Chemjo Vinaver has won the high respect of American critics and audiences alike for his devotion to the highest standards of musicianship as displayed in the performances of the Vinaver Chorus, of which he is organizer and conductor. His choral group has been heard in conceits of Jewish and other choral music in New York and nationally during the last two seasons. He was born in Warsaw in 1900, studied in Berlin, and has conducted choral music in Germany—where he was choirmaster of the Berlin Jewish community for ten years—Palestine, and throughout Europe. Mr. Vinaver is the composer of The Seventh Day, a Sabbath eve service, and is now at work on a Sabbath morning service.

_____________

 

One of the interesting effects of the creation of the State of Israel has been the sudden and frantic search for a “re-orientation” and a “new program” for Jewish life in America. So far, however, the quest for the Holy Grail of a “positive Jewish life” has produced nothing more than programmatic truisms whose only merit is that they at least publicly recognize the need of intensified cultural activity. High on the agenda—and there by universal acclaim—is musical creativity.

COMMENTARY, at least, has been taking the problem seriously, as we can see from two of the articles that appeared in its pages in the past year: Kurt List’s review of “A Year of Jewish Music” (February 1949) and Peter Gradenwitz’s comments on “Israeli Music in America” (July 1949). Both contributions deserve to be read and discussed with careful attention, and by no means solely because of their bearing upon Jewish music. Indeed, their chief significance lies precisely in the fact that, through a serious consideration of Jewish music, the whole pattern of Jewish cultural life in America is laid bare. Consciously, or otherwise, these articles vouchsafe us relevant insights into the sociological and cultural framework of American Jewry.

Dr. Gradenwitz’s reaction, as a newcomer to our shores, is one of shock; Dr. List is considerably more matter-of-fact. One might venture to say, however, that had Dr. Gradenwitz stayed here longer his sense of shock would have dwindled to one of modest chagrin.

_____________

 

Dr. List’s is the first report on Jewish musical life that I know of which does not mince words and is not afraid to tell the sad truth. Certainly, it needed singular courage on his part to speak out in so forthright a fashion—and at a time when most reviewers mouth asinine praise of the trash being served up to the Jewish public in concert halls and synagogues.

It is a strange but characteristic development of American Jewish cultural life that the longer such mediocre concerts as Dr. List describes go on being given, the more they deteriorate—both in program and performance. The apparatus of acclamation having been organized in advance and the audience guaranteed by pre-arrangement, nothing remains to halt the process of degeneration. If a trace of music can still be heard in the first year of such “festivals,” in their fifth not even an echo will remain.

As Dr. Gradenwitz indicated, the case is very similar with respect to Israeli music in this country. There seems to be a peculiar fatality by which we get only the cheapest music from Israel, though that is one place, at least, where some worthwhile music can still be found. And now the astounding choice of “experts” recently despatched to Israel by various organizations promises to enrich us with still another inferior crop of “Israeli” music.

Cheap cultural products have a way of proliferating, as though on a yeast base. If the caliber of artistic creation does not improve steadily, it begins immediately to degenerate. There is no compromise. Under the circumstances, the only honest thing that the critic of Jewish music can do today is denounce the incompetence of the organizers of the many “festivals” and expose their work for what it truly is. Such a task of enlightenment is an essential preliminary to further progress.

Nor will we be saved by the many conferences constantly being held “to raise the standards of Jewish music.” One gains not the slightest impression, from all their speeches and resolutions, of any honest recognition of the true state of affairs. On the contrary, they join in a single hymn of self-congratulation. If conferences were really able to achieve results, what a renaissance of culture we Jews in America would be enjoying!

We are confronted here with nothing more—or less—than the presence of vested interests, a phenomenon significantly characteristic of American Jewish life in general. Therefore why not on the musical scene too—among the organizers of festivals, the conveners of conferences, the “musical businessmen”? Is it not asking too much to expect self-analysis and self-criticism from such people? They have every right to refuse to testify, on the ground that to do so would be self-incriminating.

_____________

 

Dr. List paid me the compliment of devoting a part of his report to my concert work with the Vinaver Chorus and to my views on synagogue music. I feel it incumbent upon myself, while acknowledging his praise, to deal with the criticism he addresses to me. This will serve as an additional basis for discussion and clarification.

The burden of Dr. List’s criticism is that the concert programs of the Vinaver Chorus do not present enough contemporary Jewish music—works by such men as Schoenberg, Paul Dessau, Erich Itor Kahn, and Herbert Fromm. I am quite familiar with the works of these composers, and I am an admirer of some of them, notably Schoenberg.

But as regards synagogue music, I must confess to being a conservative. Notwithstanding the current outcry against traditional music—which is expressed in such empty clichés as “God understands every musical language, not merely the lowly’ nusach jargon”—I remain convinced that our liturgical music must be based, for the time being at least, on traditional sources such as the tropes and modes of the synagogue. The composer may create whatever his free imagination dictates, provided he is qualified to do so, but he must draw, consciously or unconsciously, from tradition. As long as the “sources” are not within him he will have to go to them.

To pose the question “traditionalism versus modernism” is premature. The time may come for both. But as things stand at present, “traditionalism” will have to be reinstated—even in our synagogues. For the music heard in most of our synagogues is not traditional synagogue music at all, but a spurious species. It will take time until these salamander-like “compositions” and “arrangements” are ejected and the old prayer modes again granted their rightful place. But only then will we be able to undertake the kind of experimentation based on tradition that I myself advocate. Meanwhile the truly talented Jewish composer can find enough material in our “sources” for a lifetime’s creativity.

Yet this does not resolve the question of experimentation with contemporary music in concert programs. There the problem is essentially different and has to be explained in terms of the entire cultural situation. The point is, simply, that a serious Jewish artist in this country does not enjoy absolute freedom in choosing his programs. He is forced by the current situation to exercise caution in programming experimental, contemporary, or unfamiliar music.

One reason for these restrictions should be fairly obvious. After decades of abuse the taste of Jewish music audiences has sunk to a low, maudlin level, and they are, by and large, utterly unprepared for modern music in sizable doses. They would reject it uncomprehendingly were it thrust upon them suddenly. First they must be educated away from Second Avenue.

Dr. Gradenwitz saw this as soon as he arrived in the United States. The “musical businessmen,” as he calls them, are strongly entrenched. They form part of the vested communal interests that have a stake in the status quo. High standards in Jewish music, whether it is Israeli or American, are simply not good business. The seductive dollars beckon, the call of prestige is sounded, and the majority of musicians find it too difficult to repress the “evil impulse.”

But the artist is deprived of freedom not only by a public taste that has been corrupted by the Kitsch foisted upon it by business-musicians. What encouragement does he get from those in positions of influence and leadership? To what extent do they facilitate his efforts to establish what has been acclaimed in America as the highest type of Jewish music? One wonders what Dr. Gradenwitz thinks of the following artistic credo that was issued by a certain “headquarters for Jewish music”: “. . . if the latest “hit parade’ tune is an indication of American mass musical taste, perhaps strictures against taste in Jewish music need not be so harsh. . . . If Jewish masses prefer certain songs of a rather low musical caliber. . . . it is because the songs are familiar and warm and elicit an immediate emotional response. . . .” This statement was issued by an influential organization one of whose stated objectives is “to help elevate the standards of Jewish music in content and performance.” Dr. List was undoubtedly shocked when he read the statement, as I hope was Dr. Gradenwitz too, especially since his name is listed as a contributing editor to the publication from which it is quoted.

Dr. List writes elsewhere in his article that “Jewish music is an ideal and a cause on which many patrons are willing to spend a great deal of money, and make real sacrifices regardless of the eventual results.” This is probably so, but let us be realistic. These “patrons” take their cue from the self-proclaimed experts and leaders of whose views the above quotation is a typical expression.

We are presented with a vicious circle from which the artist can escape only with the greatest of difficulty. Why, when it comes down to it, should we blame the Jewish “masses” for creating the circle? Indeed they are the least culpable ones, for experience has shown that they do respond to good music whenever it is presented to them. The public can be taught to appreciate and prefer solid works and, ultimately, even experimental music. The public may have pre-conceived notions, but at least it has no vested interests, power, or prestige to defend. Communal leadership has hitherto determined standards on the basis, substantially, of ignorance, indifference, or sheer expediency. It is clear that what is called for urgently is a revolution in the practice of this leadership.

_____________

 

But even if we are committed seriously to higher standards, we must be careful to avoid arbitrary judgments and mistakes of understanding in our approach to modern as well as traditional Jewish music. For example: Dr. Gradenwitz resents the criticism voiced by a prominent New York writer and composer, to the effect that Palestinian composers are following German-radicalist tendencies. I quite agree that this is a hasty and perhaps mistaken judgment of the efforts being made by Israeli composers to create something new; it is clear that some serious attempts have been made, and there is ground for optimism regarding the future. Nevertheless, the criticism should not be dismissed too lightly. It is much too easy these days to fall into an opposite fallacy—that of worshiping modern music uncritically. Obviously, we cannot work with the assumption that music is good simply because it is modem. And the New York critic was correct insofar as he perceived that there are some Israeli composers who are unable to lift themselves out of the school in which they were trained.

Dr. Gradenwitz’s attitude to Hasidic music did not shock me, I must confess. It is true that a certain sector of German Jewry has always scorned Hasidic and other East European Jewish music, just as it derided the Hasidic tales—that is, before Martin Buber made them fashionable. This kind of Jew, even in Israel, is still ashamed of the East European cultural heritage, accepting preferably only that part of the Jewish tradition which stems from the Biblical epoch, at the very latest, and refusing to identify himself with the “ghetto mentality.” Such a Jew is eager to show that the Hasidic nigun has been influenced by Slavic melodies, after which he will be able to dispose of it quickly as “ghetto music.” But these arguments are essentially irrelevant. No one will deny Slavic influences on Hasidic song, or that poor Hasidic music exists. But there is still a veritable treasure to be found in the authentic melodies of the Jewish mystics, particularly in the early and fervently religious nigunim, and in those of the Habad branch of Hasidism. One can only wish that more young Israeli composers were deeply rooted in these traditional sources.

If Dr. Gradenwitz believes that Israeli composers can create worthwhile music only by “disregarding” their heritage, he is greatly mistaken. I fear, however, that his lack of long familiarity with the subject-matter plays a great role in his attitude. Only unfamiliarity could lead one to such superficial judgments regarding Hasidic music. I admit that it is extremely difficult to know Hasidic music unless it has been imbibed from one’s earliest years on. Not only Dr. Gradenwitz, but many others, who have persuaded themselves of their knowledge of this music, do not even begin to understand it The maudlin and falsely sentimental renderings of the Hasidic nigun that are most commonly encountered jar me as much as they do Dr. Gradenwitz. It is far from easy to notate Hasidic nigunim correctly, and even less easy to interpret them authoritatively. Yet Dr. Gradenwitz’s lack of knowledge in these matters is excusable because, even today, most Hasidic music available in published scores or recordings is corrupted, and most of what is authentic has not yet been made accessible.

_____________

 

Jewish culture of the Diaspora period is an integral and organic part of the Jewish people and its entire cultural expression. It cannot be amputated from the life and consciousness of the people without inflicting a serious cultural loss. Instead of encouraging our young composers to “disregard” their heritage, one would do better to heed the advice of Goethe: “Was du ererbt von deinen Vaetern hast, erwirb es, um es zu besitzen (What you have inherited from your ancestors, earn—so that you may possess it).” If our “liberated” young composers are seeking “ancient Hebraic” music, they will find elements of Biblical cantillation—the oldest remnant of our musical heritage—still preserved in our liturgical music. Knowledge of this music, as well as of the Yiddish folksong and the Hasidic melody, will not deter the Israeli genius from “tilling a soil completely his own,” as Dr. Gradenwitz urges. To absorb a cultural tradition by no means requires slavish adherence to it, nor does it necessarily imply limitation. Selection is the word—not rejection.

_____________

 

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link