Re: Music of the Ancient Temple speculations.

[Judah Cohen <jcohen...>]

Judy,

I agree with you all the way, and had no intention to belittle the role of
chant in Jewish tradition,in the numerous ways it is described.  My whole
point in problematizing the sound and idea of "ancient" Jewish chant is to
show how difficult it is to make direct connections between Jewish and
Christian chant traditions (which is something assumed by a large number
of people today, and popularized through Werner's book).  You
highlighted this assumption in your first posting, which is why I wrote
back.  I agree the writer of the review that started off this whole thing
should certainly be educated as to the importance of solo chant in Jewish
religious history; but I think the failure of Werner's main thesis?-that
there was a definite and traceable connection between Christian and Jewish
chant in the middle ages--is only one drawback for a book that seems bent on
confusing the reader into submission through assemblages of far-flung,
frequently unsupported (and sometimes inaccurate) details.  Again, I refer
you to the Jeffery review I mentioned in my second posting for further
information.  Idelsohn's
thesaurus, or his "Jewish music in its Historical Development," treat the
subject much more even-handedly (as does the Avenary Encyclopedia Judaica
article).  You are right on, though, in implying that recent scholarship
really hasn't touched upon this topic with much depth or success (as I see
it, it's kind of out of style right now, given the problems that arose with
Werner's work).

Please understand that as an ethnomusicologist, I'm trained to take things
apart and problematize them.  Often what is acceptable proof to you might be
much more problematic for me.  When I mentioned printed/written music, I did
so because that is one of the most commonly used playing fields for making
"concrete" comparisons among "oral" traditions.  As far as your point on the
Talmud's description of music in the Jerusalem Temple, remember that the
Talmud was finally compiled c. 530 years after it was destroyed; and that
moreover, much has been printed suggesting that the discussions in the
Talmud were just as much a reflection and redefinition of contemporary times
as they were a yearning back to Temple times.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but
wasn't that about the about the same time the "cruse of oil that lasted
eight nights" myth of Hanukkah was invented by the rabbis?  Looking from
*our* time period:  with the exception of paintings, we have lost almost
*numerous* instrument makers' techniques from the 15th century.  Why, then,
should we expect the rabbis, most of whom were probably more skilled at
criticizing musicians than being them, to be any better?  (All this said, I
must admit your cymbal story is intriguing, and I'd ask if you have a
reference for it.)

But again such analysis is what I do for a living.  I can certianly
understand how it may seem petty at times, but I also feel it can lead to a
wonderful exchange of ideas (perhaps somewhat akin to this one).

As to harmony:  even today, there are highly skilled middle-Eastern
ensembles that play only one "melodic" line without even considering issues
of harmony.  It might be best, then, not to think of harmony as "the next
logical step of development" after monophony, but rather as a method of
organizing music that gained a great deal of value and became highly
specialized in educated Western society.  (My general way of seeing the
musical continuum is as a large horizontal plain, while acknowledging that
individual peoples might see their own music as a trajectory.) To many
people in the middle east and Asia, a single taqsim played by a master
musician (or group) could contain more religious feeling and art than
anything Western "harmonizers" could make up.

----------

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+