 |
 This month's Letters to the Editor all happen to be in response to letters that ran in our last issue—proving that Juilliard Journal readers are an articulate and outspoken lot. Four readers weighed in on the complicated matter of attending organ recitals in churches, while another was moved to respond to criticism of President Joseph W. Polisi's account in the September issue of the Wolf Prize ceremony in Tel Aviv. The resulting tight squeeze necessitated trimming a few of the letters for length, but all are accounted for—and we are pleased that our readers take the time to let us know what's on their minds.—The Editor
The naïve though arrogant letter submitted by Thomas Suarez and Nancy Elan in the December/January issue, attacking President Polisi for his support of Israel and his polite criticism of Daniel Barenboim, cannot go unnoticed.Dr. Polisi deserves praise for his comments regarding the controversy surrounding the Wolf Prize ceremony in Tel Aviv (The Juilliard Journal, September 2004). He revealed warmth, depth, and humanity, especially for remembering his mother and her Jewish heritage. He was courageous to speak of Israel fighting for its survival and to criticize Barenboim's inability to graciously receive a prominent Israeli award without voicing anti-Israeli remarks. In fact, Israel has been very good to Barenboim throughout his career. It was in Israel that he made his conducting debut.Mr. Suarez and Ms. Elan think Mr. Barenboim is heroic by showing his humanity with his political statements. Sorry, but I don't see any heroic profile in Daniel Barenboim's history. He has known comfort and extraordinary success from a young age. Thus, he has never struggled materially as a musician, nor has he suffered as a Jew.What is troubling is his failure to see both sides of the issue. A poor student of history, he fails to confront the bitter realities of the Middle East and goes after "safe" issues such as condemning Israel's policies, knowing that no death squad will be sent after him. But the real test of courage would be for Barenboim to live among the Palestinians and condemn their policies of violence, corruption, and injustice. On this, he remains silent—as he does on issues affecting Jewish life: the beheading of a Jewish journalist; Holocaust deniers; violence against Jews in France; and suicide bombings of civilians, including children, to name a few.To compare Daniel Barenboim to Arturo Toscanini is a great insult to the memory of one of the towering giants in the world of music. Toscanini risked his life when he refused to conduct the Fascist anthem in Italy, when Mussolini was in power. What has Barenboim risked? He goes after a democracy that has done more than its share of trying to achieve peaceful co-existence with offers of early partition, generous peace deals, land concessions, prisoner exchanges, cultural accommodations, health services, and acceptance of a two-state solution, only to be rewarded with violence.Incidentally, Toscanini conducted the inaugural concert of the Palestine Symphony Orchestra, which eventually became the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra. He had nothing but praise and sympathy for the musicians. Clearly, Barenboim is no Toscanini and Toscanini was no fool.Shame on you, Mr. Suarez and Ms. Elan, for allowing yourselves to be duped by the Goebbels-like propaganda that would have you believe that Israel is always wrong, and that its enemies are just wonderful.Thank you, Dr. Polisi, for all that you do for Juilliard and your continued faith in Israel—a democracy that continues to give us Nobel Prize winners, progress, and some of the finest musicians, dancers, and artists that any country would be proud of. Though Israel struggles for survival, the country has direction and purpose, and its people are very much in love with life. Sadly, it is the Palestinians, immersed in a culture of death and fratricide due to their failed leadership, who have been led into an abyss. Nevertheless, there are many of us who look forward to the day when Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side, in peace.
Rose Ann Roth (B.S. '60, piano)
Rensselaer, N.Y.
James Keller's highly emotional letter to the editor in response to Daniel Sullivan's interview with Michael Barone (November 2004) brings more heat than light to the issue of attendance at organ concerts. It is obvious to me that his deeply held positions on controversial social issues have compromised his ability to objectively appreciate the wealth of transcendent beauty found in many churches. That the noble pipe organ has found centuries-long shelter and purpose in its duties in such venues should not be taken lightly. Many forms of pure art—including architecture, paintings, tapestries, stained glass, sculpture, wood carving, and wrought metal—similarly have been employed by churches seeking to bring a tiny piece of heaven to earth. Shall these also be boycotted by people too intolerant to accommodate the points of views of others?Mr. Keller appears to want to stifle the church's ability, if not duty, to take moral stands on the very issues about which he feels so strongly, and this is unfortunate indeed. But to vent his wrath on the organ and the sincerely dedicated musicians who labor mightily to raise our hearts and souls heavenward through their efforts seems over the top and, in my opinion, at least, indicative of a mindset that cannot accept differences in the thoughts and feelings of others.
Joseph F. Dzeda
Assoc. Curator of Organs, Yale University
New Haven, Conn. In a letter in the December/January Juilliard Journal, not only did James Keller make the naïve assumption that there is a large coalition of concertgoers who share his narrow-minded point of view, but he also made an unfounded case that "most churches" have assumed ultraconservative agendas. This is simply ridiculous.Is Mr. Keller acquainted with the average American organist or church musician and his/her political and social views? Would Mr. Keller make a trip to Europe, refusing to tour the great cathedrals because of what he assumes they stand for? Does a building represent a social point of view, or do the people who work and worship there represent this? I think Mr. Keller would find that most organ enthusiasts will travel almost anywhere to hear great organ music in a great space. What a loss that a bad experience involving a "make-believe cemetery of headstones" has so affected his psyche that Mr. Keller can no longer attend organ recitals in church settings.
Andrew Scanlon
Assistant Organist and Choirmaster, St. Paul's Cathedral
Buffalo, NY
James Keller writes: "To many of us, walking through the portals of certain churches feels like a transgression of our ethics" because of the "shrill postures that many churches" adopt…. It seems that Mr. Keller would have churches be temples of beauty—and temples to beauty alone. Truth, he seems to say, ought to have no place in religion, at least not when it might be so bold as to make any actual demands of its practitioners. But a religion stripped of teachings is akin to an organ played with every stop pushed in: grand in appearance, futile in effect.All artists create works for the sake of beauty; the religious artist also creates so as to mirror the beauty of a higher order. Mr. Keller is certainly free to reject revelation and theological first principles, as he is free to reject the notion that goodness can derive from them. But I wonder whether he would be willing to reject all beautiful things inspired by or in service of such a higher order? By the logic of his letter, the committed secularist must stamp out the roots of religion, not merely its shoots. He would have an obligation to eschew the works of Bach and Messiaen as Mr. Keller eschews certain churches.Such a posture, to be consistent, does not allow religious art to be accepted on its own terms. Can beauty frame meaning? It seems Mr. Keller will not stay long enough to find out.
David J. Hughes
Organist and Choirmaster, St. Catharine's Church
Pelham, N.Y.
Regarding James Keller's objection to come to church to appreciate music on account of many churches' political incorrectness, I would like to remind Mr. Keller that those views change over time and with the passing of people. The last 20 centuries saw many changes in people's attitudes and behaviors as believers struggle to apply their understanding of the Scriptures, whose words have not changed. Similarly, our country's 200-year-old constitution has been quite constant, though the democratic process has allowed leaders of different political stripes to take turns interpreting its content and meaning. Mr. Keller, I hope it doesn't mean that, if you disagree with the current government policies, you would leave this country, just as you would stay away from the church. In reality, there must be quite a number of churches with views and attitudes you find comfortable. Mr. Keller, do you pay income tax to the I.R.S. regardless of the outcome of a presidential election? I certainly do. And I also continue to give to my church, even when I do not agree with everything our church leaders subscribe to. Sometimes I do designate my gift to a special cause, which has always been honored by our church. In your case of wanting to be certain that only the organist gets the money you contribute, you can simply write a check payable to the artist…Thank goodness that there are real pipe organ aficionados out there who have views unlike Mr. Keller's. New organs are being built across the country, including the magnificent one at Disney Hall in Los Angeles. Well, Mr. Keller, there is one venue that you can attend that will spare you the embarrassment of moral and ethical conflict.
Sutton Chen, M.D.
La Jolla, Calif. James Keller responds: If you wave a red flag you should expect some bull to come charging your way. My respondents have the right to present and defend their passions, but they are dishonest to do so in a way that misrepresents my letter and my beliefs. I made no suggestion of boycotting, and the statement that I no longer attend organ recitals in churches is both false and absurd; in fact, I have been to a couple of church concerts in the past months, both of which were welcoming experiences. I have no interest in stifling ecclesiastical stances so long as they respect civil rights, and I assuredly did not vent my wrath on organists, for whom I expressed sympathy for the compromised position in which some occasionally find themselves. The catalyst for my comment, which responded to a question raised in an interview published in The Juilliard Journal, was not "the church" in general but rather two specific incidents that I found so objectionable that I chose not to involve myself further in the proceedings. If Disney Hall were to dishonor itself with a lobby display like the ones I described, I probably wouldn't attend a recital there, either.I am glad that The Juilliard Journal has allowed this matter to be raised. It's an important one for Juilliard students to consider, since they are entering a world that poses many ethical challenges of this sort, and artists who find themselves compelled to become actively engaged in such issues should be realistically prepared for the sort of response that may await them.
|
