Matisyahu, the latest musical media-darling, has been written about too many times to list. The numerous reviews and interviews follow a pattern; they rarely focus on the music itself--the stress is most often on his intriguing image as a ‘hasidic reggae star’, or nice Jewish boy who thinks he can make it in a primarily black genre. Obviously the journalists’ instincts will lead them to emphasize the most compelling and unusual aspects of the subject at hand, but their lack of historical perspective on both Jewish musicians and their role in the popularization of black music is misleading.
Jews have long been the face of black music in America. Before there was reggae, there was jazz, and from ragtime composers Irvin Berlin, and George Gershwin to bandleaders Paul Whiteman, Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw, and Harry James, the jazz stage has long featured Jewish artists. In fact, these bandleaders played a prominent role in the amicable presentation of ‘black music’, as jazz was known in its early days, to a mostly white American audience. Benny Goodman was the very first to lead an inter-racial bandstand. Stan Getz, Herbie Mann, Herb Alpert brought Brazilian rhythms and Salsa to the musical culture of the early 1900’s. Because of their precarious social status as whites yet still minorities, these Jewish musicians were the perfect conduit to bring music of an otherwise ‘objectionable’ nature to a mainstream audience. Coming from a clean-cut white Jew, black music did not seem as offensive. Jazz was undeniably born of African-American soul and has its roots in African and Latin traditions; however, it was transfused to the American public in many ways through Jewish composers and bandleaders.
In 1920 Henry Ford published an essay titled “Jewish Jazz Becomes Our National Music,” where he first maligns jazz with a memorable description,
“the moron music which they habitually hum and sing and shout day and night… musical slush… monkey talk, jungle squeals, grunts and squeaks and gasps suggestive of calf love… camouflaged by a few feverish notes and admitted in homes where the thing itself, unaided by scanned music, would be stamped out in horror.” (my high school teachers used similar words for all non-jewish music)
He then comes to the predictable conclusion that since jazz is responsible for all that is malevolent and immoral in society, the Jews were entirely responsible for it. Ford’s repugnant opinions rarely coincided with reality, but as illustration, they do give an idea of the impressive Jewish presence in the jazz world.
In later years, many more Jewish musicians rose to the forefront of the grenre and were stylistically indistinguishably from their African American or white counterparts. Some prominent Jewish names in bebop and cool jazz: trumpeter Red Rodney and Shorty Rogers, and tenor saxophonist Al Cohn. With the wane of anti-Semitism and jazz having become not only acceptable but high-brow, these men concerned themselves with the contemporary jazz scene, not their Jewishness. However, it can’t be diminished that going on stage in early the 20th century with the name Benny Goodman alone was as overtly Jewish as Matisyahu’s modern day Yiddish crying, tzitzith flying antics.
The 1927 film The Jazz Singer provides a strange example of a Jewish musician’s struggle to straddle the Jewish and pop worlds, and the conflict of assimilating into a genre dominated by African-Americans. It portrays a rabbi’s son who wears blackface to sing jazz on Broadway. The dramatic conflict is very straightforward: the young singer finally lands a starring role in a show, alas opening night is on Yom Kippur eve. In true Hollywood style, the plot resolution comes fairly easy for the struggling Jew and the first show is pushed off so he can sing Kol Nidrei for his father. But the real legacy of the movie is the image of a Jew wearing blackface to succeed in show business.
This notion of Jews imitating black culture is very loaded. Michael Rogin wrote a book on this phenomenon, “Blackface, White Noise.” He says that the practice was a way to assimilate into white America. Early 20th century nativist sentiment placed Jews on the ‘other’ side of the racial divide. According to Rogin, wearing blackface was an attempt by Jews to separate themselves from the subjugated and discriminated against groups (mostly Blacks, although Catholics and Irish were also prime targets of nativism). In short, Jews imitated African-Americans to accentuate their whiteness. On the surface, it made some sense—both groups share a history of persecution, subjugation, and dislocation. Much of the same rhetoric is repeated today, i.e. Matisyahu’s Judaism is no imposter to Rastafarian culture because both cultures share mystical roots, etc… But today’s audience needs no explanation for cross-cultural and interracial creative expression. In fact, the boundaries are so far broken down that it is difficult for an artist to maintain any distinctive markers or preserve their cultural influence.
At the moment, Matisyahu’s career is perched on the divide between individuality and mainstream appeal. The journalists covering him are as eager to see him succeed as they are to see him fail in the most public way—either would provide fodder for their work. Which way he goes, more black or more Jewish, might very well be the defining move. If he knew he was standing in a long line of Jewish musicians who were faced with a very similar struggle, perhaps the decision would not be so hard. If the media would know that his struggle is not as exceptional or impossible to overcome as they portray, then perhaps the results of his decision would be less damaging and his longevity would finally be considered seriously.
Labels: music
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.)