 |
The dependably impressive Juilliard Journal includes in its November 2004 issue an interview ("Extolling the King of Instruments," by Daniel Sullivan) with Michael Barone, who champions organ music through his radio program Pipedreams. While I applaud Mr. Barone's missionary zeal vis-à-vis an instrument that I love but that has endemic problems attracting a mainstream concert audience, I am miffed by his bafflement over, as he puts it, "why the church association should be viewed as a stigma" and "the prejudice some people have about entering a church to attend a concert, and the fact that they feel uncomfortable doing so." The interview was obviously conducted prior to November 2, but even so …Just in case Mr. Barone was naïvely sincere when he made those comments, and not just temporarily transported from the realm of reason by Messiaen or Widor, allow me to state the obvious: The discomfort extends beyond the un-ergonomic design of pews. Entering such an establishment has increasingly become a moral statement due to the shrill postures that many churches individually, and most churches on a corporate level, have assumed concerning social issues. To many of us, walking through the portals of certain churches feels like a transgression of our ethics. Fortunately, this was not always the case: I myself derived most of my early exposure to serious music making through organ recitals held in churches. I admit that a few years have passed since then, but I honestly do not recall having had to negotiate a make-believe cemetery of headstones commemorating the ostensible victims of abortion on my way to a recital of Bach chorale preludes, or having walked past bulletin boards decrying the terrifying "homosexual agenda" before I could listen to Mendelssohn sonatas. These are not hypothetical examples; they are specifically the reasons I found myself unwilling to attend two organ recitals I was looking forward to hearing in recent months. Perhaps all of the ticket income was going to the organists—but what if it wasn't? What if some percentage of the 20 bucks I was supposed to plunk down was going to support these causes with which I disagree to the depths of my soul? I couldn't risk it, and in both cases I turned back at the door. "What an opportunity for a non-churchgoer!" effuses Mr. Barone, noting that churches are "beautifully decorated." I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder, and my heart goes out to the organists who find their concert careers compromised by the political postures of the establishments to which they are harnessed.
James M. Keller
Santa Fe, N.M.
James M. Keller, the program annotator of the New York Philharmonic and the San Francisco Symphony, has on several occasions contributed articles to The Juilliard Journal.
President Joseph Polisi, in his article "At Wolf Prize Ceremony, Politics Mixed With Arts Sets Off Sparks" (The Juilliard Journal, September 2004), criticizes Daniel Barenboim for making political remarks at his acceptance of the Wolf Prize at the Knesset in Israel. Surely Dr. Polisi knew of the political views with which Mr. Barenboim has long been identified. But more importantly, Dr. Polisi invokes the "lessons of Israel," which is "fighting for its life," yet considers it "political" for Mr. Barenboim to cite the Palestinians, who are fighting for their very lives. We were students at Juilliard during the Vietnam War, when four students were murdered at Kent State in May 1970; the protests by so many of us at Juilliard then—students and faculty alike—were not merely "political"; indeed, to express our outrage was the only conscionable response as human beings.Dr. Polisi's remarks withstand scrutiny no better from the Israeli side than from the Palestinian. His protest is predicated on the presumption that Ariel Sharon and the status quo are good for Israel's soul and security. But that is a political premise, and in the opinion of many people, Jews and non-Jews alike, an insupportable one. Were he to attend the same ceremony, with the same regard for Israel, but believing that it is Mr. Sharon and his kind who are endangering the welfare of the nation, then he would have seen Mr. Barenboim as the pro-Israel hero of the evening, and those who claimed he was anti-Israel as being the ones with a political agenda. Was Toscanini being "political" when he refused to conduct for Hitler? "Political" and "principled" are two sides of the same looking glass.Certainly President Polisi must see that Daniel Barenboim, whose humanity can scarcely be separated from his music, was asked into an inherently political situation. For him to have ignored the elephant in the room would have been an abdication of his principles, and would have benefited only the politicians who are dragging Israel into an abyss. Like the parent of a drug addict who lets his child die rather than criticize her, this would have been at the expense of Israel itself.
Thomas Suarez (’71, violin)
Hartsdale, N.Y.
Nancy Elan (M.M. ’74, violin)
London, England
|
