| Black Orchestras Part 7 |
| Monday, 04 June 2007 | |
|
(Black Orchestras Part 7) The Philharmonic Society of New York City, which was organized in 1876, had a junior division in which youth with musical tastes were rigorously tested before being admitted to the senior section that appeared in public performances. P.H. Loveridge conducted the society of twenty members, that included Walter F. Craig, first violinist… (Cuney-Hare 1930:209). One should note that both the New Orleans group and the New York City group had the same requirements and included at least two of the same members, Loveridge and Craig. How long the ensembles, New Orleans and New York City, lasted is unknown. First African-American musicologist James Monroe Trotter writes in Music and Some Highly Musical People (1881) about the Negro Philharmonic Society as if it were his contemporary. “The music practiced is instrumental, and all of a high order” (304). He later comments that the orchestra existed “before the late war” (351). Therefore, we may infer that the orchestra expired before or during the Civil War. From the present evidence, one may infer that the New Orleans group disbanded sometime around the Civil War. This dispersal, propagated by the war, allowed New Orleans performers to reconvene in the North. The relocated orchestra, now New York-based, continued performing into the 20th century. It may be argued that the moniker given to the group described the racial make-up of the ensemble, a label which we might liken to the current “Black music” which really is a style of music (or I could argue all American music). While many texts of the time omit the ‘Negro’ from the orchestra’s name, many later texts include it. [See Trotter (1881) for example of exclusion; Kmen (1966) and Southern (1977) for inclusion.] New Orleans archivist Lester Sullivan claims that the name change (from Philharmonic Society to Negro Philharmonic Society) occurred in the 1930s to distinguish the orchestra with Black performers from those with White performers (although the NPS does not entirely fit into the aesthetic of racially segregated groups because it was interracial at times). Sullivan confirms the idea that ‘Negro’ was a late addition: The orchestra was not racially segregated, as a number of White musicians, at least Europeans if not also Creoles, played in it, and the Louisiana free Creoles of color who made up most of its membership, being French speakers, would never have called themselves Negro… Charles Roussève, himself of Louisiana colored Creole descent, appears to have been the first to use the term in the 1930’s to describe the orchestra. More importantly, it was the first non-theatrical orchestra in New Orleans, this despite the group’s playing in a theater, the Théatre de la Renaissance, in Marigny, one of the two oldest Creole faubourgs, or suburbs, in New Orleans. In other words, this Society consisted mostly of free Black musicians of Creole descent who got together with a few White friends to play absolute, rather than theatrical, music at a time when no one else was doing that in theater-mad antebellum New Orleans (Gathered from Lester Sullivan through personal email correspondence on February 23, 2006). As Sullivan claims, the moniker, Negro, may have signified the fact that the ensemble employed mostly people of color. Was the label used to segregate and stigmatize, or was it used to distinguish? Since ‘Blackness’ had yet to present itself in any state other than its alterity, can we assume that those uncomfortable with integration may have wanted to distinguish the (mostly) Black orchestra from the other groups of the time? When analyzing 19th century Black musicians, we must take into consideration the exoticism seen even in today’s Black American classical musician. At a time when Blacks were bereft of basic civil rights, the sight of Black concert instrumentalists may have stirred more than curiosity within the casual observer. It is conceivable that the musicians were treated as anomalies and celebrated because of their “unique” (read: new to the public… and by public I mean Whites) musical abilities in the style of classique? I’d like to think that, coupled with their public reception, these musicians used music and their new-found fame in the media as vehicles to elevate the status of their community. That is, Black musicians used their public accolades as sociopolitical and socioeconomic leverage rather than for merely aesthetic notoriety. I mean, sure we all want to be known as some great something (as dictated by our passion), but those who knew that fame was/is fleeting would realize that they are part of a greater whole. When you’re Black, what one does reflects on us all. On the Negro Philharmonic Society, Trotter explains: “it is entirely unnecessary for the writer to say a word in praise of this enterprise, for its present and prospective good results will be readily perceived by all; not need he, it is hoped, for the same reason, urge upon the young men of other cities the great importance of organizing similar societies” (1881:304). This sentiment is repeated many years later by Malcolm X who argued: “It’s time now for our people to become conscious of the importance of controlling the economy of our community. If we own the stores, if we operate the businesses, if we try and establish some industry in our own community, then we’re developing to the position where we are creating employment for our own kind” (1965:39). X was referring to having a nation of Blacks within the American Nation. He believed that controlling one’s economy was in line with controlling oneself and one’s destiny. To relate his goals with the present discussion, the orchestral personnel who recruited others from their own community may have wanted economic empowerment. They may have attempted to achieve such success for themselves and their community through music. How true do YOU think that is?
Stay tuned for next week's Hot Topic! when we address the issue of integration. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|