Rare 'Retha

[John L]

re: gospel hip-hop, it's a not nearly as interesting or weird as it should be

(deeply unhappy) I expect you're right about that. One of the problems Gospel has for us for us left wing Jewish atheists is all the conventional stuff that comes with it. (Some days, I just ARGUE back to sermons )

MG

See, as a left-wing Jewish atheist, I think I like Gospel a lot better than I would if I were religious. As it stands right now, I have more invested in practically ANYTHING ELSE than I do in the actual "message" of a Gospel song. I listen to it, I understand the words, but they have about as much meaning to me as if they were sung in pig-latin. I laugh so hard when I hear relgious types saying that "if only atheists heard our message, they would convert." I hear it everyday. Often, several times in the same day (just got finished listening to disc four (the sacred songs) of the "Anthology of American Folk Music", as a matter of fact). It doesn't make a difference in my belief system. I've probably heard about how Jesus sacrificed himself for me more than most Christians do (if they only attend church on Sunday), and I STILL don't give a flying fuck. I just like how the music SOUNDS. As suppose that's just as bad as people who tell Alan Moore (the great comic book writer) that they just read comics to look at the pictures, but there it is.

Well, I do agree to some extent, though I was really moaning about how conventional much of the message content is, compared to the almost anarchic views that appear to be what Christ's supposed activities indicate. But, to me, the commitment of the singers and musicians to this message is a most important element, so I can't really ignore it.

MG

Agreed. The spiritual content of the music is often very important. But it is possible to feel that content without having to channel it through any specific religion (IMO).

[Alexander]

re: gospel hip-hop, it's a not nearly as interesting or weird as it should be

(deeply unhappy) I expect you're right about that. One of the problems Gospel has for us for us left wing Jewish atheists is all the conventional stuff that comes with it. (Some days, I just ARGUE back to sermons )

MG

See, as a left-wing Jewish atheist, I think I like Gospel a lot better than I would if I were religious. As it stands right now, I have more invested in practically ANYTHING ELSE than I do in the actual "message" of a Gospel song. I listen to it, I understand the words, but they have about as much meaning to me as if they were sung in pig-latin. I laugh so hard when I hear relgious types saying that "if only atheists heard our message, they would convert." I hear it everyday. Often, several times in the same day (just got finished listening to disc four (the sacred songs) of the "Anthology of American Folk Music", as a matter of fact). It doesn't make a difference in my belief system. I've probably heard about how Jesus sacrificed himself for me more than most Christians do (if they only attend church on Sunday), and I STILL don't give a flying fuck. I just like how the music SOUNDS. As suppose that's just as bad as people who tell Alan Moore (the great comic book writer) that they just read comics to look at the pictures, but there it is.

Well, I do agree to some extent, though I was really moaning about how conventional much of the message content is, compared to the almost anarchic views that appear to be what Christ's supposed activities indicate. But, to me, the commitment of the singers and musicians to this message is a most important element, so I can't really ignore it.

MG

Oh, I don't ignore it. I hear it. I understand perfectly what they are singing and what it means to them, I just don't CARE. For me, a great Gospel singer could be singing the phone book and it would covey exactly the same amount of meaning. Again, I'm not ignoring the message, but the message itself simply has no meaning. It's like if they were singing praises to Hitler or Bin Laden. If the music were good, I'm sure I could listen something like that.

[JSngry]

Well, ya' know, just because Music Is Universal doesn't mean that every part of every music is.

I mean, I can be moved to tears by a really good bolero, but if it's one that uses the portion of the Spanish language which I don't understand (which is most of the boleros & most of the language), then all I'm really "getting" is a general, which is all I really need to know for me in my place and my space, but it really doesn't meant that I really appreciate, understand or "get" the song, the idiom, or the people involved therein. I have what Ellington refered to a "tourist point of view".

So yeah, I've got no doubt that you don't have to be a "believer" to feel Gospel, and even feel it deeply. But even if its at the depth of a believer in one faith recognizing a kindred spirit in a believer in another, there's going to be a level of specificity of understanding missing that needs to be admitted to & understood/accepted lest one become convinced that one understands more than one really does.

And I say this as a white male who freely admits that no matter how immersed I have been in African-American music and culture over my lifetime, that there will be some things about life as an African-American (and therefore African-American music) that I will never be able to fully understand. Never. And I'm ok with that, because it's the truth.

What that has to do with this though is - as much as I, a believer (albeit a "non-traditional" one) feel the power of a good African-American Gospel performance from a spiritual, musical, and social standpoint, there is no way that I am ever going to understand it the way that the meek little African-American lady who rides the bus to work every day and who never makes a sound outside of her house but OPENS HER SOUL ALL THE WAY UP when she hears Inez or Aretha or Shirley or whoever. You might think that that's a cliche, & no doubt it is, but believe me, it's even moreso a reality.

As much as that music is for "everybody", so much more is it for people such as that lady. Failure to recognize this and deal with it accordingly is ultimately just more of the same ol' same ol' Clueless Colonialistic Caucasian Condescencion.

Edited November 28, 2007 by JSngry

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Well said. (As ever.)

MG

[AllenLowe]

Alexander - I think you are missing the ppoint about gospel - and Jim, too, maybe - the reason it works so well even for those of us who are atheists is that it speaks to a level of spiritual consciousness that is quite universal - a sense of the unknown, of certain eternal mysteries, if I may, of both rational and irrational fear of death - of various forms of hell and evil and anger that ANYONE can perceive and understand - so I really do think that I get it as well as that little black lady on the bus. Just as I get Joyce and Sheakesepare and Bird and Prez and Moses Hess and Marx and Karl Rove and Murray Chotiner and Chewy and Bud Powell and Lennie Tristano and Irwin Fluoxotine -

Edited November 29, 2007 by AllenLowe

[Tom Storer]

Failure to recognize this and deal with it accordingly is ultimately just more of the same ol' same ol' Clueless Colonialistic Caucasian Condescencion.

OK, you're saying if music is from your native culture, so to speak, there are layers of meaning for you that are inaccessible to others. I can recognize that. But how am I supposed to "deal with it", accordingly or otherwise? I don't know what you mean by that.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Failure to recognize this and deal with it accordingly is ultimately just more of the same ol' same ol' Clueless Colonialistic Caucasian Condescencion.

OK, you're saying if music is from your native culture, so to speak, there are layers of meaning for you that are inaccessible to others. I can recognize that. But how am I supposed to "deal with it", accordingly or otherwise? I don't know what you mean by that.

I think you have to deal with it by recognising that the only way you CAN deal with it is through yourself, and remaining yourself, not trying to be something you aren't. The self-recognition that can occur in music is not necessarily that of recognising yourself in something foreign (though since we're all human, there IS that, of course) but also recognising one's own difference. So I know my response to Gospel music is mediated by my own opinions and background but I don't have any other tools for the job.

Some things can only be as good as they can be.

MG

[AllenLowe]

yes, but it's also mediated by certain aspects of human consciousness that are quite universal - I am you and you are he and we are they and all that other shit -

I am, indeed, the walrus -

[Aggie87]

I am, indeed, the walrus -

After all these years, the real truth finally comes out!

[JSngry]

And I say this as a white male who freely admits that no matter how immersed I have been in African-American music and culture over my lifetime, that there will be some things about life as an African-American (and therefore African-American music) that I will never be able to fully understand.

well, how many gospel groups, soloists etc give a damn about Coltrane Expressions or Ghostface Killa, "Dicty Glide" or RZA; Skip James, Pha Terrell or Pimp C (tho' Skip went to some wackass bible college in Texas); etc etc.

Ya'll ever go into black record stores when they're were a lot more of 'em? You see what they had, & what the few still around today do? The cultural memory of Don Robey (say) does not exist, forget Bessie Smith & forget even Stetsasonic.

so if yr talking music... you might already know more than most.

Ah, but I'm not.

[JSngry]

Alexander - I think you are missing the ppoint about gospel - and Jim, too, maybe - the reason it works so well even for those of us who are atheists is that it speaks to a level of spiritual consciousness that is quite universal - a sense of the unknown, of certain eternal mysteries, if I may, of both rational and irrational fear of death - of various forms of hell and evil and anger that ANYONE can perceive and understand - so I really do think that I get it as well as that little black lady on the bus. Just as I get Joyce and Sheakesepare and Bird and Prez and Moses Hess and Marx and Karl Rove and Murray Chotiner and Chewy and Bud Powell and Lennie Tristano and Irwin Fluoxotine -

Yeah, but you don't get it the way she gets it, and if you think that's insignificant at some level, especially at the level of how/why that music gets made, then my money would be on you being wrong.

[JSngry]

Failure to recognize this and deal with it accordingly is ultimately just more of the same ol' same ol' Clueless Colonialistic Caucasian Condescencion.

OK, you're saying if music is from your native culture, so to speak, there are layers of meaning for you that are inaccessible to others. I can recognize that. But how am I supposed to "deal with it", accordingly or otherwise? I don't know what you mean by that.

Just admit it. Nothing more than that.

You'd be surprised (or not) at how may can't/won't.

But the only way to say that "it doesn't matter" and have it be true is by first recognizing that it does matter.

Different levels/steps of awareness as to what "is" is....

[JSngry]

well that's a given...

It is in our world, but you know there's a whole 'nother world full of people who just LOVE all music and think that Robert Cray is BLUES & that Lightening Hopkins is BLUES and that George Thoroughgood is BLUES and by god, the love BLUES doncha' know, and it's all good to them, just because. And it ain't just BLUES, far from it.

Like T. M. Goldberg more or less said, the object is not to see yourself everywhere you go. Most assuredly not.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

there's a whole 'nother world full of people who just LOVE all music and think that Robert Cray is BLUES & that Lightening Hopkins is BLUES and that George Thoroughgood is BLUES

Whereas, of course, Ganda Fadiga is BLUES

MG

[AllenLowe]

"Yeah, but you don't get it the way she gets it, and if you think that's insignificant at some level, especially at the level of how/why that music gets made, then my money would be on you being wrong. "

well, I'm not sure- I think anyone is capable of getting it, though many THINK they get it but actually don't (listen, eg, to some of Frisell's "roots" playing - great guitar player but, no matter what his publicists say, it ain't happening) -

of course, some would say that I think I get it, but that I don't really - and I would have to break into tongues and throw myself on the floor and fake a religious seizure -

but seriously, getting it takes many different forms - and I do think I get it from a musical standpoint (funny how this comes up as I am preparing some performance pieces based on 1920s congregational black gospel) -

but I think the feelings involved are universally attainable - whic is NOT to say, like some Miss America contestant, that we must truly realize tha everybody is one, be they black or white or purple or green - or even Republican -

still, while not denigrating certain types of cultural osmosis - I do believe it can be done - and I do BELIEVE

I do BELIEVE -

I DO BELIEVE

(hey, what the hell happened to my crutches and wheel chair?)

[John L]

We all come to various types of musics from different backgrounds and with different baggage.

Jim's point seems to be that there can be some very social-specific baggage that can only be acquired by an outsider as a sort of second language that will always be less than native. That makes sense to me. That is as true for flamenco, for example, as it is for gospel.

Yet other kinds of background and knowledge can provide understanding and appreciation as well. Take poetry as an example. Who understands Pushkin better? A native Russian speaker who lives in Russia today, loves reading Puskhin, but has never made a serious study of poetry or the historical period of Pushkin. Or a foreigner who lacks a native command of Russian language and culture, but has spent time studying poetry, Pushkin's work, and Russian history?

There is no general correct answer to that question. The former may understand and feel Pushkin better in some cases, but not in others. Of course, they do perceive Pushkin differently, and that is important.

Edited November 29, 2007 by John L

[Harold_Z]

...or to put it another way - someone's appreciation of ANY type of music is HIGHLY subjective. About as subjective as subjective can be.

That's for listening. As far as PLAYING...you better have your credentials to play a specific genre with people who are expert in that genre, or you won't be playing with them twice.

[Alexander]

& furthermore, for the Pee Wee King "Slow Poke"s-- edc knows very right & righteous got-damn well what "I Love You Because" is, & is not, so expound away... ACTUALLY-- & this was not my intention-- there might be a more musical relatin' 'tween Elvis & Aretha & that before shared some of the same settings in the late '60s.

Beale Street speaks, motherfucker.

Black Moses?

no, edc.

Ok, what the fuck is he blathering on about now?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

You're all right - Harold, John L, Allen, Jim, Clem, and even me. And yet...

A great deal of what is new and exciting in music nowadays is coming about because people of different cultural backgrounds are bringing those backgrounds together in a way that defies "authenticity". Or if it's authentic anything it's authentically "western melting pot" (and that's an signal that a lot of this is crap, too - but then, a lot of almost everything has been crap). I'm not talking about Arts Council jobs here (which ARE crap), but about stuff that seems to be arising naturally through the general interaction of musicians, singers and paying (and dancing) audiences.

So, there are exceptions.

MG

[JSngry]

You're all right - Harold, John L, Allen, Jim, Clem, and even me. And yet...

A great deal of what is new and exciting in music nowadays is coming about because people of different cultural backgrounds are bringing those backgrounds together in a way that defies "authenticity". Or if it's authentic anything it's authentically "western melting pot" (and that's an signal that a lot of this is crap, too - but then, a lot of almost everything has been crap). I'm not talking about Arts Council jobs here (which ARE crap), but about stuff that seems to be arising naturally through the general interaction of musicians, singers and paying (and dancing) audiences.

So, there are exceptions.

MG

I hear ya', and my only comment on that would be that the only (or best, anyway) for my money to "come together" & defy authenticity is to bring one full(est) reality into full(est) contact with another full(est) reality, let everybody be who they are, let all the frictions work, and see what happens before, during, and after.

The reason all those, as you call them "Arts Council jobs" are almost always crap is that "fusion" is being sought by rounding off all the rough edges, as if to prove that A)"We"'re not such evil beasts & B)"They" aren't such scary mysterious creatures after all, so let's all come together and CELEBRATE LIFE, all the while overlooking the very real possibilities that, yeah, maybe you do have some evil sickness in your psyche and, yeah, maybe you would get a grin on your face if we all of a sudden had to suffer your wrath in the form of your wildest revenge fantasies. Celebrrate THIS, bitch...

I'm of the opinion that it takes a not-encouraged-by-normal-societal-standards-of-identity combination of strong, total pride in one's self and strong, total humility about one's self to make this "it doesn't matter" thing work in a way that's not an exercise in identity masturbation. Because, again, the only way you can truly get that it doesn't is to first get that it really, really does.

It's kinda like, once you know where all the furniture and shit is, you can run through a dark room all you want and never stumble. The presence of light no longer matters. But until you know the layout of that room really, really well, you best to be keeping at least a little light on, because there will be some little something that will trip you up, probably even something you didn't realize was there until it found you...

[JSngry]

I mean, who was it, Malcolm, Elijah Muhammed, somebody, who said that the goal of the Nationalist movement was to nurture a people who were fully confident and capable to be who they are on their own terms in order to be able to interact with the rest of the world on equal terms...that to me makes primal sense.

Me myself, I'm adopted, so at one point in my life "identity" became a matter of some importance to me. Not in the form of learning who my "birth parents" were, I mean, BFD, I was adopted at 4 days old or some shit, so other than geneteics/medical history, ya' know, it was like, what difference is it gonna make now?

No, it was identity in the sense of what kind of a person am I, apart from all the family/cultural history/baggage I was thrown into quite apart from and without consideration of destiny of birth. So I got to checking shit out and found out that there's a lot of "me" that has absolutely nothing to do with "family", some pretty ffundamental stuff. But there's also some stuff that has everything to do with the family environment in which I was raised for all bith those first 4 or so days of my life, and I eventually realized that there could be no "running away" from that. Not that my family was fucked up or anything, I mean, I love 'em all proundly and deeply. But we do "come from different places" on a lot of key things, and to "get past" all that, I finally had to stop trying to run away from that which there was no escape, acknowledge it, love it even, and then "add on" rather than "replace".

There's a lot of things in this world that I feel deeply and that have meaning to me that transcend rationality. But not all of them are "mine" in the sense that they come from my world and were meant specifically for me. They are "mine" in the sense that they have a meaning apart from their specific origins, but they also have meaning precisely because of those origins as well, and it would be the height of egocentric, hubristic meglomania to pretend that all that matters is that I get it. The world is not mine to "have", the world is mine to be a part of, and that means receiving gifts with graciousness, gratitude, and humility and not thinking that it was mine all along, hey, thanks for bringing it to my attention, you can still have it, but so can I, so hey, see ya' later, I gotta get to the bank (literal or metaphorical).

It also means that what I have received from others of themself, I should probably consider reciprocating with from myself, and that does not mean giving somebody back what is already theirs. Doing that reduces their gift to a mere appliance of convenience.

I'm just suspicious of people saying that they "get" things at a deeper level than they probably do. You know that when your Old Uncle Bubba says he LOVES that Jazz and claps his hands on 1 & 3 and all that shit that he's right as far as he goes, but that he doesn't go nearly as far in reality as he probably thinks he does in his mind. Well, that's a syndrome, and like all syndromes, there's varying degrees of it ranging from full-blown to nearly latent. But even in its most benign state, it nevertheless exists.

That's all I'm saying.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I mean, who was it, Malcolm, Elijah Muhammed, somebody, who said that the goal of the Nationalist movement was to nurture a people who were fully confident and capable to be who they are on their own terms in order to be able to interact with the rest of the world on equal terms...that to me makes primal sense.

Sound ideal, but I don't think anyone in the world has managed it since the dawn of "civilisation". (And perhaps not even before then.)

MG

[AllenLowe]

still can't find that damn brace -

[Tom Storer]

Who understands Pushkin better? A native Russian speaker who lives in Russia today, loves reading Puskhin, but has never made a serious study of poetry or the historical period of Pushkin. Or a foreigner who lacks a native command of Russian language and culture, but has spent time studying poetry, Pushkin's work, and Russian history?

There is no general correct answer to that question. The former may understand and feel Pushkin better in some cases, but not in others. Of course, they do perceive Pushkin differently, and that is important.

Great post, John.

[alocispepraluger102]

Who understands Pushkin better? A native Russian speaker who lives in Russia today, loves reading Puskhin, but has never made a serious study of poetry or the historical period of Pushkin. Or a foreigner who lacks a native command of Russian language and culture, but has spent time studying poetry, Pushkin's work, and Russian history?

There is no general correct answer to that question. The former may understand and feel Pushkin better in some cases, but not in others. Of course, they do perceive Pushkin differently, and that is important.

Great post, John.

i second the motion.