Divas in Black: A Storify Article

Ever since I was a child two things were always evident, I love to sing, and I love to be the boss.  It seems I spent the better part of my youth immersing my imagination with vision of fame and stardom, and above all total artistic freedom.  My dream was to graduate high school, and somehow become the next Whitney or Mariah.  The kind of vocalist with the chops to sing the phonebook with ease, yet still remain classy, glamorous and somehow ”down to earth.” In the two years after leaving high school, Whitney Houston was experiencing her personal problems, Mariah Carey her “breakdown, ”my favourite group Destiny’s Child after a very public and very nasty break-up, was evolving into a musical aesthetic that did not interest me.  My idols were falling.  And thank God for that.  Whatever the personal stories of these individuals, these ebb periods of their public lives made a profound impression on what it means to famous, and what it means to popular.  Also what it means to be an entertainer, and what it means to be an artist.  As I disposed of my childhood ideals, I began to replace them with what believe were healthier ones for me.  That in the words of the great Puccini aria “Vissi d’Arte” I wanted to live for art, and I wanted to live for love.  In order to do that, I had to discover the art to living my life. When I began singing, I started in Gospel, then R&B, then Jazz.  Upon hearing that Mariah Carey had been vocally trained by her opera singer mother, I thought classical training was the sure way to get to do that "whistle thing" she does.  On my way to emulation, I found myself conflicted with the traditional paradigms I had honoured all this time, because now they were holding me back.  I wanted new challenges, new experiences to breakthrough my personal barriers to unleash my  self, and then I discovered Opera. The beauty, the clarity, the rigor of it excited me.  The history engaged me.  Singing it released me.  I can and still sing all the genres I began with, but Opera has given me a new appreciation for the gift of the voice, and that I am called to share it with others.  I think this is the beauty of music and that is why I chose to do this Storify article on the great music of Verdi, Wagner and the amazing voices they helped define.  Hopefully, someday, mine will be defined as greatly as theirs. 

Black Women in Opera

Don't Shoot the Messenger! Give him a Blog instead.

-->
-->

            In response to my last post, my blog colleagues all touched some factors that affect the validity of “the news.” Becky from Psyched About Music!  Began with a couple of quotes from Alfred Hermida, “(journalists establish) jurisdiction over the ability to objectively parse reality to claim a special kind of authority and status" and that social media subverts this "monopoly on the provision of everyday public knowledge" (2012) (Parenthesis mine).  At first I took issue with this statement thinking it put journalists in an elitist light, but recant.  Journalists do take jurisdiction and from that glean their authority and status, as journalists.  It follows that, regardless of any “Ron Burgundy” image we have in our minds, journalism is a skill and those who are especially good, have made it an art. Therefore, however wonderful it is that social media allow full access to all types of news everywhere, many times it is the “art of journalism” that make this access possible and tangible.  That said I wonder if this “subversion” Hermida speaks of really exists.  Perhaps it is more the “evolution” of journalism he speaks of, instigated by the fluid and participatory nature of the web.  Now more than ever, the journalistic standards are higher because verifiability of so much information is fair game. 

            David from Picture of Interest lamented at the rise of the Gossip column/blog. People are fascinated with celebrities and by celebrity culture, that one needn’t be talented as long at they have the money to spend time with celebrities.  Who ever heard of “celebutante” before Paris Hilton?   Even the term comes from “debutant,” a social institution that is essentially the beginning of a life of a kind of “local celebrity” for wealthy youth.  No matter the veracity, Gossip blogs and publications serve the purpose of reporting on celebrity culture, which is based on illusion. I know it sound convoluted, but then it is.  So when is news just gossip? In this case, the news is in the façade, not the facts.  The information is rarely if ever relevant to the goings on of our everyday lives. Never the less, the public engages.  In my opinion, displays a near tragic state of our social psychology. What would happen if we put that energy into ourselves? Into our own dreams?  This indulgence on speculation can diminish the need for truth in our personal lives.

            Finally, Meg from Animated Films expressed how think the majority feels about social media and professional journalism, that one augments the function if the other.  This I feel is the more balanced perspective.  Journalism, both good and bad existed well before the Internet, and it would likely continue as long as we as human society have stories to tell and information to share.  This is in part why I think blogging has become a new forum for journalism.  It allows one to be authoritative, without the limitations and politics of working within a bureaucracy.  While social media allow many voices to be heard, there is something to be said for choosing the life of the messenger, instead of just a moment.  The discipline of journalism does have place in our new media landscape.  Better still, it has many places.
-->

References
Alfred Hermida (2012) TWEETS AND TRUTH, Journalism Practice, 6:5-6, 659-668, DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2012.667269

The Rumour Has it

Personally, I rarely engage in the journalistic opportunities that social media offer outside of observing.  I believe there are plenty of people who are passionate enough to inform the public of what is newsworthy.  The extent I wish engage the process usually lies in sharing some kind of news I find socially or politically impactful to my peer group.  However, I have noticed that perhaps for the first time in history, people are actually in charge of the news as opposed to just being the in news.  Journalists used to rely on finding the next big story.  Social media have made the search much simpler by bringing the news and newsmakers to the forefront sooner.  Yet, I don’t actually believe the line between authentic journalism, and word of mouth is as blurred as is suggested.  Journalists are still charged with the expectation that their facts are verified and truthful.  Members of the general public do not receive such pressures.  In fact there is a whole new genre of quasi-journalism that has come out of this, gossip columns.  Gossip columns have now evolved into gossip blogs.  The aim of these websites is to inform people of rumours and perhaps ultimately, the veracity of these rumours.  Many of these sites began as celebrity fan blogs that grew into fully functioning websites with “journalistic” undertones.  These are not to be confused with tabloids, which do not rely on public response to the accuracy of their claims.  Gossip sites and blogs exist as means of interacting with the fan base to undercover the facts amidst all the rumours.  They find rumours, quotes, and news stories, and then speculate on what it all means or at least what is coming next.  Unless the truth comes out of the proverbial horse’s mouth, one of the next best sources are, you guessed it, official journalism outlets such as the Associated Press and celebrity journalists like Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters, and trusted network news outlets.  This exchange is very much in keeping with measures many traditional new organizations are taking in order to stay relevant in the Web 2. era. (Bruns & Highfield, 2012, 4.1).  Still, perhaps the biggest source of instant newsworthy content has become Twitter where celebrities often publicly post their own comments and content.  The Gossip genre has contributed to what Dahlgren (2012) calls “civic cultures” He describes these as follows, “In a nutshell, civic cultures comprise those cultural resources that citizens' can draw upon for participation.  Moreover, in the modern world, the civic cultures operate to a great extent via the media (Dahlgren, 2012).”  Social media has given the public new ways of engaging the world and each other.  The journalism has inevitably been affected, by given rise to new genres.  With the example of the entertainment Gossip site, we see journalism as an effort for cultural exchange developing them at rapid pace.

References

Dahlgren, P. (2012). Reinventing participation: civic agency and the web environment. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations. 4.2, p27.

Bruns, A. & T. Highfield. (2012). Blogs, Twitter, and breaking news: The produsage of citizen journalism. pre-publication draft on personal site [Snurb.info]. Published in: Lind, R. A. ed. (2012). Produsing Theory in a Digital World: The Intersection of Audiences and Production. New York: Peter Lang. p15-32.
 

Content Schmontent: A Podcast

            I chose to comment on this article because as both a fan and as a singer-songwriter, I have pondered over the idea of creating music that has meaning.  However, I like music of a variety of subjects by a variety of artists who I feel all have something different to offer. Although the author celebrates the intrinsic merits of pastiche (McMillan, 2013), the social implications of what he observes reflect what I see as an ambivalent attitude toward mainstream contemporary music that I think erodes any critical evaluation that leads to true artistic appreciation. 

 

References

McMillan, G. (2013, June 28). Long Live the Monkees! (or, Why "Honest" Music is Overrated). Retrieved June 28, 2013, from Time.com: http://entertainment.time.com/2013/06/28/long-live-the-monkees-or-why-honest-music-is-overrated/

Doing it for the Fans

The dream of many musicians is to land the coveted “deal,” the record deal to be exact. I remember dreaming as a teenager of “getting signed” to Columbia records, home of many of my favourite artists at the time. I was impressed by the calibre of performer and the swanky marketing their artists had. Nowadays, it seems the role of labels is changing in the industry they've essentially created. Upon reading the blogs of colleagues commenting on the issues surrounding copyright, I see two major ideas that are central to all of them as fans.  They love music and they want free and equal access to it. Period.  When I say free, I don’t mean they are unwilling to pay, in fact it has been quite the contrary. Although they have downloaded music, Derek, at Underground Radio, David at Picture of Interest, and Meg at Animated Films, all report that they gladly and intentional purchase music only from their favourite artists, as a show of support.  In addition to this, they buy merchandise and attend live shows.  I talk a lot about the agency of the artist in determining how the music reaches the fans.  This is not done with out a synergistic marketing network that is in place solely for the distribution of music.  These include, radio, music television, and good ol’ fashioned word of mouth.  As long as the can artists get music to the fans, I see that other aspects of this industry are just as relevant if not more so the artists themselves.

            I often listen to Toronto’s Jazz FM, which has listeners from all over the world via the Internet, and then there’s satellite radio. Follow blogger David posted an interesting suggestion about a music subscription service to appease the label hounds (I have wondered about this one since during the Napster days.). Vevo and YouTube have pretty much replaced music television channels, most of the music channels still have awards telecasts, and documentaries that cover artists.  Yes we can stream MP3s from our car stereos, but these “old” still provide effective outlets to experience music from all eras by people who are just as in love with music as we are. My girl Becky from Psyched About Music commented on my last post singing the praises of artist centric independent labels and rightly so! With the web, these labels have the chance to give artist great exposure at very little cost. Will they need to rely so much on copyrights? I don't think so. One of my recent discoveries (being a mommy, I kind of live under a rock, okay a play pen, but it’s okay.) was a video of a live performance of her song “Breathe Me” by Australian singer Sia in a radio station.  

            What a perfect example of the artist being simultaneously local and international in a single performance.  Then here’s American pop “idol” Kelly Clarkson singing a cover of the same song in concert.  Now in the spirit of sharing, I’m all for artist-to-artist acknowledgement of work, but most music competitions are and YouTube stars are dedicated to cover songs (and to her credit Sia has song on The Great Gastby soundtrack). My colleagues have caused me to question, is there really a need to get a handle on something that is always moving?  As it gets more and more difficult to enforce restrictive laws, there are many ways artists can get their music out that demand new approaches by the big record labels. 

Be Like Water

            When I purchase music, I want to support the artist because I enjoy the majority of that artist’s work.  I often cannot afford to go to many live shows, when I do go it’s often an opportunity to see the truth of the artist’s talent through musicianship and entertainment.  Personally, if the musicality isn’t there, it’s not entertaining.  As much as I believe in putting on a good show, I think there should be a balance between lively presentation and simply sounding good.  If I share music, it is often an economical choice as well as one of scarcity.  For my particular tastes, there’s a lot of music that is just hard to come by.  So the degree to which I comply with copyright issues is very much based on immediate circumstance. 
            To be honest, when it comes to recordings, I don’t listen to that much variety. I like what I like and I tend not to stray too far from that.  I think many musicians are like this, in that, if you sing or play, you most likely listen to what you can, or would like to eventually sing or play.  Any venture outside of that sphere is probably related to eventually creating your own interpretation. I don’t enjoy many types of music. But I appreciate all of it. (Okay, most of it. I loathe anything with an auto-tuned voice.) 
            My personal path to becoming a professional singer/songwriter has been one that has considered and encountered issues with copyright. While I fully respect the artist who wants to live of her or his craft, I have come to realize that artists have left their ability to do that up to the wrong entity for too long, namely, the recording industry.  Anyone with a bit of time to do the research will find out that record labels were basically lenders who quickly became loan sharks if an artist didn’t break the platinum sale mark.  This reality was much to the dismay of many artists who rejoiced at “getting signed” only to find out that they end up with mere pennies once they reimbursed labels for producing, marketing, promoting and distributing their work.  In many cases artists still didn’t even own the rights to the songs.  
             The advent of the digital era has rendered the current model ineffective and outdated.  Most of all, it suppresses artists and artistry.  This brings me to this question, why should the destruction of the music industry be prevented (Condry, 2004)? Ian Condry’s assessment of peer-to-peer networks illustrates its superior over the recording industry model:

Peer-to-peer systems follow the principles of network economics, which hinge not on supply-side economies of scale, but on demand-side economies of networks (Shapiro and Varian, 1998). The more participants, the more sharing, and the more distributed users and content, the more valuable the network is. (Condry, 2004)

Photo from www.indieandunsigned.com

            This type of exchange is much more in line with sharing practices between artists’ communities long before there were plugs in walls.  Conceptually, it is exactly what led previous societies to nurture, and flourish art and culture.
            These days of low quality albums, and better quality songs is not cutting it for consumers. It is often record labels, not artists who strongly influence, and in some cases dictate which songs are included on an album. Music has become more about commodities, than art.  Condry makes a great point that the lack of soul these practices produce in the final works disconnect fans from the music (Condry, 2004). The fact remains, people are reluctant to pay for music they think sucks.
            Steinmetz & Tunnell illustrated a contradiction in their research between the socialist practices of sharing versus the capitalist characteristic of consumption inherent in the culture of piracy (2013).  I believe it is viewing these complex issues through these divisive paradigms that prevents a sound solution from emerging. The coexistence of these elements is not contradictory if viewed holistically.  Can something be truly shared if it isn’t consumed on some level? Otherwise, it is straight giving. Sharing allocates.  When we share, we all benefit. I can benefit without us, but we cannot benefit without me.  We consume together.
            It is no surprise that the motivations behind file sharing are rooted in social and economical frameworks (Steinmetz & Tunnell, 2013).  Mostly, these debates just highlight the flaws of our cultural ideologies.  The struggles of the big label record industry only illustrate that being greedy makes you greedier, until you are rendered useless. Then nature takes over.
            So how might record industry deal with what they perceive to be piracy? By going away. Big labels need to disperse their subsidiaries, and return to more community supported independent models.  Digital rights management laws create ways to be more rigid. Why bother when it’s easier and more profitable to adapt (Condry, 2004)? Business is fluid, go with the flow.

References

Condry, I. (2004, September). Cultures of Music Piracy: An Ethnographic Comparison of the US and Japan. International Journal of Cultural Studies , 7 (3), 343-363.

Steinmetz, K. F., & Tunnell, K. D. (2013). Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger: Study of On-line Pirates . Deviant Behavior , 34 (1), 53-67.

Shameless Self-Promotion

A promotional video of yours truly, lookin' good and sangin'. Enjoy!

Strong-Arming Gratitude

Is it really so hard to say thanks to someone who has given you something that has added value to your life?  It's kindergarten 101 right up there with please. In my last post I talked about Producers taking control over their art works by defining their intentions for the work and being proactive in their careers.  Resting on the laurels of one great recording or painting, (or whatever) and never performing or creating live again does not an artist make. I also want to reiterate while we are consumers, only some are producers. To consume is about self, to produce is about each other. So as producers, we have a responsibility to each other. So when when an artist or performer decides to use or perform another artist's work, should the creator of said work get a little love? I think so.  When artists don't, it implies a lack of regard for the process of creating, and for the person who undertook that process. And they shouldn't have to be brought to court to do it. I believe this attitude is major detriment to creating an open cultural commons.

With Internet giving us everything at our fingertips, how can we overlook all the great art that came before?  There's really no excuse and yet in contemporary time the excuse is it's all been done so it's all fair game. It's okay not to give artists credit because "we create from our soooouls maaaan...." No.  We create from each other, honouring the past, living in the present and idealizing the future. Some artists tend to romanticize or minimize the labourous existence it is to create or want to create almost constantly. Artistic inspiration at times feels like treading water while other times it washes over you through waves that you ride until your finished work lands you on a beautiful shore. I think the experience of many artists (mine included) is that it is not a choice, it's a calling. If you want a choice, be an entertainer.  No matter what job you end up in to pay the bills, there is an insatiable yearning to create some piece of art, whether literary, visual, musical, theatrical, or through dance. It's often dramatic, and always visceral.  Check the example below, I love how Lady Gaga describes her creative process to Oprah.

So when I watch Kirby Ferguson's Everything is Remix Part One and hear all the music Led Zeppelin used without publicly crediting the original artists I feel angry. Those from whom they gleaned spent hours, days and years living their art so truthfully that they created work that resonated far beyond time, races, cultures and across generations.  I don't care that they are or became Led Zeppelin. Sure, you used that riff, and made it something else. Say thanks for the riff. In public.


Ferguson's Everything is Remix Part Two asserts that creativity occurs copying, transforming and combining elements of our external experiences.
Being creative is a choice, not a state. Reet Roy's observation of the lack of intellectual property protection of dance choreographers make me think of pop singer Beyonce's Countdown video. She copies Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker's works without any transformation. It's not even a remix, it's a copy. Is it a remix if no transformation has occurred is it creative? The creator's name is only acknowledged when she publicly calls out the plagiarism, and subtly, threatens to sue. It couldn't have hurt to say thank you, in public.

"Countdown" & "Rosas Danst Rosas" side by side

The singer said the video was an homage to contemporary art, and talked about contemporary art drawing from different elements.  Drawing from, copying, I suppose Ferguson's argument about remixing is most relevant here.

On the other hand, my fellow blogger David's post about YouTube taking down his self-produced fan video of rock singer Meatloaf due to copyright violations, borders on bullying to me. Last time I checked, the television music channels were barely playing music anymore, let alone anything by Meatloaf. What ever happened to no publicity is bad publicity?  I know that sounds simplistic, but it makes me think about the reach of this enormous tentacled creature called the "Music Industry" inadvertently stifling the success of artists through these concepts called "piracy" and "copyright." In Sarah's blog (EDM Culture) and Ralph's blog (Underground Music Radio) they speak of drawing creativity from many sources and creating something out of that experience as the true essence and the future of cultural commons.  Becky's post at Psyched About Music discusses how digital culture makes it all the more possible.

In her blog, my colleague Meg talked about the importance of educating ourselves on copyright laws. While this is a noble effort, with the sheer breadth of the types of intellectual property, it's hard to even know where to look.  Except maybe, if you're already famous, or a working artist who is making a healthful livelihood off his or her work. It's not the practice of copying I find bothersome, it is the lack of gratitude shown from people who are very public, very popular and conveniently forget to mention that they lifted that riff, or dance combination from someone who is working that same art.  I believe an irreverent artist can easily become an irrelevant artist. Art so draws upon the connectedness between our external experiences that we cannot risk taking the impact these experiences have for granted. We stand to erode our connectedness.

Proactive Producers

A problem with those producers in artistic and creative industries is the lack of effort put forth into defining the intentions of their work for a distributive and socio-economic context.  Tensions don’t lie so much in legislative policy as much as ideologies of the place art and creativity hold and have held in society, particularly in the Western World.  On one hand, there is the idea of the “bohemian,” antiestablishment” lifestyle that many in artistic circles subscribe to, on the other is the desire to live for and off of one’s art works in a capitalist society. The past 50 years or so has experienced huge growth in University programs geared specifically at arts, design and music training programs.  What we now have is surplus of so-called “creatives” in the job market with nowhere to perform, because of the decline of traditional arts and culture organizations like theatre and opera houses.  Those in design must rise above the massive litany of designers to be noticed and hired by active design firms around the world.  Finally, visual artists remain closest to their original stereotype of being “starved” of viable opportunities to make a living of their respective discipline without the right connections.  Only recently has that expanded to include tangential “disciplines” such as new media, arts and cultural administration and management, as well as an increased interest in studies in advertising, communications and popular culture.   For this reason I am fascinated by the perspective put for by Toby Miller in his article, “A View from a Fossil: The New Economy, Creativity and Consumption – Two or Three Things I Don’t Believe in” (2004).  He contrasts the alleged functionalities of the consumer economy with the overlooked matter of the exploitative labour practices exhibited by its participants (Miller, 2004 p. 62). Miller makes relevant observations of the idealistic undertones of media convergence, however I personally, see the issues of labour exploitation as inherent to bureaucratic power structures. So while this is certainly connected to the emergence of new creative economies, the context existed well before new media did. People can very quickly shift from exploitation to empowered, and new media has provided what is perhaps the most malleable forum for this process to begin with the greatest impact.

Still, as "producer-consumers" who are new media literate must protect themselves against misuse by acknowledge the inevitable structures that arise of the human need for survival and meaning, and find way adjust their social-economic practices accordingly. Henry Jenkins outlines nine sites of negotiation between producers and consumers (Jenkins, 2004, p. 38-41,).  These sites are forums through which the consumer addresses power as opposed to exercising it through consumption. Simultaneously, it is in these spaces that producers must take a more pragmatic approach in defining the parameters in which their content is distributed. I will identify the four I argue as most crucial to creating or maintaining a flourishing cultural commons. First redesigning the digital economy (Jenkins, 2004 p. 39) means first becoming acquainted with the place in economy as "producer-consumers".  Point seven “Renegotiating relations between producers and consumers” (Jenkins, 2004, p. 39) directly relates since producers are also consumers, but consumers aren’t necessarily producers. Therefore, producers’ restrictions on consumers are effectively self-restrictions.  Part of the economy of producing is defining the intentions behind distributing content.  If this is clearly, and realistically stated, it becomes easier to spot and counter exploitive practices. Then copyright laws are actually useful to maintaining the integrity of the culture.

Now, I said this must be stated clearly, and realistically. Meaning suing someone for sharing work might be considered contradictory to any hope of public exposure.  I think as long as credit is given according to the previously outlined parameters, there should be nothing wrong with sharing content.  (For example, the idea of stealing music is seriously flawed. I think musicians should be paid through live performance and other production related activities like music licensing and copyrights. If you put it out, it’s gone. Say goodbye and move on. But I digress.)

Finally, I think Jenkins’ fifth and ninth sites of negotiation, “Rethinking media aesthetics” and “Re-engaging citizens” address the central component of keeping culture accessible.  We needn’t fear formulas in cultural works if they facilitate creativity.  We must ever be aware of the distinctions between inspiration, appropriation and copying.  All have their functions within the creative framework. As number nine suggests the goal is engage citizens. For better or for worse artistically, “transmedia storytelling” (Jenkins, 2004, p. 40) relies on formula for perpetuation.  The hope is that their release aides in deconstructing the class frameworks, which lend to the exploitation, that Miller sees.  By taking a more proactive approach to their social-economical function, producer-consumers can absolutely create an accessible cultural commons.

References:

Miller, T. (2004) A view from a fossil. International Journal Of Cultural Studies, 7(1), 55-65.

Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence  International Journal of Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43

The Voice of Experience

            New forums require new models of engagement.  The Web 2.0 forum is based on public participation, and democratic dialogue regarding how we access and put out information.  Therefore, Wikipedia’s paradigm is appropriate because it is open-sourced information.

         The example article I will use to examine this is the one about the American folk opera Porgy & Bess. The Wikipedia article about the opera provides a sound overview to the history and relevance of the work through discussion of the singers, composers, authors, musicology and musicianship, and social impact and reception on the “Talk” page. In popular music the song “Summertime” as been interpreted across genres. It has been most prominently reworked in Jazz, R&B and Blues.  This and other songs from the opera have been covered by many notable Jazz greats such as Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, and Miles Davis.  However, a great many people don’t know the song is a classic operatic aria. Through one song, people become exposed to a host of musical genres and find opportunities to become versed in new interpretations of familiar works.

            The section “Linked by Text” in the article The Social Life of Documents (Brown & Duguid, 1996) discusses how the groups that form out of our contemporary new media platforms are strikingly similar to those scholarly groups that formed around Europe during the Renaissance (Brown & Duguid, 1996).  They also were connected through common interests and thus exchanged information regarding these interests (Brown & Duguid, 1996). They further observe that out of such correspondence through letters, came the prototypes for the scholarly journals we laud today in our academic institutions.  Psyched About Music blogger Becky wrote that her trust in the reliability of Wikipedia’s articles grew when she noticed the attention to detail and prompt revisions the articles undergo (Campbell, 2013).  For this purpose, Wikipedia has created “Wikiprojects” as a paradigm for these emerging communities to self-organize in a way that keeps the openness of the forum. Wikiprojects are defined as the following:

“a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. These groups often focus on a specific topic area (for example, women's history) or a specific kind of task (for example, checking newly created pages).”(Wikipedia, 2013)

For any fan of Jazz who has heard any of the previously mentioned artists’ interpretations, a simple search of “Summertime” will most certainly bring you to the extensive article about opera from which it came, Porgy and Bess.  The entire article is part of the larger “Wikiproject Opera” by extension, “Wikiproject Musical Theatre”. The value of community is at the foremost of wiki sites.  Any information given is for the betterment of the community through the community. This creates a connection between the people that engage the topics and the work itself. Accessibility is very important to those that use Wikipedia.  Blogger Megan from Meg’s Animated Film Blog noted the currency of using Wikipedia for references and the ease of a digital format as opposed using physical encyclopedias (McGraw, 2013). Open information lends to open critique, and open accountability. The democratic process of including certain information is what keeps the integrity of the work itself. The work isn’t only good because your peers are watching; the work had better be good because everyone is watching. 

            Established structure doesn’t necessarily mean better structure.  As humans, we naturally gravitate towards creating, dismantling, and recreating frameworks with which we engage and interpret the world. We do this by instinct. If we this weren’t so, countless technical, artisanal and artistic skills would hold no importance in our societies.  We wouldn’t care what Frank Gehry does with what is essentially a shelter.  So the assumption that somehow a system is inherently flawed because it doesn’t explicitly ascribe to a specific mode of engagement is counter-intuitive. Especially, when anyone can create a new mode of engagement. Jim Giles published the findings of a study carried out by the weekly science journal Nature that the accuracy of information found in Wikipedia is closely comparable to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica (Giles, 2005). Given the purpose of Wikipedia as a general reference and its rising popularity, for me this was not a big surprise. What surprised was the vehement response of Encyclopedia Britannica against the academic journal.  The Encyclopedia Britannica’s rebuttal of the Nature article and subsequent “demand” that they retract their statements read more to me like cries of a dying elitist stronghold.  If such a death were to occur, it is death by suicide for simply not going with the flow and adapting to change. Throughout the rebuttal, Britannica repeatedly references the highly structured standards for scholarship based on contributions from top academics in the respective fields. As Richard Jensen illustrates in his paper “Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812” (2012), and in practice (he is a retired Historian) as a contributor to Wikipedia, Wikipedia, its contributors and, the members of Wikiprojects are scholars and laypeople working together to ensure the information remains balanced and accurate. His opinion of Wikipedia’s accuracy even coincides with Nature’s findings (Jensen, 1181 2012). The crowd-sourced format of Wikipedia in no way threatens the integrity of the information.

As one blogger wrote:

“Is it right, to label Wikipedia editors as amateur just because they do not have the editors’ credentials and education background for other users to see on Wikipedia?  There is no way that we will ever find out if these editors are actually ‘amateurs’ and not people that know exactly what they are talking about, for a particular topic.” (Derek, 2013)

What would qualify as valid information without those parameters?  The answer is factual information. To Wikipedia it is only important the information is accurate and free to as many people as possible. While I value the importance of higher education, the academic credibility of individuals has nothing to do with the relevance or factuality of the information they provide. The factuality of information is based on evidence, not who the information comes from. Scholarly bias can become social bias when we forget this.

            The key point of controversy revealed on the Porgy and Bess article’s “Talk” page had to do with how to address the contention many African-Americans held throughout the decades with Porgy and Bess for being perceived as a racist depiction of 1930s African-American life.  Some felt this should be better addressed in the article (Wikipedia, Talk: Porgy and Bess 2012). The original novel and play, Porgy, and subsequent opera libretto was conceived and written by Dubose Heyward, a southern white male.  George Gershwin (also white but, quite moved by the novel approached Heyward to compose an opera based on the story. In 1935, being a heterosexual white Anglo-saxon male was acceptable authority on interpreting, judging and categorizing members or groups within the wider culture. White males telling black stories was not uncommon, since most of the theatrical works of the time were written by whites. Still, could an outsider provide a sympathetic depiction or is it inherently misguided? The story of Porgy and Bess struck a particular nerve that has resonates today in music/theater and culture circles, and even more so in the African-American community. The article references the latest revival of the opera, which experienced reworking of the plot and script to translate more of the character subtext of the original work on stage. With the support of the Gershwin and Heyward estates, Pulitzer prize-winning playwright Susan Lori-Parks (who is also African-American) set to work with director, Diane Paulus on the new adaptation.

McDonald and Lewis as the title characters in “The Gershwins’ Porgy and Bess.” Photograph by Francesco Carrozzini.

 American composer Stephen Sondheim in an editorial letter to the New York Times expressed a strong disapproval for what he interpreted as disdain for the original work stating that the life of the characters already exists in the text (The New York Times, 2011). Stephen Sondheim is a revered American composer of musical theatre.  Is his view against re-working a treasured musical artwork somehow more important than Parks and Paulus’ effort to interpret that work into something of broader relevance to the contemporary public? I think the controversy surrounding Porgy and Bess parallels that between Wikipedia and traditional reference works.  The core question they share is, should one person’s perspective accepted/rejected because of her or his place in the social/cultural hierarchy?

            For many, the original Porgy and Bess represented a perspective, not an experience. The new adaptation seeks to rectify that by putting the power to convey in the hands of those who live the experience.  Wikipedia seeks to create a new experience of knowledge simply by opening the community to individuals concerned with its preservation and perpetuation. The spirit of this translates to the contributors and the owner’s calculated process of maintaining accuracy and reliability.  Wikipedia is clearly and unapologetically a public work. It evolves and informs contemporary audiences by involved and informed contributors regardless of credentials and background. Wikipedia encourages the public taking over their power to know and contribute that knowledge to the world.