Klarinet Archive - Posting 000531.txt from 1995/05

From: David Gilman <dagilman@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: KLEZMER
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 06:41:14 -0400

>David Gilman describes an incident that occurred in The Clarinet having
>to do with an author's slighting of Feidman. Forgive me David, it has
>been a long time since I read that article, but the fuss was not about
>Feidman's playing. It had to do with a letter that he wrote in response
>to the original article and the author's reaction to the letter. That
>caused the fuss.
>
>In effect, the article was careful and scholarly and spoke of the early
>forms of Klezmer playing and what it was all about. I thought it was
>an excellent article, but that is only an opinion.
>
>Feidman wrote a letter to the editor that was, also in my opinion, a lot
>of ca-ca. He made statements such as "Klezmer is a concept!" And he
>wandered around dropping little bits of nonsense like that.
>
>The author of the article then responded in the next issue and said that
>Feidman was full of baloney. I happened to agree with the author. There
>was nothing said about Feidman's playing, just his arguments about what
>Klezmer was and, in my opinion, they bordered on the absurd.
>
>It was the author's dump on Feidman's rediculous description of what
>Klezmer was that caused the brouhaha, not any remark about Feidman's
>playing.
>
>
>====================================
>Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
>(leeson@-----.edu)
>====================================
>

Dan,
Yes, the semantics of the word "Klezmer" were a part of the debate.
I also found that quibbling rather petty. But, there was another component,
perhaps more inflammatory. This was that Mr Feidman was not mentioned *at
all* in the original article. After several somewhat angry letters to the
editor [many from people we would all recognize], the author replied that
because Mr. Feidman's contributions to the genre were not original [in his
estimation], they were not worth including in the article. The author said
nothing one way or the other about the level of Mr.Feidman's skill or
interpretation as a player. It has been a long time for me as well, but as
far as I can recall, this is what made the proverbial caca [sp?] hit the
fan. This angry banter dragged on over several issues, and I was very glad
when it finally ended.

BTW, Feidman was not the only one who split hairs over the
definition of the word "Klezmer." Several other respondants did the same
thing.

He's a great player. What more do we need to know? Oy gevelt,
enough already!

David Gilman