how does tradition live?

[Solidarity Foundation <svzandt...>]

On Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:44:56 -0500, Ari Davidow replied to Alex Jacobowitz:
>Please, ladies and gentlemen of the musical jury, keep your hands off our
>traditions, even if you think you know where they came from. Because once
>you remove the boundaries, we'll no longer know what's ours anymore - and
>what isn't.
>Wanna sing "Adon Olam" to melodies from Carmen? Then sing it in the shower,
>please.
>Except for the last line - the one that mentions His name. According to
>Halacha,
>that's not allowed to be said (let alone sung) while naked.

I can understand this viewpoint, but to many of us it neither
accords with reality as we experience it, nor does it hold
when applied to something like the melody to Adon Olam.

To me, your perspective sounds like "Judaism is a museum in
which we live with sacred relics." If that was my experience
of Judaism or Jewish music, I don't think I would be connected
to either. There is a difference between a living tradition,
and fossilization.
________

I don't know whether this accurately interprets Jacobowitz or not, but the
advantage of the exchange is that it frames two extremes that may direct
our attention to something that needs to be better understood if we are to
make any progress in several of hte discussions that have been swirling
around this list lately. (Actually, I am sure Ari's real position is not
extreme, but let's use it as a jumping-off point for the following dispute
over the nature of liturgical music and tradition:

1. Tradition means that melodies should not b e changed (tradition as
fossil).
2. Tradition means, whatever people want to do, that's the tradition
(tradition as, whatever...)

Seeing the debate in this way represents a "fallacy of the excluded 
middle." In other words, this kind of arhument over tradition is
inherently flawed (fallacious)  because it excludes, from the outset,
another position that is somewhere between the two. What is this
"excluded middle"? Ari provides the clue to it by his use of the term
"living tradition."

Another clue was provided on Fri, 6 Mar 1998 09:56:29 EST, when Marvin
3809, also responding to Jacobowitz, wrote:

"Kashruth comes from the Torah, with specific rules in the Talmud.  Are there
rules about melodies for prayers in the Torah or the Talmud?"

The point here being that these sorts of stylistic questions, which are of
such gereat importance for Jewish music -- as only confirmed by the amount
of discussion being devoted to them on this list -- are essentially NOT
questions of halakha. Yes, there are some general pronouncements that are
relevant, like, we should differentiate ourselves from "the nations", or
that lively music should be played at weddings (though that certainly
does not
exclude also playing sad or other kinds of music at weddings). But basically
the question bypasses halakha, and therefore it also bypasses the whole 
issue of the variability of halakhic interpretation.

The question of melodies and performance style (manner of tone production,
ornaments, tempos, etc.) is a question of minhog (custom). This is the
part of tradition that is NOT halakha. So if it's not based on adherence
to laws, what is it based on?

In traditional Jewish communities, I don't think this question was ever
asked. Everybody soaked up the melodies and the styles from the day they
were born, and some people -- the chazonim, badkhonim,klezmorim --
received special training.

This was very far from being a fossil -- it was a living tradition. Did
they always sing the same tunes? Of course not! The chazn, the badkhn,
the klezmer were expected to improvise new melodies as well as use old
familiar ones. In their spare time they composed new tunes. Hasidic
rebbes and others were continually creating new nigunim, as well as 
adapting certain tunes from co-territorial cultures. 

Nevertheless it was a tradition, with a great deal of consistency. Of
course there were local variants. Traditional Jewish music in Vilna
was not precisely the same as traditional Jewish music in Berdichev --
but it was not all that different either.

So what was the principle of this kind of traditional "sound"? The principle
was... imitation. Not only does a newborn baby respond to melody and
rhythm (in the form of lullabies), scientists have now determined that
even before birth a baby responds to music, they are already listening.
As the child grew, it would constantly be hearing traditional davening,
nigunim from cheder, mother singing folk songs, etc., and imitating. 
They heard goyishe peasant music too. They also heard more general
European music, etc., but it was more peripheral.

Today our situation in America and Europe is completely different. We
are exposed to an unbelievable variety of musical styles. Even as young
children. The principle of imitation is a psycho-physiological fact.
So what happens to the part of the tradition that is soaked up?

Is it possible to keep the old "Jewish sound" going? Is there really
any point? If we do try to keep it going, does this mean it must be a
"fossil"? Even if we think we should make full use of the musical
resources available, does that mean that just ANYTHING goes? These are
the sorts of questions we've beendiscussing. The problem is that to
a considerable extent the answers we provide are already determined by
our early experiences. To some extent, but not ttotally. There are
people who never heard a note of traditional Jewish music as children --
they hear it and from then on, they can't get enough of it. Others heard
it but always preferred other kinds of music. But for many of us, the
answer's already decided. 

My own view is this. We can listen to any kind of music we want to. We
can even learn, or at least attempt to learn, to perform any kind of music
we want to. But looking at it from the standpoint of Jewish music -- is
our sense of Jewish aesthetic so strong that whatever we bring into
Jewish usage, we will "Judaize" it? Or rather, is our sense of Jewish
aesthetic so weak, that whatever we bring into Jewish usage, it will help
to "de-Judaize" us? 

I think it's great for children to hear all kinds of music. But I would
like Jewish children to hear specifically Jewish music and to know that
s what it is. There should be a place for this music in their lives, and
that place should be in specifically Jewish usages, such as, obviously,
liturgy. What i've never been able to understand is why, when myriad
forms of non-Jewish music are available (indeed, inescapable) everyehere
else, why there is such a need to bring them into liturgy, klezmer, etc.
It must be because people already have a very weak identification with
the traditional Jewish sound. But this is only compounding the problem!
(Unless you don't see it as a problem.)  On the other hand, the traditional
Jewish sound strengthens our identity as Jews -- well, it does for me,
anyway.
Itzik-Leyb