Critical Review #6 Turino 1989

Using Aymara Peruvian musicians as his case study, Turino seems to be making a claim to "naturalize" the musical tradition and performance practice of these people by showing some interchangeability between social practices and musical practices. One is reflective of the other and vice versa. He invokes C.S. Peirce's definition of "icon" when explaining his concept of "iconicity", that is, "a nonarbitrary sign that signifies something through some kind of actual resemblance between the sign and the thing signified." This is important in that the Aymara music in aesthetic and practice is not arbitrarily "symbolic" of the Aymara culture. Rather, it actually is representative of the culture, and the culture is representative of it. Is this not true for most cultural practices to some extent? Isn't this the case we try to make when analyzing music or literature or art?

Turino describes the Aymara as being viciously distinct as Aymara, yet while this unified identity is important, they can't help but divide up into smaller communities. Turino says this is so that they can avoid conflict altogether and maintain they're consistent Aymara integrity. Can this really last for that long?

Regardless, this unquestioning homogeneity is reflective in the Aymara's music (or rather, Turino would say, the music is reflective of the unquestioning homogeneity?). They value "playing as one". Clearly the communal experience of playing music is what is important in this article and in this study. Turino mentions disconnect when his informants don't understand his practicing by himself.

If social practice and music are so closely intertwined--practically inseparable, is it really music? Is it more clear to contextualize the music as a mere social activity of Aymara men? Or is it a sly outlet to assert one's individuality. Obviously the maestros are the self-selecting group that rise above the rest, despite the culture's practice of affording equal opportunities to all adult men. The dynamic in these ensembles strikes me as the inverse of how I have always perceived bebop jazz. In bebop, I like to imagine the combos as a group of individuals who are fiercely attempting to be distinct and outplay the rest, but to frame themselves, they must work in tandem with other players. Here, the individual players are attempting to make their group sound as unified as possible, with all wind instrumentation and parallel harmonies. Nevertheless, to attain that "ideal sound", groups must have creative, inventive, yet tempered individual players.