Why categorize Klezmer?

[estaylor <estaylor...>]

Moshe,

Thanks for the information on Tzimmes. My immersion in Klezmer is growing.

Regarding your thoughts below, I generally am sympathetic but want to offer a 
somewhat different perspective: I'm a tremendous jazz fan and pretty good 
amateur jazz pianist, in addition to liking many other forms of music. By being 
a "mongrel," jazz has grown and flourished immeasurably as an art form with 
numerous schools and branches, **at least until 1967**. 

Since that time, when for many reasons jazz-rock fusion of various kinds took 
off - mostly for commercial reasons, with occasional genuine artistic 
motivation 
- jazz means "fusion" to probably the majority of non jazz buffs. They are not 
familiar with the glorious, unique, tradition of the art form. So what "jazz" 
gained in some quarters in superficial popularity cost it substantially in 
terms 
of dilution both in jazz musical excellence and audience recognition- Kenny G, 
Grover Washington, Oregon - you name 'em - they are not jazz artists( although 
they may be sometimes marketed as such) certainly not in the way Armstrong, 
Parker, Powell, Ellington, Coltrane, Garner, etc. are jazz artists and share 
the 
basic musical conceptions, sensibilities and common tradition. So there are 
costs associated with this dilution. Where to draw the line is never hard and 
fast. Wynton Marsalis, even though he's not a great trumpet player, I respect 
for the fact that he recognizes that over-"hybridizing" jazz (or any art form) 
nullifies what is special and uniquely emotionally/musically compelling about 
it.

((I'm gratified that the US Stamp series of jazz artists released last year 
included 10 undisputed pure jazz giants - which indicates that even very 
"official" channels want to address different musical idioms with taste and 
sensitivity. Who knows? Maybe one day some govt will spawn Klezmer stamps 
(maybe 
Israel or some other place has already) and you and I would want the unique, 
although hard-to-define art form and selections treated with respect.))

My Klezmer immersion is such that I'm a "sponge" right now, sorting out my 
preferences from what's out there. But already there are clear "acoustic 
references" I have for a Klezmer sound - and beyond that point, I wouldn't call 
it Klezmer. Interestingly, I've heard some good jamming among jazz and klezmer 
artists that still sounds to me like it should be called Klezmer. Like Charlie 
Parker said, there are no boundaries in art. At some point, though, the music 
might become unrecognizable to me as klezmer per se, and some new category 
would 
be called for, for those who like labels.


Shabbat Shalom,


Scott


On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, denburg (at) direct(dot)ca (moshe denburg) wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:44:22 -0400 (EDT) fredj (at) peabody(dot)jhu(dot)edu 
>wrote:
>
>>      To start with, of course it goes without saying that 
>>experimentation is necessary, and that all life is a series of 
>>developments. However, let's be clear about what we are doing. I demanded 
>>that we have some truth in advertising. If you're going to experiment, 
>>don't try to claim that you are playing Klezmer, any more than calling 
>>yourself a Dixieland player if you are experimenting with fusing Jazz and 
>>Rock. I, too, feel it is the responsibility of the artist to state his 
>>principles. I am not shy about telling audiences and stores 
>>that Klezmer is a specific part of the large panoply of JEWISH 
>>MUSIC. 
>
>Are you assuming that by dint of artists stating their principles we will
>have truth in advertising? This is idyllic, imo.
>
>There are two issues here: 
>1, Truth in advertising - this is mainly the domain of non-artists. Most
>artists are constantly under the gun to produce something that people ask
>for. If they cannot respond to this request, they may lose the gig. Now
>let's face it, most people who come to the musician for a simkha or a
>concert, do not have specialized training in the art. The term Klezmer is
>bandied about as a key to open up a conversation, a negotiation. Of course,
>if what someone wants is a Clarinet, then they're not gonna have my group
>(we don't presently utilize a Clarinet), but that doesn't mean we cannot
>play enough Klezmer to satisfy the customer. 
>
>I also commend the tendency, among the reviewers and Jewish Radio presenters
>on this list for taking a broad view of the term Klezmer. After all, as
>Alana Suskin pointed out recently, the Jewish Musician who works for and
>within the Jewish community is in fact a Klezmer. The term is appropriate.
>Perhaps the philological meaning of the term is what allows many to call
>Jewish Music making in general, Klezmer.
>
>2. Artists must state their principles - and they do. But keep this apart
>from 'truth in advertising' please. What we could all benefit from is a
>discussion of specific aspects of Jewish Music, rather than endless diatribe
>over who has the right to use what term, where, when, and to whom. If you
>have expertise in Klezmer, then why not tell us something about your
>specific ideas of what it is. I believe we could have a rewarding discussion
>about origins - we may find that there are two views regarding musical
>development: the revolutionary (experiment till you drop), and the
>evolutionary (change is only good in tiny increments). We may find that some
>of the salient features of our music has parallels in, if not actual
>borrowings from, the musics of other cultures. We might find the common
>thread running through Jewish Music of all geographical areas.
>
>This would be a far cry better than the present thread, which has already
>begun to ossify beyond repair, imho.
>
>Moshe Denburg
>
>
>
>