  But then he continues: "Or if not smithies, per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wandering?"  And again, at 2:13, the southern speech of the blind man is starkly contrasted with Everett: "Well, that right there may be the reason you've had difficulty finding gainful employment.  You see, in the market of competitive commerce..."

The movie is full of such comments, contrasting rural speech with Everett's more sophisticated mannerisms.  This is used for humor throughout.  If you haven't seen the movie, make time to watch it all.  It'll be worth it.

Rules and Breaking Them Well

What were you taught NEVER to do as a writer? Come up with about two or three such mandates, and write some of your reflections about each one. Was this rule a good one? Are there sound reasons for it? Are there times when you can/should ignore it?


As a high school student, I was taught to never split infinitives.  As a middle school student, ending a sentence with a preposition was something I became increasingly aware of.  And as early as elementary school, beginning a sentence with a conjunction was flat-out wrong.


However, none of those sentences need to be deemed grammatically wrong.  (There went my fourth 'error.' Did you catch it?)  Without proper rules, some might say, our language would fall apart at the seams.  To which I would reply: "hve u ben on fbook l8ly?"


Is there not a middle ground between rigid use of formal grammar and such blatant disregard for any guidelines whatsoever?


I quickly came to appreciate the critique that Williams presents in chapter two of Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace, because of the way that he distinguishes between rules that should not be broken and rules that should.  Yes, I said it: Some rules should be broken.  And broken often.


It is the writer's belief that he has, in his education to the present point, been instructed in grammar and the proper rules of writing to his own demise.  Would that he could return to a less learned state, to write freely again!  It seems that his voice has been smothered by an imposing  set of guidelines from which he can never fully remove himself.  These rules have permeated his writing, his critique of literature, and even his speech.  Formality has become not only his single mode, but also his standard for all others.


Why is it that in my mind such writing has been applauded!?!  (I'm back, if you couldn't tell.)  I read back over that paragraph and shudder.  Surely there are places and environments that don't require such precision! But to me, thanks to my 'education,' all that I read and write has voiceless, soulless impersonability as its highest aim.  Even in this paragraph I wanted to write:

Surely some places and environments exist for which such precision is not necessary!

So I arrive at the conclusion that not all writing must follow strict rules.  Yes: grammar is great, but not when it gets in the way of communication.  Not when it suffocates.  Never should formality be the goal when lighter conversation will do.