[no subject]

[Jeffrey Miller/Burden of Proof Research <jefmil...>]

>I think that Svigals is pointing out that many of the early revival
performances, and, still the case for some bands today, perform klezmer as
"shtick", rather than as though the music stands on its own. That was
certainly true of the Klezmorim...

Ari, don't forget that behind the Klezmorim's first two albums is some
useful field research, of the type that Henry later performed and which has
been so important to the American klezmer revival.  The American music is
sometimes less "serious," but that's a reflection of legitimate musical
influences, including swing.  All musics suffer or enjoy various
interpretations -- you might love Khevrisa's "Fun der Khupe," I might think
that Klezmorim's version of it as "Medyatsiner Waltz" has more soul.  Both
are legitimate (and, indeed, I have listened to both carefully in writing my
own arrangement).

This sort of discussion makes me think of the English lexicographer, Eric
Partridge.  Because he was not an academic and worked in the area of slang,
all his life he struggled against the dismissive label "popularizer," yet he
did significant and serious work.  It also reminds me of the alter cockers
in the old West Side Denver shuls who looked down their noses at my father
because he wasn't frummy enough.  I mean, you make a good point, but I get
nervous when we veer toward what is musically legitimate in a popular music
form.  

For me, as a musician as well as a listener, work such as Klezmorim's or
Kapelye's sits nicely, and enjoyably, between the "vulgar" and the more
serious.  (Similarly, I think you can say that someone such as Shawn Colvin
does "serious" popular work as compared, say, to Britney Spears or Madonna!
I'm no pop fan, but I own several Shawn Colvin CDs, and I think even the
dreaded Madonna is "legitimate" within the pop context.) Have you ever
listened to the English guitarist, John Renbourn?  Brilliant.  He plays in a
"classical" style, but not with the seriousness of a Segovia or Parkening
(and he is well-known but not really "popular").  It suits and "humanizes"
the music.  Being loving toward the music is not necessarily the same thing
as approaching it with great solemnity.  Ambivalence is part of the Jewish
experience, often and uncomfortable part, but, by extension, certainly not
illegitimate in Jewish art forms.  You might even argue that, occasionally,
it's artistically necessary.  In klezmer and other Jewish music, the
American "popularization" is similarly legitimate...

Best,

J

P.S. You're right about the better way of posting material from newspapers,
etc.  Then again, often they say "e-mail this article to a friend," which
I'm pretty sure would constitute a waiver of copyright, at least in the web
context.  Also, although I know more about Canadian than U.S. copyright law,
I believe that you still have a fair-use exemption, and of course we're
having a terribly learned, not-for-profit discussion here, which would qualify?

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