Re: Klezmer article in this week's Forward

[George Robinson <grcomm...>]

Maybe what we need then is a Jewish music equivalent of the Historically 
Informed Performance school of classical music, using period instruments, 
period tuning and period charts.
I'm not saying this to be disparaging;quite the contrary, I find the HIP 
movement an endless source of fascination, new insights and, frequently, very 
fine music. 
But its impetus is significantly different from the one guiding the peformance 
practice and aesthetic of, say, Claudio Arrau.

In fact, I thought at the time I first heard Alicia Svigals' 'Fiddlin'' CD that 
she was aiming for something like HIP klezmer, likewise Budowitz and other 
"traditionalist" bands.

It might be worth exploring to the extent that documentation exists -- ay, 
there's the rub.

(It's interesting that these questions never come up in the same way for jazz, 
perhaps because nearly the entire history of jazz coincides with the existence 
of recording technology. Of course there are other questions of 'authenticity' 
in jazz, but that's another story for another thread.)

George (Oy, Is he Authentic!) Robinson

When I play with my cat, who knows whether 
she isn't amusing herself with me more than 
I am with her?

   --Michel de Montaigne
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mattflight (at) aol(dot)com 
  To: World music from a Jewish slant 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 9:32 AM
  Subject: Re: Klezmer article in this week's Forward


       But Jordan, we only know the roles of instruments because of either 
recordings, or peoples writings on the music. And if we are saying we a 
limiting ourselves to the late 1800's we also bring in laws about which 
instruments the Jews were allowed to use? So if your saying the most 
traditional style would be bands like Belf's Orchestra, but even they didn't 
always use traditional instruments. You not going to shlep a piano around from 
gig to gig, yet they use it on recordings. 
       What your saying is that traditional is about the functional that each 
instrument plays. So I could have a traditional band of electric guitar, sitar, 
and melodica if each player is recreating a functional role. So I don't think 
we can just look at roles of instruments, we also need to look at the timbre of 
the instruments. So would one put a loud instrument in a band of all soft 
instruments, or does one need other loud instruments?
       So of the four albums in Seth's article I am familiar with three of 
them. (I haven't heard Paul Brody's album.) Which of them is the most 
traditional? This is an easy question, it is Frank London's Brotherhood of 
Brass. But where does a brass band fit in the continuum of Eastern European 
Jewish Music? Brass band are loud, and wouldn't fit in with laws and 
regulations restricting Jews to soft instruments. David Krakauer and The 
Klezmatics both bring in more modern influences, but can both player in an 
older style if asked to. 
       And Roger brings this up when peoples opinions on other people and 
bands. When we think of bands and people we think of a specific sound. Even if 
that musician has multiple sounds and styles that they are able to play, one of 
them is the one that the public knows. This is an issue that affects all of the 
arts, not just music, and not just Jewish music. 
       I think what I am trying to say is that we need to add to the ways that 
we describe Klezmer music. Maybe like Gamelon music we need to add a caveat as 
to if it is in the loud style, or the soft style. If an audience has no idea 
what it is going to get when it comes to a concert billing itself as klezmer, 
how can we build audiences? How am I (as someone born after the Klezmer Revival 
began) going to be able to get my peer group to embrace the music the same way 
that older generations do?

  Matt Temkin