Notes

It is important to realize that the idea of modernism is a term coined by those who want to be considered modern themselves. For one would assume with modernity comes advances and things that have perhaps never been seen before. However, I believe one of the points that Friedman is attempting to make is that the so called the ideas that 'belong' to the modernistic era could never have been made without also being subjugated  to another time or place predating its modern unveiling. Friedman talks about how power relations are an imperative topic in the discussion of what modernity is or (what gets put into textbooks and who's story is told), for whoever is in power has the ability to write and research and gather information (whether it is true or not) and disseminate it to a larger populous thus giving the facade of authority on the subject. I  believe this ties into the musical culture in New York in the early 20th century where in Harlem there lived many talented black musicians who were citizens of America, but they were clearly not equals, more like cultural pawns which could be exploited for money and 'culture points'. Where a recording artist could simply hire or fire who he pleased and have critics herald them and turn them into 'American' stars overnight, when in reality the America both parties represent are entirely different. How can you call that a modern american musician when they clearly have their roots in another time and place. It begs the question, what can truly be considered modern when every advance is as they say 'standing on the shoulders of giants'?