Conversely, Wallaschek’s approach to African music feels by far more clinical.
Where as Locke can make his research feel more like a story or an uncovering of a treasure, Wallaschek’s work reads like a lab report. To prove that, one of the last points Wallaschek makes on Africa is stated, “The general character of African music, then, is the preference for rhythm over melody…” which comes across more like a scientist with a conclusion where as Locke’s thirst for knowledge does not yet seem quenched. (Primitive Music, page 15) For me, it seems to impersonal to trust him to represent me correctly in a way I’d
appreciate. Why does that matter though, if his knowledge is no more lacking than one could suspect Locke’s to be? It comes down to the reasoning that a musician puts themselves through the trouble of being a musician in the first place. We have something we are trying to let out and let ring clear. We are trying to get people who may not know us feel what we feel. We want our culture to be embraced in the slightest by strangers. Culture, whether that culture be of oneself or of a group of people, is the depiction of our essence as people. It’s how we react in times of intense emotion, how we celebrate, or how we mourn. As human beings I think we strive to share that with others. Locke’s passion for his work makes him the perfect representative for someone who will be traveling the world sharing their art and their culture. As a performer, I would aim to choose someone to represent me who aids me in fulfilling my goals to do so. This is a large reason as to why I would choose Locke, whose personal approach to research makes it enchanting and fun to learn, over Wallaschek.