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

[Fred Jacobowitz <fredj...>]

Moshe,
        Point well taken. Please remember that I did indeed refer to 
historical usage. 
        As for modern bands, those who are not, like my band, 
MACHAYA KLEZMER BAND, reconstructionists, really should be helping to 
clarify the terminology with modifiers such as "progressive"- , "modern"- , 
"Pop/"- , etc. -Klezmer. After all, Rappers don't say they do "Hip-hop", 
and vice versa. And Country players get insulted when you introduce them 
as "Bluegrass" musicians. 
        Also, you say that it is a good thing that 
there is confusion among the public due to innacurate terminology because 
itis a byproduct of, and thus an indicator of, artistic ferment. I look 
at it and think to myself (FALSE ADVERTIZING trying to capitalize on the 
cachet of the word "klezmer"). I cite as an example the group "The 
Original Klezmer Jazz Band" whose recording has 99% vaudeville shtick or 
dixieland jazz, with no virtually discernible Klezmer content.

Fred Jacobowitz
Macyaya Klezmer Band in the Washington D.C./Baltimore area

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 Denburg 
> 
>