Re: Klezmer Forest& Trees(was Re: what is Klismer music?)

[Seth Rogovoy <rogovoy...>]

On Sat, 25 May 1996, moshe denburg wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 1996 18:08:19 -0400 (EDT), Fred Jacobowitz wrote:
>  
> >     You miss the forest for the trees. Klezmer (that is how I learned 
> >the word and it most accurately transliterates a Hebrew/Yiddidsh word) is 
> >NOT sung, as a general rule. It IS the wedding music, i.e. the dance 
> >music/partying music of the Eastern European Jews, most of whom spoke 
> >Yiddish as their home language (or Mamaloshn). It is INSTRUMENTAL music - 
> >not vocal, though occasionally words were written to some tunes. 
> 
> Of course I agree that Klezmer is, *in its origins*, primarily an
> instrumental genre. Your post is informative and accurate, IMO.
> 
> However, we cannot disregard the work of Jewish musicians _in the present_,
> whose task it is to take that which is given by tradition and to develop and
> vary it. So in speaking of the roots of Klezmer, you are correct; but if
> today's musician adds a Banjo, a Guitar, or indeed if Singers add their
> voices to the ensemble, which indeed is the case with the majority of
> Klezmer bands today, is their music not to be called Klezmer?
> 
> I ask this question at face value - at what point does the music cease to be
> Klezmer, and ought to be dubbed by some other name? For example, my
> ensemble, Tzimmes, does only a little of what one may call traditional
> Klezmer, and ironically, it is not _we_ who choose to call our music
> Klezmer. It seems that today, the appellation 'Klezmer' is often foisted
> upon a variety of Jewish Musical genres that represent other facets of
> Jewish Musical experience. This, I believe, is due to the popularization of
> the term amongst audiences who have nothing but the term to go on.
> 
> Whether or not this can, or should, be rectified I do not know. But it is
> probably a sign of a healthy creative ferment that the terms are somewhat in
> limbo; and though, as artists, we can take some steps to educate others, it
> is, IMHO, not so wise to 'nail down' these terms too fastidiously.
> 
> History is a matter of facts, but a creative process is always under revision.

Moshe's point is well taken. Think about the term "jazz," and the music 
it is normally applied to. Think of Mamie Smith's earliest "jazz"singles, 
and John Coltrane's furthest out solos and Duke Ellington's big-band 
orchestrations.  To the untrained -- or even trained -- ear, none of 
these examples would sound anything like each other enough to be grouped 
in the same genre (here, jazz), but they all are so grouped 
conventionally, and, in fact, they all are a part of the development of 
"jazz."

Klezmer music is apparently almost (or indeed, equally) as rich a 
tradition that is able to continue to develop while retaining an essence 
that makes it klezmer. John Zorn's work with his group, Masada, while 
perhaps stretching the limits of the term "klezmer," can be traced back 
to those 19th c. party bands in Eastern Europe. Certainly, the 
Klezmatics, who are considered pretty progressive, have obvious 
connections to their precursors.

There is nothing unique about this. Take any genre: bluegrass, perhaps, 
and you'll see this tradition vs. innovation thing being played out to 
the max.


*****************************************
Seth Rogovoy                        
rogovoy (at) berkshire(dot)net
http://www.berkshireweb.com/rogovoy
music news, interviews, reviews, et al.
*****************************************