Following a well-performed recital by an outstanding tenor, I overheard the accompanist mention that she enjoys playing for tenors because they never sing the music exactly as it was prepared. She elaborated by saying she has to remain vigilant in listening and adjusting. I suppose a musical purist devoid of a sense of creativity, spontaneity, or originality might quibble with such veiled affirmation, reminding performers to express the exact intentions of the composer and the time period in which the composition originated. Yet such criticisms many times lack validity and thorough knowledge of both the context and the composer's intent.
True that taken to its logical conclusion, improvisation becomes freedom without restraint, expression without boundaries, and random events apart from governance. Yet looking at the other extreme, music without any kind of improvisatory elements, some kind of absolute adherence to the printed page devoid of personality or personal interpretation subjugates music's emotional benefits both to the performer as well as the listener. Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes lies the concept and benefits of improvisation. On the improvisation spectrum, there are the free style melodies of Charlie Parker, the classy jazz melodies of Clark Terry, the unusually complicated piano sounds of Keith Jarrett, and the splashy experiments of blues artist Thelonius Monk. These are but a drop in the jazz bucket of great jazz improvisers from the past. Today the number of highly respected jazz improvisers is extended across the globe and includes young and old, trained and untrained. But improvisation is not limited to jazz or jazz artists but rather encompasses a long heritage of great performers from all genres of music.
Improvisation has been a valued component of music making since the dawn of humans and the ability to alter, to adapt sound to the particular situation is nearly as natural as sound itself. As music developed in compositional complexity, paralleling that of advanced performance ability, so also did improvisational skills improve. By the time we hit the Romantic period of music in the early 19th century, improvisation was the expectation of soloists as they played with orchestras or in solo concerts. Admittedly, excessive improvisation robbed the composer of his/her intent, yet judicious improvisation was part of the normal training and performance practice of the musicians.
How much is too much or how little is not enough is part of the confusion regarding improvisation along with the need to match the style and framework of the particular piece of music. Artistic license is certainly a valid idea but so is keeping with the unified congruency of the music formed by the composer. This tension was inevitably solved as classically trained musicians adhered to the printed page and avoided any kind of improvisatory elements. The jazz world, however, did not experience such boundaries and foraged into the vast world of musical freedom and expression. Thus did the term improvisation come to be associated with jazz.
In academia we have a rigorous prescription for performance success that includes a cognitive and musical understanding of the context of a piece as well as how to achieve excellence in performance. The comprehensive approach to the education of a musician layers the learning of music theory, music history, applied music, ensembles, and other supportive courses. This approach is well-established and has produced a wealth of outstanding musicians performing throughout the world. But often as people mature and grow through education so also does their creativity tend to decline. This is a common malady which is not necessarily a malady at all but is the normal result of working diligently to master a particular skill.
Music, however, is a subjective art form requiring personal expression on top of great skill. To take music to another level requires a personal combination of adherence to the printed page, depth of personal expression, and a degree of creativity and improvisation. As we continue to develop young musicians of the future, let us not forget that improvisation is an art form, well-deserving of its place in the curriculum, and a skill needed in the future. Difficult for many, natural for others, improvisation can be learned and applied to all music in various forms. Returning to our tenor, kuddos to him for using his gifts and for expressing music in different ways in each performance. It could be what sets apart great performers from good ones.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Friday, January 16, 2015
Drums in our Concert and Church Worlds
Once again the subject of a trap set in church and in formal concerts was mentioned to me with disparagement. When I was younger and caught up in the formal, elite world of the arts, I was in full agreement that a trap set had no place in church nor in any kind of "classical" arts-oriented event. Associating a trap set with popular and rock music, I believed in the compartmentalization of musical styles and quickly put a trap set in with the less educated or popular world. It was the same world I placed professional wrestling, cartoons, comic books, and laser art.
My maturity, however, in this area, rather than pointing me toward sophistication has actually sent me into other thought processes where I began to ask the questions of why and how and the ultimate unnecessary polarization of the art forms. Why reject one thing while accepting another? Is it due to preference or is there another reason? For several years I decided that the arts were simply shaped by one's own preference for a certain style. That is still true to an extent but I no longer believe it is that simple. One person enjoys Country/Western, another rock, another hip-hop, another classical, and the list of genres continues. But this does not answer the problem of using drums and a trap set in a concert setting or in church.
When we study history of cultures, we find that drumming is a natural expression of rhythm and music. The Bible often talks about drums and we find references to drums in military actions, entertainment, theatre, and for particular rituals. Drums were and still are used in communication and for emotional expression through music and into every day life. As I walk through a crowded room or sit in a meeting or attend most events, it is common to hear subtle drumming of feet, hands, pens, or the arrhythmia of typing on a computer. Careful listening even reveals the steady sounds of texting on a cell phone! Drumming is all around us and is a normal part of our culture and our daily living. But why do the drums continue to polarize our audiences, our churches, and even our educational curriculum?
I believe it comes back to two reasons: 1) Concert halls and churches were traditionally designed for natural acoustic performance without drums, and 2) Drums became associated with Black music at first and now with popular music. There is a general prejudice, or perhaps bias is a better term, among academic musicians for natural acoustics and for natural performance over sound amplification. Trained vocalists, for example, resist the need for microphones and would much prefer to perform without sound enhancement in a great hall designed for natural acoustics. Academic musicians often quickly become uncomfortable when a microphone is placed in front of them.Their many years in a practice room perfecting their skills and working hard to merge musical details with great expression can be destroyed with a bad microphone, a poor room, or a poor sound technician. Drum usage in a concert hall with voices or other instruments generally requires microphones for soloists. Putting a trap set in St. Paul's Cathedral, for example, almost seems a desecration of that beautiful space.
When Rock music began to influence society, it was an outgrowth of what the Black community had been doing for years. Elvis Presley among others used drums in his songs, danced, and sang in a freer style than previously performed by White musicians. It set the world on its heels and inadvertently helped with race integration in our country. But in the middle of this transformation, we still have the drums, or in this case, the drum set. The drum set became associated not necessarily with Black music but certainly with Rock and Popular music, a concept unacceptable in concert or church settings. Many of those in academia and in churches quickly relegated the drum set to its role in commercial music for the recording studio or for those events where sound amplification was required either for instruments or voices.
The market place, however, began to prevail and demand for the "new" sound (which was not really new at all) in concert halls and churches began to infringe on the attitude of resistance. Unfortunately instead of the concepts merging into a unified musical world for both concerts and church services, many remained strongly resistant and ran the other direction. We continue to have these battles although they seem almost passe' and predictable at times. Certainly such disagreements are valid, but in the end the people supporting trap set usage in concerts and churches are ultimately victorious due to public acclaim. In other words, with exceptions, people like the drums and are comfortable with trap sets in churches and in formal concerts. The division is no longer necessary and those holding onto an old ideal may end up in the catacombs of a heritage gone by such as the telegraph or the drive-in theatre.
Yet I will admit to respecting opinion or preference on this issue. A good friend once told me that he recognizes that using a trap set in a worship service is Biblical and seems to be a strong draw for growth and ministry, but he still does not like it. I appreciate his view which is based on personal taste and preference. What I disagree with are those who reject drum usage based on some sort of arbitrary code of excellence that has no historical or objective merit. The trap set is here to stay and to deny its role in the church and in the concert hall further drives a wedge between academia and the market place. To take it another step further and provide a distant internuncial, if the drums at one time were associated with African-American music, then as we integrate the races and the cultures in our country and work to refine our society with broad acceptance, then that inevitably ought to include an acceptance of all musical styles and instruments in both churches and concert halls. Obviously this is a tall order and a noble but difficult long-term result of musical inclusion.
My maturity, however, in this area, rather than pointing me toward sophistication has actually sent me into other thought processes where I began to ask the questions of why and how and the ultimate unnecessary polarization of the art forms. Why reject one thing while accepting another? Is it due to preference or is there another reason? For several years I decided that the arts were simply shaped by one's own preference for a certain style. That is still true to an extent but I no longer believe it is that simple. One person enjoys Country/Western, another rock, another hip-hop, another classical, and the list of genres continues. But this does not answer the problem of using drums and a trap set in a concert setting or in church.
When we study history of cultures, we find that drumming is a natural expression of rhythm and music. The Bible often talks about drums and we find references to drums in military actions, entertainment, theatre, and for particular rituals. Drums were and still are used in communication and for emotional expression through music and into every day life. As I walk through a crowded room or sit in a meeting or attend most events, it is common to hear subtle drumming of feet, hands, pens, or the arrhythmia of typing on a computer. Careful listening even reveals the steady sounds of texting on a cell phone! Drumming is all around us and is a normal part of our culture and our daily living. But why do the drums continue to polarize our audiences, our churches, and even our educational curriculum?
I believe it comes back to two reasons: 1) Concert halls and churches were traditionally designed for natural acoustic performance without drums, and 2) Drums became associated with Black music at first and now with popular music. There is a general prejudice, or perhaps bias is a better term, among academic musicians for natural acoustics and for natural performance over sound amplification. Trained vocalists, for example, resist the need for microphones and would much prefer to perform without sound enhancement in a great hall designed for natural acoustics. Academic musicians often quickly become uncomfortable when a microphone is placed in front of them.Their many years in a practice room perfecting their skills and working hard to merge musical details with great expression can be destroyed with a bad microphone, a poor room, or a poor sound technician. Drum usage in a concert hall with voices or other instruments generally requires microphones for soloists. Putting a trap set in St. Paul's Cathedral, for example, almost seems a desecration of that beautiful space.
When Rock music began to influence society, it was an outgrowth of what the Black community had been doing for years. Elvis Presley among others used drums in his songs, danced, and sang in a freer style than previously performed by White musicians. It set the world on its heels and inadvertently helped with race integration in our country. But in the middle of this transformation, we still have the drums, or in this case, the drum set. The drum set became associated not necessarily with Black music but certainly with Rock and Popular music, a concept unacceptable in concert or church settings. Many of those in academia and in churches quickly relegated the drum set to its role in commercial music for the recording studio or for those events where sound amplification was required either for instruments or voices.
The market place, however, began to prevail and demand for the "new" sound (which was not really new at all) in concert halls and churches began to infringe on the attitude of resistance. Unfortunately instead of the concepts merging into a unified musical world for both concerts and church services, many remained strongly resistant and ran the other direction. We continue to have these battles although they seem almost passe' and predictable at times. Certainly such disagreements are valid, but in the end the people supporting trap set usage in concerts and churches are ultimately victorious due to public acclaim. In other words, with exceptions, people like the drums and are comfortable with trap sets in churches and in formal concerts. The division is no longer necessary and those holding onto an old ideal may end up in the catacombs of a heritage gone by such as the telegraph or the drive-in theatre.
Yet I will admit to respecting opinion or preference on this issue. A good friend once told me that he recognizes that using a trap set in a worship service is Biblical and seems to be a strong draw for growth and ministry, but he still does not like it. I appreciate his view which is based on personal taste and preference. What I disagree with are those who reject drum usage based on some sort of arbitrary code of excellence that has no historical or objective merit. The trap set is here to stay and to deny its role in the church and in the concert hall further drives a wedge between academia and the market place. To take it another step further and provide a distant internuncial, if the drums at one time were associated with African-American music, then as we integrate the races and the cultures in our country and work to refine our society with broad acceptance, then that inevitably ought to include an acceptance of all musical styles and instruments in both churches and concert halls. Obviously this is a tall order and a noble but difficult long-term result of musical inclusion.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
The Myth of the Happy Slave
A study of slave narratives sometimes reveals slaves who were happy with their environment. This idea is further supported by former slaves expressing their concern with freedom and the problems associated with the period we know as the reconstruction after the civil war. We read the documentation of these and we make historical conclusions that reference a particular time period and a reflection on the immediacy of the circumstances. If studying history in order to provide answers to current problems only looks backwards and only in the context of that which the environment at the time provided, then our ability to grow from knowledge is limited by our erroneous conclusions. The Happy Slave Narrative is one that finds the dutiful slave dancing, singing and working for their white masters and enjoying it. It finds said slave beginning to view their masters as surrogate parents and benefactors. The Happy Slave Narrative is a way to silence the truth and allows for a negating of any responsibility that this nation had/ has for its citizens. It divests black people of their humanity and reduces our representations, bodies, and minds to instruments happy to be of service to white masters (http://www.commdiginews.com/entertainment/leslie-jones-the-happy-slave-narrative-and-modern-day-minstrelsy-17849/#Bw5GopScDl3iyzx accessed 1/12/2015).
I recall running away from home when I was six years old due to my father wanting me to sweep the garage floor. I packed a few items, wrote a note, got permission from my dad, and took off down the street. When I reached the end of the street, I stood there for awhile, felt hungry, knew I should not cross the street without help, and decided to return home. My dad hugged and welcomed me back, gave me a snack and reminded me that I still needed to do some sweeping. Eager to make amends, I swept the garage floor (which in retrospect I realize had rather feeble results), and decided that all was well. I was once again happy with my circumstances.
Now from the above story a historian might conclude that I was the happiest when I was at home with protection, and with my basic needs being met, and comfortable with the required work, and this would not be a wrong conclusion, after all I was six years old at the time. Recognizing this anecdotal story is far from analogous to slavery, it does point to the Hierarchy of Needs chart by Abraham Maslow where humans need to have their physiological and safety needs met before needing love, esteem, and self-actualization. I suppose that had I stayed eternally six years old, I would have remained happy, although it is well to note that the actual running away implied a desire to improve my current circumstances, at least from my perspective. But knowing my basic needs had to be met, I accepted the authority of my dad in order to meet my fundamental needs. I may have wanted something different but ultimately I realized that my hunger and my fear of the unknown world led me back to security, and sadly a little bit of work!
Not all slave owners were evil monsters and there were many owners who practiced kindness and benevolence to their slaves (https://sites.google.com/site/antiquariansquill/academic-writing/the-caring-slave-owner--accessed 1/13/2015). In some instances of slavery, wise owners provided basic needs for their slaves in order to have greater productivity of their land and their business, not to mention the inevitable building of relationships in any kind of living situation. Human beings who live and work together are bound to form relationships of some kind, and some masters and slaves genuinely cared for each other (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html, accessed 1/12/2015). Obviously abuse of this idea did take place and no amount of needs being met can substitute for pain and suffering, but we should neither talk about the extreme and obvious situations nor we should point to the instances of slave owners who treated their property as equals. Instead, we must discuss the human right for freedom of choice and equal opportunity. Slavery as a practice and a concept is indefensible. We do, however, need to discuss the happy quotient as it relates to the role of slaves and their future. While there is no desire for historical revision, there is a need to address the problem of life satisfaction versus the human requirement for freedom of choice. Beginning with the conclusion, every opportunity for freedom of choice should resound with rejoicing and fully embraced by individuals and by society, always within the legal responsibility of providing equal rights for all.
When the slaves were brought to our country from South Africa, as well as the West Indies, they had been grossly mistreated, disallowed from congregating, and considered property not human beings. Paranoia and suspicion followed the slaves from birth to death and their exportation to another country was primarily considered an economic decision for the original owners. European slave traders carried out the shipment of Africans to the Americas. The rulers of West African kingdoms participated in the trade, too. On the coast of Africa, local kings gathered captives from inland. The local kings then traded these captives for European goods, such as textiles, ironware, wine, and guns (http://www.csun.edu/~ae11859/documents/pdf/textbook/86_76-81.pdf Accessed 1/12/2015). Arriving in America, in spite of the lack of freedom, many slaves suddenly had their basic needs met including food, clothing, and shelter. Certainly an improvement from their previous state and a way to live reasonably comfortably, regardless of their improved life situation and regardless of their emotional state, the people still went from slavery to slavery and they were imprisoned due primarily to the despicable view of being property not people. No matter how many sides there may be to the story, and no matter how many ways it can be seen, it was slavery of human beings.
Their happiness, if one could call it that, was short-lived and primarily based on the lower levels of the hierarchy of needs. The reconstruction following the civil war was a messy affair and grossly unfair to the former slaves, but it was still freedom and the alternative to freedom is imprisonment. The efforts to subdue an entire race of people through slavery were over and it was time to move forward toward equality and opportunity for all. Yet such noble goals were and still are difficult and unfortunately it takes many years, tenacity, dedication, and education to achieve even a modicum of equality and opportunity for everyone. Meanwhile as our country shifted its system and attitudes toward refinement, there were likely some who preferred the old ways of having their basic needs met. But whether slaves or non-slaves were happy is entirely irrelevant to the requirement for race equality. Slavery is indefensible and to make a feeble attempt to justify it based on some kind of nebulous happy quotient is erroneous and anathema at best. I further submit that efforts to support the position of slaves being happy is generally unproductive except possibly for the historical reminder of the hierarchy of needs where people must have their physical and safety needs met before pursuing higher orders of thinking.
This does not mean we should squelch those narratives referencing the preference for slavery over freedom due to the problem of basic needs, but we should also consider the implication that such emphases is suggesting. By expending great energy finding examples of how some blacks were happier as slaves inevitably lends itself to preferring race obsequiousness and slavery over liberty, certainly unacceptable and flawed thinking. Yet such endeavors do remind us of the social challenges that faced blacks after the Civil War. While liberty and freedom of choice is always the goal, it does not come without fear, without dedicated effort, and without relentless commitment to progress and improvement. Being told what to do is often safer and more comfortable than making one's own decisions and setting one's own vision for the future.
At some point, however, justice and right need to prevail and need to express the wrongs of slavery and the rights of liberty and equal opportunity. Finding instances and examples of the benefits of slavery serve no purpose other than to cloud the issue and ultimately subjugate not only the people but also the concept of liberty and freedom. Efforts to justify the abject denigration of people based on some arbitrary "happy" quotient are to be disdained. The happy slave is a myth, and imprisonment is never to be desired nor embraced in any sense.
I recall running away from home when I was six years old due to my father wanting me to sweep the garage floor. I packed a few items, wrote a note, got permission from my dad, and took off down the street. When I reached the end of the street, I stood there for awhile, felt hungry, knew I should not cross the street without help, and decided to return home. My dad hugged and welcomed me back, gave me a snack and reminded me that I still needed to do some sweeping. Eager to make amends, I swept the garage floor (which in retrospect I realize had rather feeble results), and decided that all was well. I was once again happy with my circumstances.
Now from the above story a historian might conclude that I was the happiest when I was at home with protection, and with my basic needs being met, and comfortable with the required work, and this would not be a wrong conclusion, after all I was six years old at the time. Recognizing this anecdotal story is far from analogous to slavery, it does point to the Hierarchy of Needs chart by Abraham Maslow where humans need to have their physiological and safety needs met before needing love, esteem, and self-actualization. I suppose that had I stayed eternally six years old, I would have remained happy, although it is well to note that the actual running away implied a desire to improve my current circumstances, at least from my perspective. But knowing my basic needs had to be met, I accepted the authority of my dad in order to meet my fundamental needs. I may have wanted something different but ultimately I realized that my hunger and my fear of the unknown world led me back to security, and sadly a little bit of work!
Not all slave owners were evil monsters and there were many owners who practiced kindness and benevolence to their slaves (https://sites.google.com/site/antiquariansquill/academic-writing/the-caring-slave-owner--accessed 1/13/2015). In some instances of slavery, wise owners provided basic needs for their slaves in order to have greater productivity of their land and their business, not to mention the inevitable building of relationships in any kind of living situation. Human beings who live and work together are bound to form relationships of some kind, and some masters and slaves genuinely cared for each other (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html, accessed 1/12/2015). Obviously abuse of this idea did take place and no amount of needs being met can substitute for pain and suffering, but we should neither talk about the extreme and obvious situations nor we should point to the instances of slave owners who treated their property as equals. Instead, we must discuss the human right for freedom of choice and equal opportunity. Slavery as a practice and a concept is indefensible. We do, however, need to discuss the happy quotient as it relates to the role of slaves and their future. While there is no desire for historical revision, there is a need to address the problem of life satisfaction versus the human requirement for freedom of choice. Beginning with the conclusion, every opportunity for freedom of choice should resound with rejoicing and fully embraced by individuals and by society, always within the legal responsibility of providing equal rights for all.
When the slaves were brought to our country from South Africa, as well as the West Indies, they had been grossly mistreated, disallowed from congregating, and considered property not human beings. Paranoia and suspicion followed the slaves from birth to death and their exportation to another country was primarily considered an economic decision for the original owners. European slave traders carried out the shipment of Africans to the Americas. The rulers of West African kingdoms participated in the trade, too. On the coast of Africa, local kings gathered captives from inland. The local kings then traded these captives for European goods, such as textiles, ironware, wine, and guns (http://www.csun.edu/~ae11859/documents/pdf/textbook/86_76-81.pdf Accessed 1/12/2015). Arriving in America, in spite of the lack of freedom, many slaves suddenly had their basic needs met including food, clothing, and shelter. Certainly an improvement from their previous state and a way to live reasonably comfortably, regardless of their improved life situation and regardless of their emotional state, the people still went from slavery to slavery and they were imprisoned due primarily to the despicable view of being property not people. No matter how many sides there may be to the story, and no matter how many ways it can be seen, it was slavery of human beings.
Their happiness, if one could call it that, was short-lived and primarily based on the lower levels of the hierarchy of needs. The reconstruction following the civil war was a messy affair and grossly unfair to the former slaves, but it was still freedom and the alternative to freedom is imprisonment. The efforts to subdue an entire race of people through slavery were over and it was time to move forward toward equality and opportunity for all. Yet such noble goals were and still are difficult and unfortunately it takes many years, tenacity, dedication, and education to achieve even a modicum of equality and opportunity for everyone. Meanwhile as our country shifted its system and attitudes toward refinement, there were likely some who preferred the old ways of having their basic needs met. But whether slaves or non-slaves were happy is entirely irrelevant to the requirement for race equality. Slavery is indefensible and to make a feeble attempt to justify it based on some kind of nebulous happy quotient is erroneous and anathema at best. I further submit that efforts to support the position of slaves being happy is generally unproductive except possibly for the historical reminder of the hierarchy of needs where people must have their physical and safety needs met before pursuing higher orders of thinking.
This does not mean we should squelch those narratives referencing the preference for slavery over freedom due to the problem of basic needs, but we should also consider the implication that such emphases is suggesting. By expending great energy finding examples of how some blacks were happier as slaves inevitably lends itself to preferring race obsequiousness and slavery over liberty, certainly unacceptable and flawed thinking. Yet such endeavors do remind us of the social challenges that faced blacks after the Civil War. While liberty and freedom of choice is always the goal, it does not come without fear, without dedicated effort, and without relentless commitment to progress and improvement. Being told what to do is often safer and more comfortable than making one's own decisions and setting one's own vision for the future.
At some point, however, justice and right need to prevail and need to express the wrongs of slavery and the rights of liberty and equal opportunity. Finding instances and examples of the benefits of slavery serve no purpose other than to cloud the issue and ultimately subjugate not only the people but also the concept of liberty and freedom. Efforts to justify the abject denigration of people based on some arbitrary "happy" quotient are to be disdained. The happy slave is a myth, and imprisonment is never to be desired nor embraced in any sense.
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
Don't lose the Canon, but let's redefine it
Just read a marvelous piece called "What We Lose if We Lose the Canon" by Arthur Krystal. In this pointed essay, the author postures that as the canon changes and starts becoming commercialized, we are in danger of losing the idea of what makes literature great not just good. He defines great by that which makes us think (http://chronicle.com/article/What-We-Lose-if-We-Lose-the/150991/). He uses several examples of great authors including John Donne, Francis Bacon, Emily Dickinson, William Faulkner, Henry James, Shakespeare, Chekhov, Dickens, Tolstoy, among many others. He also makes brief reference to those authors that I assume "don't make us think" including Nora Roberts, James Lee Burke, Clive Cussler, even Pearl Buck.
Having spent a lifetime reading "great" and "good" and sometimes even poor literature, I certainly understand his position. He is not wrong that great literature, as defined by the test of time, the collective agreement from critics, and from usage in colleges and universities (my definitions, not his), makes us think. Great literature seems to have great emotional and psychological impact on the reader, causing us to return to the works, often many times. I have read and reread Les Miserables by Victor Hugo and will likely do so the rest of my life. I have not reread any Mickey Spillane, Louis L'Amour, John Steinbeck, or David Morrell nor will I do so. Not that I didn't thoroughly enjoy their books and believe I am shaped by their and many others' writings, but the writing style and stories served my purposes at the time and need no revisiting. Those writers did make me think (sorry to tell you that Mr. Krystal) and those writers did tell a great story, but, in general, I am now more impacted by "great" literature that is acknowledged as such.
I further agree with the author that as we put good authors on the same level as great authors, we risk not only losing history but also losing our sense of excellence. As he said, "Some books simply reflect a deeper understanding of the world, of history, of human relationships, of literature itself than do other books." In many special ways, great literature lifts us beyond the scope of everyday living and places us at a higher plane above the messiness and toward the sublime; whereas good literature or popular literature tends to emphasize current problems or personal issues of characters. All that to say, I generally agree with the author's concern about losing the canon of quality literature and replacing it with commercialized literature. Where I part ways with the author is in the area of holding on to the same canon and the resistance to altering it as the world marches forward in areas of refinement and progress. James Lee Burke may be somewhat short-lived as a writer of substance and his books may be considered popular fiction, but he is still a very fine writer and is worth considering for the "canon" of literature. Popularity, of course, does not automatically make something mediocre and as we work to present a new canon, we will inevitably miss the mark at times.
Such was true of Giacomo Meyerbeer, 1791-1864, a famed opera composer in the Romantic era of music, a composer destined for greatness whose music was highly regarded and expected to enter the canon. But, alas, his music did not withstand the test of time and is now relegated to very few performances mainly of some minor historical interest. This is normal and expected of most art and literature, but it does not mean we should focus our attention only on those works that made the list. In fact, a society that moves forward is that which searches for a new canon, a new body of works that encompasses the past, present, and the future. Furthermore, the canon the author describes is comprised primarily of white, mostly male, writers whose works have made some kind of impact on the world. But who decides this canon and why can it not change?
All music, art, and literature was new at one time and the market determined to an extent, right or wrong, its place in the world either as a short-lived work or for sustained benefit. We absolutely must keep pressing forward in the arts and in literature and search for a new canon that embraces the past greatness while seeking the new. We may miss the target and we could fall into the temporary trappings of commercialism, but time will ultimately prove the worth, and time will redefine the canon. Meanwhile, in spite of our failings, we must keep searching for a new canon, something that includes minorities, demonstrates diversity, and has significant meaning. The problem with criticizing commercialism in the arts and literature is that one inadvertently rejects the new and only loves the old. A proponent of both, I posture we continue to redefine the canon while seeking after truth, excellence, and meaning. Mostly, to reiterate, whether it is new or old, it should always make us think.
Having spent a lifetime reading "great" and "good" and sometimes even poor literature, I certainly understand his position. He is not wrong that great literature, as defined by the test of time, the collective agreement from critics, and from usage in colleges and universities (my definitions, not his), makes us think. Great literature seems to have great emotional and psychological impact on the reader, causing us to return to the works, often many times. I have read and reread Les Miserables by Victor Hugo and will likely do so the rest of my life. I have not reread any Mickey Spillane, Louis L'Amour, John Steinbeck, or David Morrell nor will I do so. Not that I didn't thoroughly enjoy their books and believe I am shaped by their and many others' writings, but the writing style and stories served my purposes at the time and need no revisiting. Those writers did make me think (sorry to tell you that Mr. Krystal) and those writers did tell a great story, but, in general, I am now more impacted by "great" literature that is acknowledged as such.
I further agree with the author that as we put good authors on the same level as great authors, we risk not only losing history but also losing our sense of excellence. As he said, "Some books simply reflect a deeper understanding of the world, of history, of human relationships, of literature itself than do other books." In many special ways, great literature lifts us beyond the scope of everyday living and places us at a higher plane above the messiness and toward the sublime; whereas good literature or popular literature tends to emphasize current problems or personal issues of characters. All that to say, I generally agree with the author's concern about losing the canon of quality literature and replacing it with commercialized literature. Where I part ways with the author is in the area of holding on to the same canon and the resistance to altering it as the world marches forward in areas of refinement and progress. James Lee Burke may be somewhat short-lived as a writer of substance and his books may be considered popular fiction, but he is still a very fine writer and is worth considering for the "canon" of literature. Popularity, of course, does not automatically make something mediocre and as we work to present a new canon, we will inevitably miss the mark at times.
Such was true of Giacomo Meyerbeer, 1791-1864, a famed opera composer in the Romantic era of music, a composer destined for greatness whose music was highly regarded and expected to enter the canon. But, alas, his music did not withstand the test of time and is now relegated to very few performances mainly of some minor historical interest. This is normal and expected of most art and literature, but it does not mean we should focus our attention only on those works that made the list. In fact, a society that moves forward is that which searches for a new canon, a new body of works that encompasses the past, present, and the future. Furthermore, the canon the author describes is comprised primarily of white, mostly male, writers whose works have made some kind of impact on the world. But who decides this canon and why can it not change?
All music, art, and literature was new at one time and the market determined to an extent, right or wrong, its place in the world either as a short-lived work or for sustained benefit. We absolutely must keep pressing forward in the arts and in literature and search for a new canon that embraces the past greatness while seeking the new. We may miss the target and we could fall into the temporary trappings of commercialism, but time will ultimately prove the worth, and time will redefine the canon. Meanwhile, in spite of our failings, we must keep searching for a new canon, something that includes minorities, demonstrates diversity, and has significant meaning. The problem with criticizing commercialism in the arts and literature is that one inadvertently rejects the new and only loves the old. A proponent of both, I posture we continue to redefine the canon while seeking after truth, excellence, and meaning. Mostly, to reiterate, whether it is new or old, it should always make us think.
Thursday, January 01, 2015
Music, Worship, Slaves, and Elvis Presley
Despite our preference for compartmentalization of historical events and cultural practices, in truth music cannot be entirely separated from the culture in which it exists past and present. If one wants to study the music from Asia, one must also study the culture, the religion, the historical treatment of the people, the governments, the art, and the philosophies contained with the culture. To do otherwise is to extract the necessary information for accurate understanding of how and why art was created within the community. A study of Asian instruments cannot be removed from knowing something about Hinduism, its philosophies, its influences, and mostly its ideals. For to understand Hinduism is to understand the music of the people and how the music is an extension of the inner peace of which Hindus seek. To study the music apart from the religious practices of the people would be to try to understand the words of a song without knowing the context.
African-American culture, the music, the worship practices, and the people trace back to African musical roots of dancing, playing drums, and singing. Because our present is shaped by our past and because knowledge of the past helps guide the future, it is valuable to understand the heritage that comprises today's musical trends. Racial equality and integration have been difficult to accomplish and we have a long way to go in our country. Governments have passed laws to insist on equality and local governments continue to make strides in integration of the races through hiring practices, educational practices, and cultural events that encourage all people to participate without exclusion. Yet there are cultural areas in which the government cannot and should not interfere including worship practices, music preferences, emotional responses, and relationships. One of the best ways to cross racial barriers is through music. Ironically music also contributes to division and polarization, but that is a topic for another time.
A historical look at African-American music reveals a race of people who responded to music through movement, only to be criticized and legally prevented from moving to music. It was an absurd criticism that can only be attributed to ignorance and some kind of unwarranted suspicion of the activity. Moving the body to music is a natural physiological response to sound and a part of the human experience. Research shows that infants respond to sound by moving their bodies and this natural inclination continues through childhood development. At some point, however, many children cease their natural movement to music except in a controlled environment such as a dance or concert. Nevertheless, moving to music is as natural as listening, walking, or even breathing. This does not, of course, mean that all black music performance involved dancing nor that other music resisted movement. To make such assertions is a dangerous generalization; yet for purposes of this discussion, it does make the point that historically white music does not elicit nor encourage motion. This may be partly due to socialization but also due to an emphases on blocked rhythm over syncopation.
Yet a white culture rejected the movement of slaves as being primitive or inappropriate and this attitude prevailed well into the 20th century with the ridiculous assertion that blacks have a certain way of moving to music and whites have a certain way of moving to music. Sadly, this type of weak categorization smacks of bias and gross generalities. The informative book Sinful Tunes and Spirituals: Black Folk Music to the Civil War by Dena J. Epstein chronicles the practice of slaves dancing and the efforts to stop such activities. On page 27 the author mentions that "the first official attempt to suppress African dancing and instruments was reported by Adrien Dessalles, who had access to the Archives Coloniales." The ordinance was issued on May 4, 1654 prohibiting dancing by blacks (Epstein, Dena J. Sinful Tunes and Spirituals, 1977). Perhaps out of fear of the unknown or simply suspicion of a common element, slave owners remained fearful of slaves meeting to dance, to worship, to sing, or really any form of community. This attitude remained true through the years of slavery in the United States.
Being that music is cathartic, it should come as no surprise that slaves used music and worship as a way to deal with their challenging circumstances, often forming in the evenings away from white ownership. Although some slave owners discouraged and even punished slaves for gathering after working hours, the practice continued. "Slaves forbidden by masters to attend church or, in some cases, even to pray, risked floggings to attend secret gatherings to worship God." (Raboteau, Albert J. The Secret Religion of Slaves, Oxford, 1978). Yet in spite of the concern by the owners, slaves gathered when possible to worship and express their sorrow while seeking after hope through a religious experience. At these services, they sang spirituals, danced, and expressed their hearts through music. "Spirituals are too often seen simply as words and notes printed on a page. What must be recognized is that they emerged as communal songs, heard, felt, sung and often danced with hand-clapping, foot-stamping, headshaking excitement" (Raboteau: The Secret Religion of Slaves, 1978).
Throughout the first half of the 20th century people seemed generally comfortable with a cultural separation of blacks and whites, often viewing blacks in the role of service to the whites in a type of minimally compensated economic slavery. With the rise of jazz, singing groups, and black entertainers, black music became a valued type of music for cultural expression. And yet, whites continued to see black music as distinctive and unique to the race, something enjoyable but not to be practiced by whites. The work of American composer George Gershwin helped quell some of this attitude but the pervasive separation of the races kept the style of the music from being fully integrated in churches, schools, and the concert hall.
"Then came Elvis Presley with his style of gyrating his hips, shaking his leg, and syncopating his rhythms, all perceived as "black" practices in music." "When the 'establishment' accused Elvis Presley of being vulgar, of being deliberately sexual, they did not mean this. This was the cover for what was really meant, what was really feared, and that was that Elvis would lead to equal rights and racial integration. And not just Elvis any white person singing rock 'n' roll. Carl Perkins was warned to not do his show. Elvis was simply the number one guy and therefore got the most attention." (http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/elvis-not-racist.shtml, accessed 1/1/2015).
Elvis was certainly not the first to use a "black" approach to music (http://www.salon.com/2014/05/17/elvis_wasnt_the_first/), but he quickly became the most popular and by virtue of his fame, contributed greatly to an integration of the races through music. Heavily criticized by the white establishment, the younger generation, not interested in separation or in any kind of preferred style of music, simply enjoyed the musical expression of early rock music. Churches and preachers jumped on the band wagon of criticism, claiming the sexual style of music was evil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PdVqWuqUsI). If black music style causes excessive bodily movement, and if that kind of movement is evil, then it stands to reason that Elvis was evil, an absurd conclusion rejected by popular culture. As Rufus Thomas once said, "A lot of people say that Elvis stole our music. No man has got a music of his own. Music belongs to the universe."
We fast forward to today, and we realize that music naturally lends itself to movement and with that revelation we not only accept and use the black practices of moving to music and utilizing syncopation, we have integrated the idea into our popular and church cultures. We no longer compartmentalize nor harshly judge the style of music but, instead, we accept it as another tool of musical expression, neither lower than nor higher than any other kind of music. As our society marches forward to greater refinement, tolerance, and knowledge of how the past shapes the future, we can bask in our musical eclecticism and recognize that in music we find common ground and inclusion of all races and types of people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)