Softball with Steven I. Weiss
I promised myself I wouldn't turn this into yet another blog about Matisyahu, but I've been having some interesting debate with the Canonist. Here he makes trash of Rosen's article, and here I step in. Care to eavesdrop?
Labels: music
Posted @ 12:08 PM
|
March 15th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Picked out from the haze surrounding Rosen’s head is the argument that Matisyahu’s tapping into a long-standing and valuable Jewish tradition of blackface. I don’t think it’s worth getting into why blackface isn’t/wasn’t a good thing, and how it’s certainly not part of a continuous Jewish tradition that is still influencing Jewish art today; even if the conditions of both were favorable to Rosen’s argument, in what world would Matisyahu have been influenced by it?
First of all, blackface is not synonymous with minstrelsy. Matisyahu does not engage in stereotyping or mockery; his form of blackface is genuine imitation and entirely appropriate for a genre-crossing musician. And as un-PC as it may sound, blackface has in fact been a large influencing force in shaping American Jewish music. I wrote about this recently on my blog (March 2: “Jewish Blackface”) and I believe it’s a big part of who Matisyahu has become. His music is less appreciable without this historical perspective.
Which world do you think Matisyahu inhabits that he could possibly come into his own as a musician without exposure to previous Jewish musicians who engaged in black art? His style is indeed unique, but it’s not a spontaneous outgrowth that is completely original. Much of his musical influences are Jewish musicians who were heavily influenced, if less overtly, by black music. That makes Matisyahu a non-novelty and leaves him to be judged on the merit of his music alone (which I think would do him some good, but others may disagree).
March 15th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
I’m Haaretz — Of course Matisyahu doesn’t engage in stereotyping or mockery; that’s part of why Rosen’s comparison is so poor and offensive.
I don’t know which “Jewish musicians who engaged in black art” you think he’s influenced by, but a Phish-head-cum-Rasta-lover is a type of which there are a great many thousands, and for which Matisyahu required no Jewish influence to become.
I don’t know who these “Jewish musicians” you think were his influences are, but I highly doubt he was significantly influenced by anyone mentioned in your post.
Your post adds nothing of value to the discussion.
March 15th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Matisyahu’s signature sound is something that comes from a musical education that he got before he put any value whatsoever on his Jewishness. So speaking of those influences is a moot point.
However, once he entered the musical scene in the role of a hasidic reggae star, he then assumed the larger role of ‘Jewish musician in a primarily black genre’. People like to make much of it, more than is worthy; he is not the first Jew, and certainly not the first white man to succeed in musically crossing racial and religious boundaries. And like you said, he’s just one of many dead-heads in dreds (which explains the built in audience).
The names in my post and in Rosen’s article are not influences, but rather predecessors. They paved the way for a Matisyahu to appear; they made his position available. Treating him as an independent and entirely original concept overlooks the tradition that he has consciously become a part of. I don’t see any purpose in disregarding his position in the Jewish musical trajectory and the history behind him.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:42 am
I’m Haaretz - So because some Jews were some of the non-blacks who partook in some of the playing of some black-originated music, Matisyahu, who has essentially no relation to any of them, is now part of their tradition? That doesn’t make much sense. If he or his audience were involving those elements in the discussion, there might be a point to what you’re talking about.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:40 am
So because some Jews were some of the non-blacks who partook in some of the playing of some black-originated music, Matisyahu, who has essentially no relation to any of them, is now part of their tradition?
Do you have to reduce ad absurdum? Isn’t there a valid point to discussing context? Matisyahu doesn’t have to come out and say “I am influenced by…” in order to be circumstantially related. He is part of a tradition, and his actions and music must be judged accordingly. This is a new brand of an already existent fusion. If your only concern is how many albums he’ll sell in the next few weeks then it’s unimportant, but if you’re interested in what’s “good/bad for the Jews” then broader questions need to be asked.
If he or his audience were involving those elements in the discussion, there might be a point to what you’re talking about.
Matisyahu and his audience are confronted with these questions everyday; the media can’t get enough of playing up the race factor and exoticizing his religion, i.e. “could a white, hasidic, jewish guy actually perform reggae?”. So yeah, it *is* relevant. I’m not simplifying this so I can say that Matisyahu is just another Al Jolson or Beastie Boy–I have no reason to. But what could possibly be your reason for completely rejecting this context and musical history (besides an obvious dislike for Jody Rosen’s ideas)?
March 16th, 2006 at 9:00 am
I’m Haaretz - But your context is no context. He’s not part of a tradition as you state. If he’s part of any tradition of fusion, it’s of a jam-band tradition that incorporates various influences including reggae, like Sublime, or that involves more hip-hop in the genre, like 311. There’s nothing about your post or Rosen’s article that connects Matisyhau to the “tradition” you’re claiming other than the most superficial elements of who he is and the art he’s making. As to a discussion of “good/bad for the Jews”: firstly, that’s almost always asked and answered in the most stupid fashion, and as such is almost universally irrelevant; secondly, the world of art today doesn’t involve such questions in the way you and Rosen seek to ask them — and the two of you aren’t asking it in the same way, though both of you ask them in ways that are completely apart from reasonable Jewish or artistic concerns.
Re: being “confronted with these questions everyday,” that’s patently false. The question of race has only become one in two essays of recent vintage: Sanneh’s and Rosen’s, and both were wrong-headed. The novelty of Matisyahu is not his whiteness (because Gentleman is white) and it’s not his Jewishness (because Sean Paul is Jewish); his novelty stems from his being an Orthodox Jew and Hasid, which are groups that are quite specifically not expected — by the broader population if not within their sects — to incorporate outside cultural elements such as reggae into their lives; and when they become performers for the public on top of that, it’s a very specific cultural curiosity. It’s why Gawker makes a big deal of David Lavon, and why Gothamist posts video of rapping at a Tu B’shvat seder.
My reason for completely rejecting this context and musical history in the context of Matisyahu is that it’s irrelevant, and that making it relevant seems quite naturally to lead to arguments like Rosen’s.
March 16th, 2006 at 11:57 am
The connections I made are obviously based on circumstantial aspects of Matisyahu rather than anything essential to the music. Rosen’s piece tries to write off Matisyahu based on these connections; I to the contrary say historical perspective can only enrich the experience. Being Orthodox adds to his intrigue, not just because of his observance, but because it is an open and extreme display of Jewishness. So my model still applies.
And just to make things clear- I only used the abominable phrase, “good/bad for the Jews” because you asked the question in your Forward article (which btw egregiously mislabels Matisyahu as a rapper?!). I personally think that making value judgments on reality is inconsequential and totally unproductive. He’s going to do what’s good for him, and rightfully so; but just the same, we can try and fit him into our cultural landscape.
All in all, I realize that people are more inclined to side with you. I once ran my ideas by Matisyahu’s (former) manager and he basically said–somewhat extraneous but interesting to note. Believe it or not, that was the answer I wanted to hear: even though it’s not an overwhelming consideration, it is something that should be said.
(BTW, if Sean Paul is Jewish, then so is Jerry Garcia. It isn’t so clear and he definitely doesn’t carry it with him, so it hardly counts.)