It is almost jarring to hear that a concept as natural at least to English speakers as music is not agreed upon by everyone. However, this discrepancy barely scratches the surface of concepts we take for granted that are foreign to many other parts of the world. In our assumption that our sense of music is the same as everyone else’s, we inevitably impose other music-related concepts on the same people with whom we hardly agree on the meaning of the subject in question. To most Westerners, the concept of music implies entertainment that stems primarily from an artist with a degree of virtuosity. Subsequently, every entertainer not only deserves but requires a spotlight under which to exhibit their talent. Music, in the predominantly Western sense, is an exhibition.
In addition to audience expectations for the performer, the audience has expectations for each other that are typically shared by the performer. A certain level of audience education is lauded with regard to audience decorum. This can range from refraining from talking on the phone during the performance or walking in front of the stage once the show has started to recognition that it is gauche to clap between movements at an orchestra concert. The pettier and more specific the rule, the more important it is to the most elite members of the audience. By knowing not to clap between the movements of a symphony, listeners demonstrate their possession of the skill that it requires just to receive the entertainment that is being provided. Furthermore, yet more privately, listeners automatically search for who they consider the most dominant player worthy of being listened to. However subconscious, there is a strict set of rules that accompany the sense of a concert that do not necessarily work with every type of music.
To return to the ostensible ambiguity of the term music, it is inevitable that people whose concepts of music diverge from ours will have entirely different concepts of how music should be listened to, or even if listening should be its primary response. While the sense of music that Westerners tend to accept is heavily presentational in nature, participatory music thrives outside the scope of most of our awarenesses. Our dependence upon a central figure in the performance inherently misses the inclusivity of participatory music. If, for example, a Zimbabwean mbira ensemble were brought to a stage, audiences expecting the sound of the mbira to come across the most might be disappointed to find out that the shekere took over. Concert sound might be inclined to boost the volume of the mbiras as much as possible. Furthermore, it is not typical for audiences to participate in concerts, yet dancing, clapping, and additional forms of expression are encouraged in participatory music. The absence of such aspects of the music removes the traditional sense of participation and puts it further towards the Western concept of presentation.
How do we reconcile expectations and cultural differences when people claim to want nothing more than authenticity? Are they really requiring their concept of authenticity, which has been framed by their own cultural constraints? Where is the line between authenticity and high-fidelity performance, and do listeners know the difference?