Questions

1. According to Kun's "The Aural Border", he distiguishes music-making for aesthetic from a term he borrows from Christopher Small: "musicking". He goes on to define it as " 'the totality of a musical performance between the peoplw ho are taking part in whatever capacity in the performance,' whether it be through performing, listening, rehearsing...'Musicking' is not so much about music as sound, but music as social relationship" (Kun 11). Obviuosly, looking at music in this light is especially useful in his argument of an aural border, but is it accurate? I happen to think it is. Music, for me, does have the ability to transcend just pure noise or sound and enter in consciousness and discourse itself. But does it have that power everywhere? In the face of strict border control and il/legalization, does music really have a voice?

2. Gomez-Peña, in his essay "The Multicultural Paradigm..." argues that "The so-called dominant culture is no longer dominant. Dominant culture is a meta-reality that only exists in the virtual space of the mainstream media and in the ideaology and aesthetically controlled spaces of the more established cultural institutions" (Peña 19). Is this not an oxi-moron? Isn't the idea of a dominant culture really the culture that does penetrate through mass-media and established cultural institutions? How can he argue that there is no dominant culture in one sentence, and then say it is a meta-reality put out by the prevailing dominant culuture the next? This question isn't worded as well as I might like it to be, but I hope you understand my meaning. I agree with him that we do live in a diverse East/South-meets-West culture that is constant redefinition and evaluation, but I think there is still a dominant culture. If there weren't, Gomez-Peña himself would be out of a job and without a cause. If there is no dominant culuture, what is he fighting against?