RE: talking sense

[music <music...>]

Why does it not surprise me that the same poster who 
urged us to avoid "making statements that could appear 
racist or sexist" -- I'm not sure why we needed this en-
treaty -- saw fit to post these bizarroid words:

"some of those violent and ugly lyrics have their purpose.
[So do homicide bombings, and so did lynchings -- So 
what?] I don't have to like them, myself, but a number of them 
come out of the tradition of Malcom X saying that black men 
have the right to defend themselves by owning guns. ... SImilarly,
those violent lyrics come out of a place where the ghetto 
culture is repudiating being kept poor, and looking at making 
money as a way out - which it is. Just look at O.J. SImpson. 
Anyone think he wouldn't be on death row if he hadn't made 
himself whiter through having a lot of money?"

Well, those words "appear" racist to me -- as Eliott has expanded 
on more eloquently than I'll attempt.  Blacks and guns, blacks
are being "kept poor"? ... Sermonizer, heal thyself!

Now:  Eliott, I think it was, was also taken to task by averring that 
blacks are the most musical people on the planet.  Now I don't
think I agree with him -- I think *we're* the most musical people
on the planet ha ha.  (All those violinists ...)

But Eliott was rebuked in terms that suggested, in I think absurd
(though predictable and often-heard) terms, that all cultural generali-
zations are ipso facto invalid, which is nonsense -- and was also met 
with the above-alluded-to post that insinuated that since you can't
generally say that "all" blacks, blondes, or men are something or
other, therefore you can't, again, generalize about -- well, ethnic
groups, genders, or, I guess, anyone else.  That's also nonsense.
(Recommended reading in this regard:  Steven Pinker's book The Blank 
Slate:  The Modern Denial of Human Nature.)

Getting back to cultural/musical generalization:  It's a truism with respect 
to much of American folk and popular music that it is "a mixture of European 
and African traditions" -- the European being primarily a melody-rich 
component, 
the African primarily a rhythm-rich one.

Here are more thoughts from the same quoted writer:

"The Irish vocal tradition is really one of free form....the most important
thing about it is the irregularity, and the completely unexpected time
values.  [Paragraphs omitted for space] Compared to Irish free form, 
German folklore tends to be geometrically proportioned....An interesting
thing is, though, that in both countries (as in most European countries)
there is a tendency for whatever rhythm the song has to be carried by
the melody.  When the melody stops, the rhythm stops.  When the melody
is picked up again, the rhythm picks up again.

How about Africa?  There, it seems that any song can be danced to....
Even in straight narrative singing, love songs, or lullabies, a steady tempo
is usually maintained....we can ... appreciate the considerable achievement
of American folk singers, who, through the generations, have taken the
straightforward warmth of German folk songs, added some of the wild subtlety
of Celtic vocalizing, and underlaid it all with the rocking African pulse."

Folks who find these (quoted) statements too partaking of "stereotypes" or who 
think they "appear" racist or whatever are invited to contact their author.

-- (who is not) Robert Cohen

Author of the quoted remarks above:  Pete Seeger


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