Well, we’ve made it to the end of Music 345: Paris in the 1920s and I can confidently say I know more about the subject than I did going in. From the very first day I attended, the conversation began with an idea of nationalism: us vs. them, or in this case, France versus Germany. This idea of nationalism raises questions like, ‘what makes French music French?’, or, ‘what makes French music better?’ Upon reflection, it is these sorts of questions that were raised the most in my papers, whether it be proving Wanda Landowska’s identity as French despite her being a native of Poland, deciding which Parisian cathedral could best represent France to the world, or why Louis Vierne’s Symphonie No. 4 was a direct response to the affect of World War I on the country. Additionally, the idea of taking up a culture and making it your own (like the French did with Jazz) I feel ties directly in to nationalism and was much more prevalent than I would have expected before this course.
While it was not the most prominent, the theme that emerged most powerfully for me was the week or two spent on gender and sexuality. It was not a perspective I was familiar with before the course, but found myself fascinated by the societal then-and-now comparisons. It lead me to a place of independent research and is a conversation I’d like to continue past this course.
The course readings and in-class conversations have given me more insight from scholars and my peers that I never would have had access to apart from this course and I’m grateful for their knowledge. While I learned a fair bit from the readings, it has been the in-class discussions with more accessible language that has shaped how I view the people, pieces, institutions, and events of Paris in the 1920s.