Re: music and words

[Leopold N Friedman <apikoyros...>]

Ari,
I would have let it go, but you've repeated this assertion many times
now:  
"listeners unfamiliar with Yiddish appeared not to hear it as a Yiddish
album
--it sounded like a lovely world folk album." "It" is The Well (or 'di
krenitse') by 
Chava Albertstein and the Klezmatics, which appeared a few years ago.

I submit that if one doesn't know Yiddish well, one can't very well judge
the 
"Yiddishness" of it, especially not so as to EXCLUDE it from its
category.
 
One can, of course, still enjoy it to varying degrees, as many of us do
the 
music of other cultures, close or distant, in which we are not ourselves 
participants. (By the way, I'm not sure if I know enough French to really
appreciate Les Negresses Vertes' music, but I can spell their name 
correctly.)

I'm glad you finally deleted the "generic" from your characterization.
That word bothered 
me much more than the "world" or "folk" designations. Of course, "The
Well" partakes of
the categories of  "world" and "folk" but as distinctively Yiddish world
and folk music.  

Why does The Well have to be categorized exclusively as "folk" and not
also as "art" or 
"(night) club" music? What would you say of poetry in other languages set
to music? 
Must it necessarily be "folk" music? Does it have to be "folkstimlikh"
(folk-like) to be or 
sound like Yiddish music? Maybe that's why it doesn't sound like Yiddish
to some
listeners.

Just because Chava Albertstein has, uses, and has admitted she uses her
own "broad 
musical palette" does it (or does who?) disqualify her music from the
category? To what 
extent is this true specifically of her work on "The Well" as opposed to,
say, on perahim 
meshugaim, where she includes her modern version of had gadyo? Songs that
are used
as musical settings for Yiddish poetry may or may not include traditional
(musical) motifs,
just as the poetry itself may or may not have done so, but the songs
convey the culture in 
which and for which they were written; whatever its sources, the finished
work is Yiddish. 

Just because there were no "reb dovidls" quoted, although there were
plenty of traditional riffs, 
is "The Well" not only (mostly) not  traditional Klezmer but also not
even "Yiddish"? There may
be a hidden assumption and stereotype of Yiddish and Yiddish music that
Yiddish culture 
(music, poetry, literature, etc.) is "petrified" (if not dead) and can
only be invoked in traditional 
terms. (May one sing modern and Yiddish in the same breath?) Musical and
other kinds of 
innovation are for new "Jewish" music. Anything not thoroughly old or, at
least, without a patina
of age, just doesn't  "sound Yiddish." So the stereotype goes. I was
astonished to encounter 
such attitudes among some Jewish "folkies," who should certainly have
known better, at a 
recent performance by another Yiddish musician (not Chava Albertstein)
who is known for 
attention to both tradition and innovation. 

Ironically, this hidden assumption seems to have surfaced in the course
of praising the "Yiddish" 
qualities of Mikveh and Crossing the Shadows and contrasting them with
The Well, which, in terms 
of that assumption, seems to be deficient in "Yiddishness" for those who
are unfamiliar with Yiddish. 
In fact, all three are superb examples of new Yiddish music. It would be
foolish to suggest that these
works were created only for those who understood Yiddish well, but it
would also be foolish to draw
such critical (and negative) conclusions about one of them based on
preconceptions and without 
sufficient knowledge of their "idiom." 

I would agree that, without familiarity with the language, the listener,
while still able to appreciate 
and be moved, somewhat, by such works, loses at least some of the
content, flavor, and intent 
of the work. I think you and I and Robert are in agreement on this point.


Lee 

On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:58:45 -0400 Ari Davidow <ari (at) ivritype(dot)com> 
writes:
> >>I would argue that this is not solely a matter of education, and 
> that 
> >>this is one case where failing to hear the Jewish musical 
> component is 
> >>hearing what the music writer claims to have intended, although, 
> >>obviously, there =is= Yiddish folk content, and to ears that 
> understand 
> >>(even partly, as is true in my personal case) the words, the music 
> is> 
> >>quite moving and quite emotional in ways that won't and can't 
> speak to 
> >>someone who doesn't know =any= Yiddish.
> >
> >
> >I find this startling and can't imagine it's true, because music 
> speaks to us--and (emotionally) moves us precisely in a way that 
> transcends language--which is why, surely, all of us (well anyway, 
> this is certainly so of me!) can be deeply, deeply moved--to inner 
> tears or joy--by songs sung in languages we don't understand.
> 
> Robert, are you confusing the idea that music speaks to us, surely, 
> with the idea that someone who is informed in a specific language 
> and/or music might hear more than the casual listener?
> 
> Surely, no one who has heard "di krenitse" (the Well) would argue 
> that it speaks to people, regardless of musical knowledge. My point 
> was that listeners unfamliar with Yiddish appeared not to hear it as 
> a Yiddish album--it sounded like a lovely world folk album, similar, 
> say, to La Negresse Vertes (sp?). (Other items I mentioned confirmed 
> that Alberstein seemed to have deliberately chosen from her entire, 
> and very broad musical palette in writing the music, and Ben Mink, 
> the producer, indicated likewise.)
> 
> ari
> 
> ---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org 
> ---------------------+
>