| Black Orchestras Part 6 |
| Sunday, 27 May 2007 | |
|
Today, jazz is referred to as “American jazz,” a more racially harmonious (albeit nationalistic) title. But to me (and countless others), the style will always fall under the academic rubric of “Black music” since it (arguably) originated from people of color. But you know, this debate re: who “owns” jazz, i.e. American music, is tricky in my rational mind, especially as a classical musician of color. It’s like this: even if I see an all-White group playing their own originally-composed tune, some straight ahead jazz or whatever, I will still think that they studied the great Black originators, are good at imitation and are doing well at performing Black music. I will give them credit for internalizing our product and using it to find a way to express their perceived (or wanted) identity. (Aside: I say “wanted” because I wonder how innate or how much of a choice it is to be a White jazz musician. To quote a friend who paraphrased something Bobby Broom may have said—so you KNOW it’s quality—: "It's pretty hip to be a jazz musician at the moment. It's pretty hip to be black too. But if you're a black jazz musician, well then you're f---ed." Expletive tempered.) I also ask this because I often question my own choice to be a classical musician knowing the discrimination that comes along with the territory. (If you haven’t noticed, MHS is kinda my therapeutic blog…) Are we really making decisions or is this just something that we cannot deny? I know, I know. Everything is a decision. And yet, sometimes, it feels like I couldn’t exist without it, that my identity is so wrapped up in it… The point is of this major digression is that I won’t let them own it. I won’t give White jazz musicians full credit for their craft. Why is that? Is it anything in particular that I hear in the music that makes it less authentic? Not necessarily. I mean, how can you racialize a sound?? And so here it is, dear readers: I am publicly exposing myself in an effort to better understand how I can be such a hypocrite for always arguing that classical musicians of color who play music composed by people of color shouldn’t be mislabeled as playing White music since nothing about the LOOK of it is White. And arguably, the sound of some is quite different as the music is infused with a Black perspective, dictated by the environment of the composer. But the problem is a matter of origins... *sigh* I’m obviously at odds with my thoughts over this. And so are many in today’s society who cannot understand the historical significance of Black Americans in classical music perhaps due to the reification of stereotypes and the racialization of music or to innate knee-jerk reactions like my above admission. Blame prejudiced America! I was preconditioned to believe my preconceived notions with conviction. W.E.B. Du Bois conceded that: “the economic foundation of the modern world was based on the recognition and preservation of so-called racial distinctions” (1940:103). His point is realized in (and here begins the REAL topic of this week’s Hot Topic!) the moniker ‘The Negro Philharmonic Society,’ which was the first non-theatrical orchestra to perform in New Orleans in the 1840s. The ensemble may have even lasted until the Civil War. Personal communication (February 22, 2006) with Wayne Everard, Archivist for the New Orleans City Archives, noted that pinpointing the theatre’s precise location is difficult today. He locates the Theatre de la Renaissance at “present day Elysian Fields Ave. and Dauphine St.” However, he concedes, “An architectural history study of that part of town has nothing on the Theatre.” (If anyone is taking a trip out there anytime soon, let me know!) Unfortunately, if it’s undocumented, it doesn’t really exist. Or at least that’s the common thought amongst people who need concrete evidence of things. So, boy was I glad that the first African-American music historian and journalist, James Monroe Trotter (1842-1892), wrote: Before the late war, the city had an association of colored men called the “Philharmonic Society.” Several liberal-minded native and foreign gentlemen of the other race were always glad to come and play with the “Philharmonics” overtures and other music of a classical character. The society is divided into two classes, called the one junior, and the other senior. The juniors are the newer and less skilful members: these are required to take lessons of a competent teacher, and are not allowed to play with the senior class until they attain to a certain degree of proficiency. At public performances, of course, only the seniors represent the society (304). According to Trotter, the Negro Philharmonic Society was “a scholarly body of musicians, with whom the very best artists of any race might well be proud to associate” (Trotter 1881:351). This to me sounds like… well, like the Soulful Symphony personnel for example. About 97% of the musicians hold at least ONE degree in music from a conservatory or other prestigious institution of higher education while over half also possess or are earning advanced degrees. So, in the scholastic capacity, not much has changed. But as concerns the association? I can’t really say for sure whether or not musicians from any race want to associate with the Soulful Symphony. There are always people who think they are above another… But I digress yet again. As concerns the Negro Philharmonic Society, the ensemble was acknowledged within the Black community, and soon grew from a few players to over one hundred members. It was also well-respected by those outside of the classical arts community. Scholarly texts often emphasize the number of members in the Negro Philharmonic Society. (See Southern (1997:133), Kmen (1966:234), and Handy (1995:489) for the number of personnel. In contrast, Trotter (1881) lists the ensemble as populated in the twenties just two years after their inception: “At present the society numbers about twenty members, all young men of intelligence and moral character; and it has an excellent library of music, and a fund in bank.” It is my assumption that this high number of musicians may be a misinterpretation of the fact that there were two “Philharmonic Societies,” one White and one Black – hence the designation of ‘Negro’ in order to distinguish it from the other (Sullivan, 2006; Kmen 1966:235). I mean, as integration from the White into the Black ensemble was seemingly frequent, could it be that the personnel from both orchestras also may have been combined? Perhaps scholars emphasize the size of the orchestra to accentuate the unusually large number of Black classical musicians at the time, or perhaps to emphasize the Negro Philharmonic Society’s ability to attract and retain members. Did the gig pay well? Were the performers just really honored to be part of a group of professional and respected musicians who shared similar experiences and a common identity? Either way you look at it, the exact number of members in the orchestra remains speculative since, as I said, there were a few groups at the time comprised of Black or White members named “Philharmonic Society.” The number of musicians may also have fluctuated due to the White performers that often performed with the Black ensemble when there were an inadequate number of Black musicians to perform. Like, if I had another gig that I booked before the Philharmonic Society asked me to play with them and the only other sub that could do it on short notice was White. One of those things… I mean, that still happens today, so again, no big whoop. But the biggest deal is that there was yet another “Negro Philharmonic Society” in New York City in 1876, almost forty years after the original ensemble in New Orleans. STAY TUNED!!! |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|