What's the PC for ‘Negro spirituals'?
halcombe
relevant (to one degree or another) to current issues. Currently, they
have a piece [1] on (it seems – just started reading!) race and
religion in the US.
A couple of paragraphs (or ‘graphs' or ‘grafs', as the trade seems to
have it) down, I read the following:
‘no explanation was offered for why we should not want to sing what
were then called Negro spirituals.'
We know what we're talking about: ‘We are climbing Jacob's ladder',
for instance, as featured prominently in Ken Burn's Civil War series.
(The piece links another AM piece from 1867 entitled ‘Negro
Spirituals' with extracts from several.)
Why the ‘what were then called'? Mr Google pulls up 16,700 items for
the expression, including, natch, negrospirituals.com. And no PC rants
suggesting some sanitised circumlocution, in the first hundred, at
least.
There is, it seems to me, an absurd fetish about the use of ‘Negro':
it was, so far as I'm aware, the standard, polite description in the
US for those of African descent right up to around 1970, when ‘black'
took over. ‘Negro' is now obsolete, in relation to current affairs.
But ‘black' is equally anachronistic when applied as a (no pun
intended) colourless racial description applied to the period before
1970. As I understand it, ‘black' as applied to Negroes in the 19th
century had an affective meaning of either fear or contempt.
Even in its use in the titles of pre-1970 organisations, there is a
strange tip-toeing around: when, for example, baseball presenters talk
about the Negro Leagues, they usually sound uncomfortable, as if
merely talking about segregated leagues would otherwise be taken as
approval for segregation!
(And there was the infamous 2001 incident when Cruz Bustamante got
tongue-tied over the names of Negro trade unions, and uttered the
dread word ‘nigger' [3].)
As a purely personal matter, for the ‘colourless racial adjective', in
general I use ‘Negro' for the period before 1970, and ‘black' for
anything later. But, in any era, it surely has to be ‘Negro
spirituals'.
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jul/hymn.htm
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/1867jun/spirit.htm
[3] http://www.motherjones.com/reality_check/?F22.html
R F
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, halcombe wrote:
For Reysake, Halcombe, can you please fix your character set thingie?
> The Atlantic Monthly homepage regularly has links to archive articles
> relevant (to one degree or another) to current issues. Currently, they
> have a piece [1] on (it seems – just started reading!) race and
> religion in the US.
>
> A couple of paragraphs (or ‘graphs' or ‘grafs', as the trade seems to
> have it) down,
I remember Joe Manfre (He Shall Post Again) explaining that,
> I read the following:
>
> ‘no explanation was offered for why we should not want to sing what
> were then called Negro spirituals.'
>
> We know what we're talking about: ‘We are climbing Jacob's ladder',
> for instance, as featured prominently in Ken Burn's Civil War series.
> (The piece links another AM piece from 1867 entitled ‘Negro
> Spirituals' with extracts from several.)
>
> Why the ‘what were then called'? Mr Google pulls up 16,700 items for
> the expression, including, natch, negrospirituals.com. And no PC rants
> suggesting some sanitised circumlocution, in the first hundred, at
> least.
My sense is that "Negro spiritual" is still the standard term, despite the
general archaicization of "Negro".
> There is, it seems to me, an absurd fetish about the use of ‘Negro':
> it was, so far as I'm aware, the standard, polite description in the
> US for those of African descent right up to around 1970, when ‘black'
> took over. ‘Negro' is now obsolete, in relation to current affairs.
I'm not a dictionary-possessing man, but does that really qualify as a
'fetish'?
> But ‘black' is equally anachronistic when applied as a (no pun
> intended) colourless racial description applied to the period before
> 1970.
That doesn't sound right to me, but I don't know.
> As a purely personal matter, for the ‘colourless racial adjective', in
> general I use ‘Negro' for the period before 1970, and ‘black' for
> anything later. But, in any era, it surely has to be ‘Negro
> spirituals'.
You're correct about that last one. But I think it's dead silly to use
"Negro" for references before 1970. That's the sort of thing Coop would
do. I think by default one should use the modern term even for premodern
references, within reason. One generally speaks of "black" persons even
prior to 1970, post-1970.
John Dean
> The Atlantic Monthly homepage regularly has links to archive articles
> relevant (to one degree or another) to current issues. Currently, they
> religion in the US.
>
> A couple of paragraphs (or 'graphs' or 'grafs', as the trade seems to
> have it) down, I read the following:
>
> 'no explanation was offered for why we should not want to sing what
> were then called Negro spirituals.'
<snip>
>
>
> As a purely personal matter, for the 'colourless racial adjective', in
> general I use 'Negro' for the period before 1970, and 'black' for
> anything later. But, in any era, it surely has to be 'Negro
> spirituals'.
>
To me the question is reminiscent of the recent thread on 'jewess' - namely,
why would it matter to identify these songs specifically with black people?
I have heard them called 'spirituals' as often as I have heard 'Negro
spiritual' and see no reason why a racial qualifier is necessary. In most
cases, no-one is clear when or where the songs originated, nor is there
evidence that they were any less popular with white audiences and singers
than with black.
Part of the unsavoury baggage of the spiritual is the tendency, once very
marked and still not eradicated, for white people to sing these spirituals
with what they fondly believed to be a 'negro accent'. I have sat through
(circumstances making it impossible for me to make a bolt for the door) a
white choir singing 'Josha fit de battle ob Jericho' in the not too dim and
distant past. Made all the worse (for me) by the laboured enunciation of
every warped syllable.
It all smacks of 'Why, listen, the darkies are singing! How quaint!'
attitudes
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Skitt
> halcombe wrote:
[...]
>> But, in any era, it surely has to be 'Negro
>> spirituals'.
>
> To me the question is reminiscent of the recent thread on 'jewess' -
> namely, why would it matter to identify these songs specifically with
> black people? I have heard them called 'spirituals' as often as I
> have heard 'Negro spiritual' and see no reason why a racial qualifier
> is necessary. In most cases, no-one is clear when or where the songs
> originated, nor is there evidence that they were any less popular
> with white audiences and singers than with black.
To support your statement, at least partially, here's what MWCD10 has for
"spiritual", the noun:
2 : a religious song usually of a deeply emotional character that was
developed especially among blacks in the southern U.S.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
R F
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, John Dean wrote:
> To me the question is reminiscent of the recent thread on 'jewess' - namely,
> why would it matter to identify these songs specifically with black people?
> I have heard them called 'spirituals' as often as I have heard 'Negro
> spiritual' and see no reason why a racial qualifier is necessary. In most
> cases, no-one is clear when or where the songs originated, nor is there
> evidence that they were any less popular with white audiences and singers
> than with black.
I'm no expert on Negro spirituals, but I believe that you are incorrect.
My understanding is that Negro spirituals were distinct from other sorts
of religious music and were of course developed within Southern black
culture specifically. I think "spirituals" is a superset of "Negro
spirituals".
Raymond S. Wise
news:d7fa3848.0310...@posting.google.com...
> The Atlantic Monthly homepage regularly has links to archive articles
> relevant (to one degree or another) to current issues. Currently, they
> religion in the US.
>
> A couple of paragraphs (or 'graphs' or 'grafs', as the trade seems to
> have it) down, I read the following:
>
> 'no explanation was offered for why we should not want to sing what
> were then called Negro spirituals.'
>
> We know what we're talking about: 'We are climbing Jacob's ladder',
> for instance, as featured prominently in Ken Burn's Civil War series.
> (The piece links another AM piece from 1867 entitled 'Negro
> Spirituals' with extracts from several.)
>
> Why the 'what were then called'? Mr Google pulls up 16,700 items for
> the expression, including, natch, negrospirituals.com. And no PC rants
> suggesting some sanitised circumlocution, in the first hundred, at
> least.
Some of those hits might be for the French "negro spiritual" and
"negro-spiritual," borrowed from English, of course. While that appears to
be the standard term, in French, for that form of music, at the same time,
"négro" is an informal (and now pejorative) term for a black person. It's
got to be relatively rare, though, as no French people I have mentioned it
to have been familiar with it and it is not in most French-English
dictionaries. It is, however, in the French-French *Trésor de la Langue
Française Informatisé* at http://atilf.inalf.fr/tlfv3.htm .
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> To me the question is reminiscent of the recent thread on 'jewess' - namely,
> why would it matter to identify these songs specifically with black people?
How come English has jewess but not caucasienne?
Skitt
> John Dean wrote:
>> To me the question is reminiscent of the recent thread on 'jewess' -
>> namely, why would it matter to identify these songs specifically
>> with black people?
>
> How come English has jewess but not caucasienne?
But there is "Parisienne".
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> But there is "Parisienne".
What do you get when you cross a madam with a gazelle?
Tony Cooper
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>To me the question is reminiscent of the recent thread on 'jewess' - namely,
>why would it matter to identify these songs specifically with black people?
>I have heard them called 'spirituals' as often as I have heard 'Negro
>spiritual' and see no reason why a racial qualifier is necessary. In most
>cases, no-one is clear when or where the songs originated, nor is there
>evidence that they were any less popular with white audiences and singers
>than with black.
>
Oh, John, but you are completely off-base here. The Negro spiritual
is a thing unto itself. There is a sound and a sight to it that a
raceless spiritual does not have. White people sing hymns. Black
people sing spirituals. White people can smile when they sing
religious songs. Black people are joyous when they sing spirituals.
The entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir can't do justice to a spiritual
compared to the twelve ladies in the 14th Avenue Church of the Blood
of Jesus (AME) even though the acoustics of the storefront aren't
quite up to par.
Tony Cooper
<illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
> While that appears to
>be the standard term, in French, for that form of music, at the same time,
>"négro" is an informal (and now pejorative) term for a black person.
Is it? Pejorative? Out of date, out of favor, out of style .... but
pejorative? I have heard it used condescendingly, but never in a
pejorative way.
CyberCypher
one day
Condescension is indicative of a feeling of superiority. Using a label
that has been termed offensive is condescending and disparaging as well
as deprecating and belittling. Pejoratives are used to deprecate and
disparage. Therefore, using the term "Negro" in a condescending manner
is using it in a pejorative manner.
This certainly does not apply to Negro spirituals nor to the United
Negro College Fund. But ever since Malcolm X, the word Negro has been a
pejorative for many black activists, and that's been more than 40
years.
Tony Cooper
<huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>The inimitable Tony Cooper <tony_co...@mungedyahoo.com> stated
>one day
>
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:10:39 -0500, "Raymond S. Wise"
>> <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> While that appears to
>>>be the standard term, in French, for that form of music, at the
>>>same time, "négro" is an informal (and now pejorative) term for a
>>>black person.
>>
>> Is it? Pejorative? Out of date, out of favor, out of style ....
>> but pejorative? I have heard it used condescendingly, but never
>> in a pejorative way.
>
>Condescension is indicative of a feeling of superiority. Using a label
>that has been termed offensive is condescending and disparaging as well
>as deprecating and belittling.
That's circular thinking. If the label has not been deemed offensive
- and, to the best of my knowledge, "negro" has not - then it can't be
either of the "d" words. My dictionary lists it as "sometimes
offensive". That's a waffle term when it applies to racial issues
since few of us can keep up with what is, and is not, currently
offensive.
Condescension is not indicative of a feeling of superiority. It is an
indication of an *attempt* to appear superior. One may not feel
superior and still condescend. It is often a matter of style rather
than feeling.
>This certainly does not apply to Negro spirituals nor to the United
>Negro College Fund. But ever since Malcolm X, the word Negro has been a
>pejorative for many black activists, and that's been more than 40
>years.
The reaction of the fringe of any group does not necessarily reflect
the reaction of the larger group. Elijah Muhammad, Louis Farrakhan,
and the Nation of Islam people have been using the term "so-called
negro" for years. They may regard the word "negro" as pejorative,
but that does not make it generally pejorative.
If "negro" is considered a pejorative by the general population of
African Americans, then I'm not aware of it. I think that most would
consider it merely out of style just as "blacks" is entering the out
of style phase in favor of African American.
Charles Stewart
> The Atlantic Monthly homepage regularly has links to archive articles
> relevant (to one degree or another) to current issues. Currently, they
> religion in the US.
>
> ...I read the following:
>
> 'no explanation was offered for why we should not want to sing what
> were then called Negro spirituals.'
>
> We know what we're talking about: 'We are climbing Jacob's ladder',
> for instance, as featured prominently in Ken Burn's Civil War series.
> (The piece links another AM piece from 1867 entitled 'Negro
> Spirituals' with extracts from several.)
>
> Why the 'what were then called'? Mr Google pulls up 16,700 items for
> the expression, including, natch, negrospirituals.com. And no PC rants
> suggesting some sanitised circumlocution, in the first hundred, at
> least.
Probably because few if any folks feel that "Negro spirituals" evokes
negative memories or connotations -- quite the contrary. I suspect the
author, however, knows the adjective is no longer current but either
was unwilling to do the minimal research you did or lacked the
confidence to rely on it.
> There is, it seems to me, an absurd fetish about the use of 'Negro':
> it was, so far as I'm aware, the standard, polite description in the
> US for those of African descent right up to around 1970, when 'black'
> took over. 'Negro' is now obsolete, in relation to current affairs.
"Colored" was more widely used in speech, and Negro in writing by
almost everybody in the continental U.S. I think. But the two words
remained largely interchangeable until both disappeared -- probably
"colored" just a bit sooner. Outside the South, both words became
somewhat sensitive in use between the races during the Civil Rights
Movement, even before the Black Power Movement.
The famous 1963 episode "That's My Boy??" of "The Dick Van Dyke Show"
turned on the fact that his wife Laura (Mary Tyler Moore) could not
bring herself to explain to him why his fears were groundless that
their newborn son had been switched for that of another couple Laura
had met at the hospital: The couple were Negroes (Greg Morris played
the other dad). Dick turns multiple shades of red when he finally
meets them, but the "N"-word remains palpably unspoken as the comedy
of errors is unravelled. Producer Sheldon Leonard had to go to the mat
to get NBC to air it, and its popularity eventually led to the casting
of Bill Cosby as Robert Culp's sidekick in "I Spy". The rest, as they
say...
> But 'black' is equally anachronistic when applied as a (no pun
> intended) colourless racial description applied to the period before
> 1970.
Agreed. Worse, it pointlessly erases all trace of a recent history.
> As I understand it, 'black' as applied to Negroes in the 19th
> century had an affective meaning of either fear or contempt.
And in the 20th in the U.S. until the Black Power Movement sanitized
it in the sixties, although it was sometimes used literarily to benign
effect.
> Even in its use in the titles of pre-1970 organisations, there is a
> strange tip-toeing around: when, for example, baseball presenters talk
> about the Negro Leagues, they usually sound uncomfortable, as if
> merely talking about segregated leagues would otherwise be taken as
> approval for segregation!
Yes, I've heard this and I think it indicates that the television
readers (like many others) are unsure whether Negro (and "colored")
are considered offensive or pejorative because of the swift finality
with which they were dropped from urban usage. My impression is that
they did not acquire a negative connotation for those who lived
through that era -- although they have an "old time" feel. OTOH, I'm
unsure what an African American teenager's impression might be today.
I know from personal experience that black/white biracials' nowadays
reject "mulatto" as tainted, although it carried none when I was a
kid.
> (And there was the infamous 2001 incident when Cruz Bustamante got
> tongue-tied over the names of Negro trade unions, and uttered the
> dread word 'nigger' [3].)
Although much-talked about among African Americans in California in
recent weeks, his explanation that it was no more than a slip of the
tongue was apparently widely believed, since Bustamante received a
higher percentage of the black vote on Tuesday than of the Latino vote
-- and he would have become the state's first Hispanic governor since
it joined the Union had he won.
> As a purely personal matter, for the 'colourless racial adjective', in
> general I use 'Negro' for the period before 1970, and 'black' for
> anything later. But, in any era, it surely has to be 'Negro
> spirituals'.
Agreed. Although I alternate "colored" with "Negro" and "African
American" with "black" in speech and writing.
Charles Stewart
Carmen L. Abruzzi
tony_co...@mungedyahoo.com wrote on 10/10/03 10:33 PM:
Well, Malcolm X repudiated the teachings of the Nation of Islam shortly
before he was murdered, which may indeed be the reason he was murdered.
> They may regard the word "negro" as pejorative,
> but that does not make it generally pejorative.
>
> If "negro" is considered a pejorative by the general population of
> African Americans, then I'm not aware of it. I think that most would
> consider it merely out of style just as "blacks" is entering the out
> of style phase in favor of African American.
>
>
I would say that "black" is becoming limited to describing skin color, while
"African-American" is being used to describe ethnicity. "Negro" has a
clinical air about it, which is what, I think, is the objection to its being
the standard term to refer to African-Americans. When it was the "polite"
term, it still conveyed the message that such persons are not really
"regular" people; you might not want to invite them to the barbecue, not
that you personally would have a problem with their being there, but the
Hansons down the block might not feel comfortable. The switch to "black" was
a sort of "if you need to refer to us differently, at least use an
equivalent term to what you'd call yourself". At the time the concern was
about skin color, so "black" as opposed to "white". But over time, it was
perceived that we were all Americans, and that skin color should not be any
more important than hair or eye color. If we wanted to refer to our
backgrounds, the usual terminology is (country of origin)-American:
Italian-American, Irish-American, Polish-American, thus, equivalently,
"African-American".
mb
...
> How come English has jewess but not caucasienne?
My Mingrelian neighbor, who by the way speaks perfect French, says you
can meet several million caucasiennes for the price of a return
ticket.
Charles Riggs
<tony_co...@mungedyahoo.com> wrote:
>Oh, John, but you are completely off-base here.
This is the only hard evidence I can recall showing that C**per may be
a member of the sweetie-pie set, not that I have any problem with
swishers, but it is interesting to note.
Few men would write or say "Oh, John,...", although this is something
one hears from pansified boys and men often. I'd expect "John, you..."
or "Ah, but John, you..." or "Jesus Christ, John, you are..." or even
"Holy shit, John, you are...", but what we saw just now is quite
remarkable.
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggsŚatŚeircomŚdotŚnet
david56
> Part of the unsavoury baggage of the spiritual is the tendency, once very
> marked and still not eradicated, for white people to sing these spirituals
> with what they fondly believed to be a 'negro accent'. I have sat through
> (circumstances making it impossible for me to make a bolt for the door) a
> white choir singing 'Josha fit de battle ob Jericho' in the not too dim and
> distant past. Made all the worse (for me) by the laboured enunciation of
> every warped syllable.
>
> It all smacks of 'Why, listen, the darkies are singing! How quaint!'
> attitudes
I have a personal difficulty in this area. I am very fond of "Old
Man River" and would like to sing it as a party piece - there aren't
a lot of well-known songs suitable for a low bass. The choruses
present little problem, but the words of the verse would impossible
for me to sing without feeling uncomfortable and possibly offending
the audience. The words have been revised over the years, from
"Niggers all work on the Mississippi" to "Colored Folk work on the
Mississippi" to "Here we all work, on the Mississippi". Knowing the
context, the last seems like a cop-out, but I can hardly sing the
first.
Sadly, I just haven't been able to sing it in public. I probably
never shall; maybe that's as it should be.
--
David
=====
david56
> Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > But there is "Parisienne".
>
> What do you get when you cross a madam with a gazelle?
A gadam?
--
David
=====
Mickwick
>What do you get when you cross a madam with a gazelle?
A jukebok?
A kipspringer?
--
Mickwick
Steve Hayes
There's Georgia.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
mUs1Ka
"Mickwick" <mick...@use.reply.to> wrote in message
news:winpz6MyL$h$Ew...@shropshire.plus.com...
> In alt.usage.english, wrote:
>
> >What do you get when you cross a madam with a gazelle?
>
> A jukebok?
>
> A kipspringer?
>
m.
John Dean
If you're talking about the performance of these things, I still find it
strange to call them 'negro' spirituals. 'Porgy and Bess' doesn't feature
negro opera, even though you mostly hear black people singing it. Louis
Armstrong didn't turn 'Mack the Knife' into a negro pop song. If you favour
a particular race or colour of people to sing a particular kind of music,
good on yer - but that doesn't characterise the music as *theirs*
And if 'Wade in the Water' or 'Swing Low Sweet Chariot' are spirituals, then
they are spirituals whether they're sung by Paul Robeson or Britney Spears.
Like you, I know whose name on the label would give me a frisson of
anticipation.
But my argument is that you should only think of calling them 'negro
spirituals' if you are sure they originated among black people. (And even
then, I'd be cautious). The literature on the subject is abundant. And,
unfortunately, composed of fiercely antagonistic schools of thought. The
oral nature of the tradition has made it difficult to trace origins and
development. There is a 'back to Africa' school which insists the music
traces back to various parts of that Continent. There is a 'Cherchez le
blanc' school which avers that the music came from white church services and
prayer meetings. A splinter group from the latter says it started white, but
black people made it their own. I have some sympathy with that, but still
see that as an issue of performance style. Like the difference (if there is
one) between garage, hiphop and gangsta rap.
As far as the lyrics go, I'm not aware of anyone who has discovered
'spirituals' in languages other than English (except where they have been
translated). Some have found links between spiritual lyrics and the words of
traditional hymns and quasi-hymns. Others insist that the linguistic style
can clearly be shown as influenced by various African languages and
dialects. Of course - there can still be disputes about what is or isn't a
spiritual. 'Michael Row the Boat Ashore' can be traced fairly conclusively
to the Georgian Sea Islands where a group of visitors during the Civil War
made note of it. But many musicologists, including specialists on the
history of spirituals, see its construction as more typical of a sea shanty
or a work song.
Here's a summary of the views of one of my early musical heroes, AL Lloyd:
http://cjtm.icaap.org/content/27/27_gregory.html
<< Few of the "experts" writing about the spirituals had been well-informed
about all three types of music involved, namely African music, the white
religious music of slavery times, and the spirituals themselves. By and
large, the academics had focused on the pentatonic scales and the solo and
response patterns exhibited by some African songs and some spirituals, and
ha then assumed a causal relationship between the two. But this was to beg
the question, since African music was not the only folk music with these
characteristics. Such features were also to be found in the Anglo-Celtic
tradition and were thus the musical heritage of the religious and
anti-institutional pioneer settlers in 18th century colonial American.
Lloyd concluded that spirituals were mainly songs with melodies
characteristic of British rather than African tradition and verse-patterns
and imagery forged in the white-heat of camp-meeting religious enthusiasm.
But in taking the songs over, he admitted, "the negroes re-created them
considerably," above all by infusing them with a direct political meaning:
they became freedom songs. This emphasis on the political content of the
spirituals marked a change in Lloyd's interpretation of the history of black
American folk music. Previously, in Corn on the Cob, he had shown a
preference for black protest songs and blues. Now, however, Jackson had
shown that spirituals were the combined fruit of three elements dear to
Lloyd's heart: the melodies of Anglo-Celtic folk tradition, the vocal style
and rhythms of Afro-American folk music and liberation politics. >>
Tony Cooper
wrote:
You just don't analyze things well enough, Charles. The "Oh, John" is
offset by the "off-base" baseball term which brings in very masculine
crotch-grabbing, public-spitting imagery.
Had you been really in tune with issues like this, you would have
pounced on my compliment on your necktie. Real men don't make fashion
observations about other men unless the other man is wearing a
hand-painted necktie with a hula dancer on it.
However, you were distracted and started preening and thus missed out.
Raymond S. Wise
news:BBACF802.55D3%carmenl...@yahoo.com...
> in article hf3fovg92ek2glj2l...@4ax.com, Tony Cooper at
> tony_co...@mungedyahoo.com wrote on 10/10/03 10:33 PM:
>
> > On 11 Oct 2003 04:48:05 GMT, CyberCypher
> > <huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The inimitable Tony Cooper <tony_co...@mungedyahoo.com> stated
> >> one day
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:10:39 -0500, "Raymond S. Wise"
> >>> <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> While that appears to
> >>>> be the standard term, in French, for that form of music, at the
> >>>> same time, "négro" is an informal (and now pejorative) term for a
> >>>> black person.
> >>>
> >>> Is it? Pejorative? Out of date, out of favor, out of style ....
> >>> but pejorative? I have heard it used condescendingly, but never
> >>> in a pejorative way.
[Reply to Tony Cooper:]
I was talking about the French word "négro," The French-French *Trésor de la
Langue Française Informatisé* at http://atilf.inalf.fr/tlfv3.htm clearly
labels it as such. Translating, "Pejorative. Informal synonym for _nègre._"
Those of you who first took French decades ago, as I did, will recognize
"nègre" as being the French word which then translated to "Negro." It has
since lost acceptability, and is often used to translate the English word
"nigger."
The TLFi has an interesting note on the term "nègre" (which is not simply
labeled "pejorative" as "négro" is): "Note: _Nègre,_ used in speaking of
people has had pejorative connotations and, because of this, has found
itself in competition with "noir" [ = "black" ] which is less marked.
Nowadays _nègre_ seems to be on the way to losing this pejorative character,
probably because of the increase in esteem with which the black cultures of
the world are now seen."
There is also, I see, the term "négro-africain," which is given in the TLFi
as (translating) "Relative to Black Africa and its inhabitants." with no
pejorative sense indicated.
[Reply to CyberCypher and Carmen Abruzzi:]
The usual term is "white," since there has been so much cross-marriage among
the various ethnicities of the European-American population and
"European-American" and "Euro-American" never caught on as ethnic terms.
I heard that the return to favor of "black" came about because the Black
Panthers considered "Negro" to be a euphemism for "black" and that meant to
them that "black" was seen to be in some way unsavory. On the theory that
they should not euphemize things about which they should be proud, "black"
became the preferred term. I personally haven't seen any evidence that
"African-American" is gaining in popularity to the detriment of the term
"black," or that anyone thinks of "black" in terms of actual skin color any
more than they think of "white" in terms of actual skin color.
John Dean
That's the way it goes. I know a lot of Irish songs concerning the ongoing
armed struggle. The pre-20th Century stuff would probably be acceptable in
all but the most diehard Unionist settings - Roddy McCorley, Kelly from
Killane etc. But the more recent stuff won't go at all, even such attempts
at humour as Brannigan's Motor Car or the Old Alarm Clock. I recollect
singing with friends, impromptu, in a Manchester pub (not an Irish pub as
such) in the sixties. There was some muttering in the corners at Kevin Barry
(understandably) but there was much stamping of feet for 'Off to Dublin in
the Green' and suchlike. Tempora & mores, I fear.
You probably know that much of the bowdlerisation of Old Man River was done
by Paul Robeson who refused to sing the original lyrics in the movie, not
just the obvious racial stuff, but more oblique references that he thought
insulting - 'get a little drunk and you land in jail' and 'tired of living
but feared of dying'.
You could always work up a double act and do Freberg's 'Elderly Man River
instead'.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:bm92u4$cfi$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> You could always work up a double act and do Freberg's 'Elderly Man River
> instead'.
>
--
Middle age is when you're sitting at home on a Saturday night and the
telephone rings and you hope that it isn't for you - 'It takes all sorts'
Milton Shulman
Raymond S. Wise
news:bm7ntl$rhe$2...@news1.radix.net...
Because "-ess" words such as "Jewess" and "Negress" are historically nouns
in English while all ethnic or national names except those ending in
"-man/-men" and "-woman/-women" are historically adjectives at base. So to
express the idea of a female Caucasian it is necessary to say "Caucasian
woman."
The following is from a recent post to this newsgroup:
See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vob55vlpmtfg0c%40corp.supernews.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
or
[begin quote from Usenet post, about why there is no word "Gypsyess"]
I think I have the answer to that. Only "-man" (plural, "-men") and "-woman"
(plural, "-women") have been consistently used to form names of
nationalities which distinguish between a male or female member of that
nationality. Most "-man" and "-woman" terms come from nations surrounding
England ("Chinaman" and "Chinawoman" were exceptions). For other nations, a
separate word, "man," or "woman" is used when it is thought necessary:
"Finnish woman," "Hawaiian woman," "Cuban woman."
"Gypsy" was first applied to the Romany (it is unclear if they applied it to
themselves or if others applied it to them) with the meaning of "a person
from Egypt." So, just as we would say "an Egyptian woman" and not *"an
Egyptess," early people who used "Gipsy" for the Romany would speak of "a
Gipsy woman" and not *"a Gipsyess."
[end quote from Usenet post]
david56
> Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:31:27 +0100, "John Dean"
> > <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> To me the question is reminiscent of the recent thread on 'jewess' -
> >> namely, why would it matter to identify these songs specifically
> >> with black people? I have heard them called 'spirituals' as often as
> >> I have heard 'Negro spiritual' and see no reason why a racial
> >> qualifier is necessary. In most cases, no-one is clear when or where
> >> the songs originated, nor is there evidence that they were any less
> >> popular with white audiences and singers than with black.
> >
> > Oh, John, but you are completely off-base here. The Negro spiritual
> > is a thing unto itself. There is a sound and a sight to it that a
> > raceless spiritual does not have. White people sing hymns. Black
> > people sing spirituals. White people can smile when they sing
> > religious songs. Black people are joyous when they sing spirituals.
> >
> > The entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir can't do justice to a spiritual
> > compared to the twelve ladies in the 14th Avenue Church of the Blood
> > of Jesus (AME) even though the acoustics of the storefront aren't
> > quite up to par.
>
> If you're talking about the performance of these things, I still find it
> strange to call them 'negro' spirituals. 'Porgy and Bess' doesn't feature
> negro opera, even though you mostly hear black people singing it.
Porgy and Bess is a special case. Gershwin decreed that the major
roles must be only performed by black actors and singers. It's
possible that this rule has been dropped since it came out of
copyright (if it has come out of copyright - the goalposts keep
moving).
--
David
=====
Tony Cooper
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
We approach the issue from different viewpoints. What you are
expressing is mostly from the technical side. I view the issue from
the emotional side. I don't see a problem with "Negro spiritual"
because if only "spiritual" is used the word "Negro" is an understood
inclusion and mentally received.
Mose Allison is a favorite of mine. I'd been listening to him on
records for years before I saw a picture of him and found that he is
white. He sings black, though. He's the only performer I can think
of offhand that successfully makes that jump. Joan Baez does a very
good "Amazing Grace", but it's only an upper tier white version.
A Negro spiritual, to me, is a more than an aural experience. They
lose something when you just hear them on a record or the radio.
There's a visual aspect that's very much part of the music. I'm very
prejudiced in this area when you consider that a prejudice is a
pre-formed opinion and not necessarily a negative pre-formed opinion.
>But my argument is that you should only think of calling them 'negro
>spirituals' if you are sure they originated among black people. (And even
>then, I'd be cautious).
This doesn't interest me. I don't say that to rudely reject your
point, but that is on the "technical" side and that's not an area of
interest to me. If Isaac Watts wrote a hymn, and that hymn was picked
up by Negro spiritual singers, it is a Negro spiritual in performance.
david56
Indeed.
> You could always work up a double act and do Freberg's 'Elderly Man River
> instead'.
Now that's a wonderful idea. I do have a singing chum - we've
performed the Gendarmes' Duet on occasion (We run them in), but then
we're not French either.
--
David
=====
Tony Cooper
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
> The pre-20th Century stuff would probably be acceptable in
>all but the most diehard Unionist settings - Roddy McCorley, Kelly from
>Killane etc. But the more recent stuff won't go at all, even such attempts
>at humour as Brannigan's Motor Car
You jolted me with this. It's "Johnson's Motor Car". Dr Johnson's
motor car was commandeered by the rebels. The tale does start at
Brannigan's Corner, though.
> or the Old Alarm Clock. I recollect
>singing with friends, impromptu, in a Manchester pub (not an Irish pub as
>such) in the sixties. There was some muttering in the corners at Kevin Barry
>(understandably) but there was much stamping of feet for 'Off to Dublin in
>the Green' and suchlike. Tempora & mores, I fear.
I take in quite a few performances of Irish and other Celtic music.
There are quite a few performers - mostly Irish or British born - that
decline to do rebel songs. American crowds don't understand this.
Often, there will be some jerk in the audience that demands "The Men
Behind the Wire" or some such. There seems to be a cut-off date,
though, and some performers will do the pre-1921 songs but not the
more current ones.
Groups like "Black 47", that deliberately incite, don't get down this
way.
John Dean
Yes yes. Returning to our sheep - is it 'negro opera' as opposed to 'white
folls' opera' or just plain 'opera'?
John Dean
If Jessye Norman sings 'Amazing Grace', does that make it a Negro spiritual?
If Kelly Rowland sings it? Sammy Davis Junior?
John Dean
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:09:49 +0100, "John Dean"
> <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> The pre-20th Century stuff would probably be acceptable in
>> all but the most diehard Unionist settings - Roddy McCorley, Kelly
>> from Killane etc. But the more recent stuff won't go at all, even
>> such attempts at humour as Brannigan's Motor Car
>
> You jolted me with this. It's "Johnson's Motor Car". Dr Johnson's
> motor car was commandeered by the rebels. The tale does start at
> Brannigan's Corner, though.
Yes. Funny how the thing rattled round my brain and crashed into itself as I
typed the words. A kind of jolting car, perhaps.
david56
> david56 wrote:
> > john...@frag.lineone.net spake thus:
> >
> >> If you're talking about the performance of these things, I still
> >> find it strange to call them 'negro' spirituals. 'Porgy and Bess'
> >> doesn't feature negro opera, even though you mostly hear black
> >> people singing it.
> >
> > Porgy and Bess is a special case. Gershwin decreed that the major
> > roles must be only performed by black actors and singers. It's
> > possible that this rule has been dropped since it came out of
> > copyright (if it has come out of copyright - the goalposts keep
> > moving).
>
> Yes yes. Returning to our sheep - is it 'negro opera' as opposed to 'white
> folls' opera' or just plain 'opera'?
It probably is "negro opera", but I'm unlikely to have come up with
this as a phrase. I might say that is "black opera" though.
We don't use the word "negro" much these days except in fixed
phrases, yes, such as "negro spirituals". As "negro opera" is not a
standard phrase, I would be unlikely to utter it because of my
inability to decide whether it's likely to offend.
--
David
=====
Harvey Van Sickle
> john...@frag.lineone.net spake thus:
>> Part of the unsavoury baggage of the spiritual is the tendency,
>> once very marked and still not eradicated, for white people to
>> sing these spirituals with what they fondly believed to be a
>> 'negro accent'. I have sat through (circumstances making it
>> impossible for me to make a bolt for the door) a white choir
>> singing 'Josha fit de battle ob Jericho' in the not too dim and
>> distant past. Made all the worse (for me) by the laboured
>> enunciation of every warped syllable.
>>
>> It all smacks of 'Why, listen, the darkies are singing! How
>> quaint!' attitudes
>
> I have a personal difficulty in this area. I am very fond of "Old
> Man River" and would like to sing it as a party piece - there
> aren't a lot of well-known songs suitable for a low bass. The
> choruses present little problem, but the words of the verse would
> impossible for me to sing without feeling uncomfortable and
> possibly offending the audience.
As John says, though, it's not just the offending words, it's the
horrid supposed-dialect of the lyrics that skunks many of these songs.
Like anyone who's sung in choirs, I've cringed through performances --
sometimes by choirs I've been singing in -- that carefully respect the
lyricist's idea of uneducated dialect: "O What a Beautiful Mornin'" or
"I've Got Plenty O' Nuttin'", with each "g" lovin'ly and precisely
dropped. ("I've-got-a-won-der-ful-feeee-lin"....the horror, the
horror....)
The only thing I can think of that was more doom-laden than a groomed
choir performing one of these things was the sheer dread of being asked
to attend a friend's amateur theatre group's staging of "An Evening
Extravaganza of Victorian Entertaynement". (These were popular about
20 years ago; maybe they've stopped doing them.....)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
CyberCypher
You certainly continue to have strange ideas. People who "attempt"
to appear superior either actually do feel superior and want to let
those to whom they have condescended know it, or else they feel
inferior and wish they were superior. Either way, condescension is
pejorative because it is a belittling of the person condescended to
> It is often a matter of style rather than feeling.
This is an interesting idea. For those who are sensitive to style to
claim that condescension is merely "a matter of style rather than of
feeling" is to admit that they feel superior: one does not choose a
deliberately deprecatory style for the fun of it. For those who
claim that they do not, in fact, feel superior but only appear to
because they affect a condescending style is an admission of
callousness, of gross insensitivity to the feelings of others ---
not that we all are not guilty of this shortcoming at times.
Chalking condescension up to style is dangerous. If that's your
style, then it's deliberate and so you cannot claim that your style
does not reflect your true feelings, or else it is an unthinking
expression of your real feelings and of your ignorance of how your
personal style betrays them.
When someone condescends to me, I am insulted or offended regardless
of whether the person doing the condescending is aware or ignorant
of the condescension. Style is a matter of choice. It is deliberate
if you want to call it "style". Song stylists and writing stylists
go to great pains to create distinctive styles simply because those
styles express their feelings. People who don't think about style
but say, in order to excuse or explain their behavior or appearance,
"Well, that's just my style" are either being disingenuous or else
they are demonstrating their insensitivity.
I am quite aware of the meaning of my style of dress, for example.
It screams out "I don't particularly care what I look like. I loathe
fashion and dress to please myself".
I am also aware that my verbal style (both oral and written)
expresses my feelings more accurately than I could in a long
descriptive paragraph. I admitted that in a post here about a month
ago. I am doing my best to change my style, but I can do that only
by changing my feelings.
Style is what people are talking about when they say "It isn't what
you say so much as how you say it". A condescending style is always
offensive, IMHO, and deliberately offending is always pejorative.
You may have some stake in denying this.
>>This certainly does not apply to Negro spirituals nor to the
>>United Negro College Fund. But ever since Malcolm X, the word
>>Negro has been a pejorative for many black activists, and that's
>>been more than 40 years.
>
> The reaction of the fringe of any group does not necessarily
> reflect the reaction of the larger group. Elijah Muhammad, Louis
> Farrakhan, and the Nation of Islam people have been using the term
> "so-called negro" for years. They may regard the word "negro" as
> pejorative, but that does not make it generally pejorative.
Yes, they are a fringe group, but you may not have noticed over the
past 40-some years that the word "Negro" (it is spelled with a
capital letter when referring to people of African origin, except
maybe by the Black Muslims and Malcolm X, who wanted to demonstrate
the pejorative nature of the word and the ineffectuality of the
Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Jr and his approach to the racial
problems in America half a century ago).
> If "negro" is considered a pejorative by the general population of
> African Americans, then I'm not aware of it.
The only reply possible here is Areff's "When you're right, Coop,
you're right".
> I think that most would consider it merely out of style
> just as "blacks" is entering the out of style phase
> in favor of African American.
You might want to test that hypothesis by using the term "Negro"
when you talk about black folks with black folks. That would be the
only way for you to verify or falsify it, and it is falsifiable, so
it's a perfect hypothesis for empirical testing rather than the kind
of rationalization. you offer here.
david56
> On 11 Oct 2003, david56 wrote
> > john...@frag.lineone.net spake thus:
>
> >> Part of the unsavoury baggage of the spiritual is the tendency,
> >> once very marked and still not eradicated, for white people to
> >> sing these spirituals with what they fondly believed to be a
> >> 'negro accent'. I have sat through (circumstances making it
> >> impossible for me to make a bolt for the door) a white choir
> >> singing 'Josha fit de battle ob Jericho' in the not too dim and
> >> distant past. Made all the worse (for me) by the laboured
> >> enunciation of every warped syllable.
> >>
> >> It all smacks of 'Why, listen, the darkies are singing! How
> >> quaint!' attitudes
> >
> > I have a personal difficulty in this area. I am very fond of "Old
> > Man River" and would like to sing it as a party piece - there
> > aren't a lot of well-known songs suitable for a low bass. The
> > choruses present little problem, but the words of the verse would
> > impossible for me to sing without feeling uncomfortable and
> > possibly offending the audience.
>
> As John says, though, it's not just the offending words, it's the
> horrid supposed-dialect of the lyrics that skunks many of these songs.
I wasn't very clear - I am made uncomfortable both by the words used,
and by the accent/dialect in which they are carefully transcribed in
the score.
> Like anyone who's sung in choirs, I've cringed through performances --
> sometimes by choirs I've been singing in -- that carefully respect the
> lyricist's idea of uneducated dialect: "O What a Beautiful Mornin'" or
> "I've Got Plenty O' Nuttin'", with each "g" lovin'ly and precisely
> dropped. ("I've-got-a-won-der-ful-feeee-lin"....the horror, the
> horror....)
Apart from some G&S at school 30 years ago, I've spent all my adult
life singing sacred works, where the words are straightforward
English, German, French, Russian or Latin. Or in one case, Hebrew.
So I've never to suffer that cringe.
> The only thing I can think of that was more doom-laden than a groomed
> choir performing one of these things was the sheer dread of being asked
> to attend a friend's amateur theatre group's staging of "An Evening
> Extravaganza of Victorian Entertaynement". (These were popular about
> 20 years ago; maybe they've stopped doing them.....)
As it happens, I've been borrowed by the Halle Choir to help bulk out
their Brahms Requiem, next Sunday, 19th October, Bridgewater Hall,
Manchester. Anybody?
--
David
=====
R H Draney
>
>The famous 1963 episode "That's My Boy??" of "The Dick Van Dyke Show"
>turned on the fact that his wife Laura (Mary Tyler Moore) could not
>bring herself to explain to him why his fears were groundless that
>their newborn son had been switched for that of another couple Laura
>had met at the hospital: The couple were Negroes (Greg Morris played
>the other dad). Dick turns multiple shades of red when he finally
>meets them, but the "N"-word remains palpably unspoken as the comedy
>of errors is unravelled. Producer Sheldon Leonard had to go to the mat
>to get NBC to air it, and its popularity eventually led to the casting
>of Bill Cosby as Robert Culp's sidekick in "I Spy". The rest, as they
>say...
I'm going to have to watch that episode more carefully when it comes around
again in rotation...I don't remember any indication that Laura had met the other
couple when she was in the hospital, only the point that the hospital had been
very busy and some things *had* been switched (gifts sent from well-wishers, the
room numbers on discharge papers)...my impression has always been that she was
as surprised as Rob when she actually saw the other couple at the door....
Now, on *another* episode, something a bit more blatant took place...one-by-one,
Richie, Rob, and Laura had managed to dye their hands and forearms black
(reaching into a pot where Laura was making a thundercloud costume for the boy,
just before having to accept an award on behalf of the Alan Brady show from the
"Committee for Racial Harmony"...they show up at the award ceremony wearing
full-length gloves, until Rob sheepishly confesses and explains the
situation...it's hard to believe that anyone would deliberately do what the
Petries were afraid of being accused of, or it was until Ted Danson showed up at
the Friar's Club roast for his then-girlfriend Whoopi Goldberg....r
Areff
> I have a personal difficulty in this area. I am very fond of "Old
> Man River" and would like to sing it as a party piece - there aren't
> a lot of well-known songs suitable for a low bass. The choruses
> present little problem, but the words of the verse would impossible
> for me to sing without feeling uncomfortable and possibly offending
> the audience. The words have been revised over the years, from
> "Niggers all work on the Mississippi" to "Colored Folk work on the
> Mississippi" to "Here we all work, on the Mississippi". Knowing the
> context, the last seems like a cop-out, but I can hardly sing the
> first.
>
> Sadly, I just haven't been able to sing it in public. I probably
> never shall; maybe that's as it should be.
I just want to point out that "Old Man River" is not a spiritual, Negro
or otherwise; it's a show tune.
Areff
> "Colored" was more widely used in speech, and Negro in writing by
> almost everybody in the continental U.S. I think. But the two words
> remained largely interchangeable until both disappeared -- probably
> "colored" just a bit sooner. Outside the South, both words became
> somewhat sensitive in use between the races during the Civil Rights
> Movement, even before the Black Power Movement.
In retrospect, it's weird how "Negro" so completely disappeared -- I
think this must be connected to how it was a sort of "writing" word not
heard so much in informal speech. I don't think I've ever heard anyone
use "Negro" in anything other than an ironic-nod-to-the-past sense (or,
as in Tony Cooper's usages, a non-ironic clumsy effort to be
quasi-offensive). But (= TCE "But, ") I've heard "colored" used, as
late as the Present Day (the late '90s, at least), by sufficiently old
persons from particular socioeconomogeographic backgrounds. "Colored"
is so contained by age of speaker that it's easy to not hear it at all.
R F
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Groups like "Black 47", that deliberately incite, don't get down this
> way.
Surely even Arjay won't defend those Cooperian commas. I'd have used
"which", one, if I had to keep the commas.
All in all, it deserves an Oy!.
"Black 47"? Wasn't that one of those West Coast hardcore bands from the
early 'Eighties?
Tony Cooper
<huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Condescension is indicative of a feeling of superiority. Using a
>>>label that has been termed offensive is condescending and
>>>disparaging as well as deprecating and belittling.
>>
>> That's circular thinking. If the label has not been deemed
>> offensive - and, to the best of my knowledge, "negro" has not -
>> then it can't be either of the "d" words. My dictionary lists it
>> as "sometimes offensive". That's a waffle term when it applies to
>> racial issues since few of us can keep up with what is, and is
>> not, currently offensive.
>>
>> Condescension is not indicative of a feeling of superiority. It
>> is an indication of an *attempt* to appear superior. One may not
>> feel superior and still condescend.
>
>You certainly continue to have strange ideas. People who "attempt"
>to appear superior either actually do feel superior and want to let
>those to whom they have condescended know it, or else they feel
>inferior and wish they were superior. Either way, condescension is
>pejorative because it is a belittling of the person condescended to
>
To make this assumption, you must understand what goes on in the mind
of the person that is being condescending. You can't, so you can't.
You really can't tie condescension and superiority/inferiority
together like Siamese twins. The application of "condescend" is too
wide.
If I condescend to let you in on some secret joke, no
superiortiy/inferiority is involved. If I condescend by explaining
something in baby-steps, the superiority involved can be limited to a
very narrow range of information and general superiority is not
involved.
If someone wishes to explain to me how to compute the surface area of
a soccer ball, they had best be condescending and do it in baby-steps.
That is not offensive to me.
>> It is often a matter of style rather than feeling.
>
>This is an interesting idea. For those who are sensitive to style to
>claim that condescension is merely "a matter of style rather than of
>feeling" is to admit that they feel superior: one does not choose a
>deliberately deprecatory style for the fun of it. For those who
>claim that they do not, in fact, feel superior but only appear to
>because they affect a condescending style is an admission of
>callousness, of gross insensitivity to the feelings of others ---
>not that we all are not guilty of this shortcoming at times.
Style is linked to perception. The perception of the Reader can be
based on the style of the Writer. The Writer may not have any sense
of superiority or feel he is being condescending. His style, though,
may cause a person particularly sensitive to thinking he is being put
down to over-react.
>Chalking condescension up to style is dangerous. If that's your
>style, then it's deliberate and so you cannot claim that your style
>does not reflect your true feelings, or else it is an unthinking
>expression of your real feelings and of your ignorance of how your
>personal style betrays them.
How do you go from "It is often a matter of style...." to "chalking up
condescension to style...." and the rest of those suppositions?
There's nothing fixed and absolute about any of this.
>When someone condescends to me, I am insulted or offended regardless
>of whether the person doing the condescending is aware or ignorant
>of the condescension.
Then I would put you into the insecure group that sees offense where
no offense may be intended. That becomes more your problem than mine.
It's not up to me to shield you from offense. Stay up on the porch if
that's your problem.
>Style is a matter of choice. It is deliberate
>if you want to call it "style". Song stylists and writing stylists
>go to great pains to create distinctive styles simply because those
>styles express their feelings. People who don't think about style
>but say, in order to excuse or explain their behavior or appearance,
>"Well, that's just my style" are either being disingenuous or else
>they are demonstrating their insensitivity.
>I am quite aware of the meaning of my style of dress, for example.
>It screams out "I don't particularly care what I look like. I loathe
>fashion and dress to please myself".
What a ridiculous hodge-podge of straying. You often bleat about your
words being twisted, but you wander off in these offshoots that have
nothing to do with the point. It's difficult to follow what, exactly,
your point is.
>
>You might want to test that hypothesis by using the term "Negro"
>when you talk about black folks with black folks. That would be the
>only way for you to verify or falsify it, and it is falsifiable, so
>it's a perfect hypothesis for empirical testing rather than the kind
>of rationalization. you offer here.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but one of those "black folks" posted on
this subject this morning. He didn't offer any objections, and
mentioned something about it being a rather old-fashioned term.
R F
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, david56 wrote:
> Porgy and Bess is a special case. Gershwin decreed that the major
> roles must be only performed by black actors and singers. It's
> possible that this rule has been dropped since it came out of
> copyright (if it has come out of copyright - the goalposts keep
> moving).
It probably hasn't come out of copyright -- the Gershwin estate is
notorious for its iron-fist-like use of the copyright to micromanage
performances of G. Gershwin's works. This is a major reason why
relatively few Gershwin shows get performed.
If such a requirement is part of the copyrighted work, could it be
enforced by the copyright owner? Straight question. My guess is that it
could.
Tony Cooper
What about "Carmen Jones"? "Lost in the Sky"?
R F
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, John Dean wrote:
> If you're talking about the performance of these things, I still find it
> strange to call them 'negro' spirituals. 'Porgy and Bess' doesn't feature
> negro opera, even though you mostly hear black people singing it. Louis
> Armstrong didn't turn 'Mack the Knife' into a negro pop song. If you favour
> a particular race or colour of people to sing a particular kind of music,
> good on yer - but that doesn't characterise the music as *theirs*
> And if 'Wade in the Water' or 'Swing Low Sweet Chariot' are spirituals, then
> they are spirituals whether they're sung by Paul Robeson or Britney Spears.
> Like you, I know whose name on the label would give me a frisson of
> anticipation.
But I'd say that a song that's in the Negro spiritual genre can escape
that genre based on a particular style of performance that deviates
sufficiently from the features of Negro spiritual performance tradition.
That is, the Negro spiritual isn't just a matter of notes set down on
paper and then capable of being performed in a variety of ways; it refers
to a particular manner of performing such material. Both Robeson and
Spears might deliver versions of what would otherwise be a Negro spiritual
in ways that would make the songs not Negro spirituals.
My understanding is that Coop agrees with me.
> But my argument is that you should only think of calling them 'negro
> spirituals' if you are sure they originated among black people.
If it refers to a genre defined, in large part, by a tradition of
*performance*, then what does it matter where the song originated?
Conceivably, you could have a BrE folk tune sung *as a Negro spiritual*.
Tony Cooper
I said "picked up by Negro spiritual singers". I didn't say "picked
up by Negro singers".
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
>
> Mose Allison is a favorite of mine. I'd been listening to him on
> records for years before I saw a picture of him and found that he
> is white. He sings black, though. He's the only performer I can
> think of offhand that successfully makes that jump.
I found that with some of Ry Cooder's early stuff: he didn't sound
white to me. (The early stuff also didn't sound as if it came from
such a *young* guy, but that's a bunch of other staves of minims.)
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>A couple of paragraphs (or ‘graphs' or ‘grafs', as the trade seems to
>have it) down, I read the following:
>
>‘no explanation was offered for why we should not want to sing what
>were then called Negro spirituals.'
How about just 'spirituals'?
--
-denny-
Some people are offence kleptomaniacs -- whenever they see
an offence that isn't nailed down, they take it ;-)
--David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans
Harvey Van Sickle
> On 10 Oct 2003 13:12:49 -0700, halc...@subdimension.com
> (halcombe) wrote:
>
>> A couple of paragraphs (or ‘graphs' or ‘grafs', as the trade
>> seems to have it) down, I read the following:
>>
>> ‘no explanation was offered for why we should not want to sing
>> what were then called Negro spirituals.'
>
> How about just 'spirituals'?
Don't "Negro spirituals" comprise a distinct sub-set of "spirituals"?
I don't think the adjective is redundant.
("Jerusalem" isn't a "Negro spiritual", but it could -- I think -- be
characterised as a "spiritual".)
Maria Conlon
> Charles Riggs wrote:
>>Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, John, but you are completely off-base here.
>>
>> be a member of the sweetie-pie set, not that I have any problem with
>> swishers, but it is interesting to note.
>>
>> Few men would write or say "Oh, John,...", although this is something
>> one hears from pansified boys and men often. I'd expect "John,
>> you..." or "Ah, but John, you..." or "Jesus Christ, John, you
>> are..." or even "Holy shit, John, you are...", but what we saw just
>> now is quite remarkable.
>
> You just don't analyze things well enough, Charles. The "Oh, John" is
> offset by the "off-base" baseball term which brings in very masculine
> crotch-grabbing, public-spitting imagery.
>
> Had you been really in tune with issues like this, you would have
> pounced on my compliment on your necktie. Real men don't make fashion
> observations about other men unless the other man is wearing a
> hand-painted necktie with a hula dancer on it.
>
> However, you were distracted and started preening and thus missed out.
I am curious about your use of "off-base." I would say, "off base." If
you were using the term another way, say "he has off-base ideas," then
the hyphen seems okay to me.
As for "Oh, John, but you are completely off-base here," I have to say
that it sounds a wee bit affected. *I* might say it with no resultant
baggage. You might say it if the "John" involved were a female. But the
John involved wasn't, AFAIK. Otherwise, it sounds odd to me.
Well, maybe you could say it to your son, in some circumstances, if his
name is John. (If his name is not John, it wouldn't make any sense,
would it?)
Maria Conlon
John Dean
Madame Butterfly is Chinese opera? Aida is Egyptian opera?
mUs1Ka
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:bma0q3$2un$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
No, Madam Butterfly is a Japanese opera!
m.
Robert Bannister
> As John says, though, it's not just the offending words, it's the
> horrid supposed-dialect of the lyrics that skunks many of these
> songs.
True, but the same thing applies to many Irish, English, Scottish,
American, etc. folk songs - often the rhyme does not work if you don't
use a particular 'dialect' version, but it sounds silly unless you sing
the whole song that way. It sounds equally false, of course, to hear
someone singing 'dialect' when the person's whole pronunciation pattern
gives the lie to it.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Apart from some G&S at school 30 years ago, I've spent all my adult
> life singing sacred works, where the words are straightforward
> English, German, French, Russian or Latin.
Hmm - I've heard quite a few heated arguments about which Latin
pronunciation should be used.
--
Rob Bannister
John Varela
wrote:
> Joan Baez does a very
> good "Amazing Grace", but it's only an upper tier white version.
Amazing Grace was written by a white man.
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/m/amazgrac.htm
--
John Varela
(Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.)
I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much.
Raymond S. Wise
news:3F88987C...@it.net.au...
Last month I came upon a Web page, located at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Pranum/Page8.html
which discusses a controversy involving the pronunciation of "oi" in some
French works. Mention was made of controversies involving the pronunciation
of Latin when it is being sung.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Robert Bannister
> "Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3F88987C...@it.net.au...
>
>>david56 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Apart from some G&S at school 30 years ago, I've spent all my adult
>>>life singing sacred works, where the words are straightforward
>>>English, German, French, Russian or Latin.
>>
>>Hmm - I've heard quite a few heated arguments about which Latin
>>pronunciation should be used.
>>
>>--
>>Rob Bannister
>
>
>
> Last month I came upon a Web page, located at
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Pranum/Page8.html
Fascinating, if somewhat confusing stuff. I noticed he didn't mention
'oignon'.
--
Rob Bannister
Tony Cooper
<OLDl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:37:26 UTC, Tony Cooper <tony_co...@mungedyahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Joan Baez does a very
>> good "Amazing Grace", but it's only an upper tier white version.
>
>Amazing Grace was written by a white man.
>
>http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/m/amazgrac.htm
I don't see what that has to do with it. I would suspect that a very,
very high percentage of all spirituals were written by white men. My
comment was about performance and not authorship.
R J Valentine
} On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Tony Cooper wrote:
}
}> Groups like "Black 47", that deliberately incite, don't get down this
}> way.
}
} Surely even Arjay won't defend those Cooperian commas. I'd have used
} "which", one, if I had to keep the commas.
Or at least move the one after "incite" to after "Groups".
} All in all, it deserves an Oy!.
That it does.
} "Black 47"? Wasn't that one of those West Coast hardcore bands from the
} early 'Eighties?
I thought it was a cologne. Maybe I'm conflating it with Humphrey's.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:ar...@wicked.smart.net>
R J Valentine
} If someone wishes to explain to me how to compute the surface area of
} a soccer ball, they had best be condescending and do it in baby-steps.
} That is not offensive to me.
Hey, it's just eight times the hexagons plus twelve times the pentagons.
The pentagons are five of one thing and the hexagons are six of another.
Then you inflate it a little.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>> Had you been really in tune with issues like this, you would have
>> pounced on my compliment on your necktie. Real men don't make fashion
>> observations about other men unless the other man is wearing a
>> hand-painted necktie with a hula dancer on it.
>>
>> However, you were distracted and started preening and thus missed out.
>
>I am curious about your use of "off-base." I would say, "off base." If
>you were using the term another way, say "he has off-base ideas," then
>the hyphen seems okay to me.
If I were to say it, there would not be a hyphen question at all.
When I write, proper hyphenation is a problem for me. Pre-aue, I was
never in a situation where anyone would notice proper, or improper,
hyphenation. It's simply not an issue in business writing. For many
years I dictated letters and had even less interest in hyphenation.
When I bought word processors (PCs with WP programs) for the company,
I junked the dictating machines. Now, I tend to over-hyphen to make
up for all those years of neglect.
I still don't know the rules about hyphenation. I kinda stick-them in
where-ever I feel like it. Some-times it works, and sometimes it
doesn't.
>
>As for "Oh, John, but you are completely off-base here," I have to say
>that it sounds a wee bit affected. *I* might say it with no resultant
>baggage.
Written words can reflect vocal intonation. Drag the "oh" out and put
a little nasal sound to it, put a little exasperation in the "John",
and it comes out "Oh, John, but you are completely off base here:".
Some vocal terms are not really representable in writing. "Oh" stands
for a lot of sounds that aren't really "Oh".
In real conversation most of us tend to use a lot of non-word sounds.
We leave them out of written versions. For example, if someone is
telling you about their frustrating day, you'll find yourself making
little noises. How do you write "mnfph', though, and make it read
like the sound you make when you just interject agreement or "I'm
still listening"?
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:51:44 -0400 R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote:
>
>} On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Tony Cooper wrote:
>}
>}> Groups like "Black 47", that deliberately incite, don't get down this
>}> way.
>}
>} Surely even Arjay won't defend those Cooperian commas. I'd have used
>} "which", one, if I had to keep the commas.
>
>
>} All in all, it deserves an Oy!.
>
>That it does.
I dunno about this. I'm not particularly defending it, but I don't
see it quite making the minimum requirements of an Oy! In retrospect,
I'd be happier with it had I omitted all commas.
The bare bones sentence is "Groups like 'Black 47' don't get down this
way." The ", that deliberately incite," was included to explain how
groups like "Black 47" are different. It's kind of a parenthetical
addition.
Could it be that the Oy!ness is a result of not really grasping the
meaning because the reference is unfamiliar? Would "Groups like
'Walter's Accordianmeisters', that play mostly polkas, aren't booked
in this area." be equally Oy!able?
But, if you feel the need to Oy!, have at it.
>Or at least move the one after "incite" to after "Groups".
Then, it becomes "Groups, like 'Black 47 that deliberately incite,
don't get down this way." That is completely wrong. It changes the
meaning of the sentence. That says that groups don't get down this
way and that "Black 47" is an example of a group.
How can you Oy! someone else with such slip-shod Oy!ability in your
own suggestions? You should be ashamed.
CyberCypher
one day
> On 11 Oct 2003 17:04:38 GMT, CyberCypher
> <huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
[...]
>>You certainly continue to have strange ideas. People who "attempt"
>>to appear superior either actually do feel superior and want to
>>let those to whom they have condescended know it, or else they
>>feel inferior and wish they were superior. Either way,
>>condescension is pejorative because it is a belittling of the
>>person condescended to
>>
>
> To make this assumption, you must understand what goes on in the
> mind of the person that is being condescending.
Your rules of evidence are impossible to meet. We understand what a
person means by that peron's behavior, including that person's
speech. That is usually --- but not always --- a sufficient
combination of actions to serve as adequate evidence for make a
reasonable inference about what is going on in the mind of the
person who is being condescending or anything else.
> You can't, so you
> can't. You really can't tie condescension and
> superiority/inferiority together like Siamese twins. The
> application of "condescend" is too wide.
Sorry, but I am entitled to tie "condescending" to deprecatory
behavior without your permission. That is the primary meaning of the
word and the way most people who understand the connotations of the
word will understand it. You may think what you choose and you may
choose to tell everyone thaqt you explain things to that you are
condescending to explain things to them, and you may appreciate the
umbrage taken by those to whom you are condescending.
> If I condescend to let you in on some secret joke, no
> superiortiy/inferiority is involved. If I condescend by
> explaining something in baby-steps, the superiority involved can
> be limited to a very narrow range of information and general
> superiority is not involved.
Well, there you go. You are claiming that the feeling of superiority
involved in having superior knowledge has nothing to do with a
feeling or knowledge of superiority. I did not claim that
condescension involved a feeling of "general superiority". You
interpolated that in order to make an irrelevant point that you
believe contradicts mine.
When I teach students, I do not condescend to them no matter how
simple I make the explanation. I have a duty to explain. I have met
teachers, however, who do condescend to explain. They seem to relish
their superior knowledge and think it makes them better than their
students in that respect. I've seen and heard of teachers who
embarrass their students because of their ignorance of the subject
the teacher has been hired to explain to them.
Having to explain things in what you condescendingly call "baby
steps" is the norm when teaching most beginners anything that is new
to them. If one takes giant steps from premise one to conclusion one
without stating all the necessary information in between, one isn't
teaching, and the students become lost quite quickly. But I suppose
you've never taught anyone anything, so you wouldn't understand what
that means. I don't have the time to go through the baby steps for
someone your age who has been given an MBA. And I suppose that you
would style your teaching your children how to be decent Americans a
kind of condescension. I do not consider teaching my son to be an
honest, decent, and thoughtful adult to be condescension. There's
another major difference between us. You demonstrate your contempt
for those who do not know as much as you think you know.
Now you're stipulating a use of the word that is not at all normal.
And to call teaching or explaining something "condescension" is a
bit beyond the pale.
> If someone wishes to explain to me how to compute the surface area
> of a soccer ball, they had best be condescending and do it in
> baby-steps. That is not offensive to me.
Teaching is not a matter of condescending. This kind of false
humility makes me feel ill.
>>> It is often a matter of style rather than feeling.
>>
>>This is an interesting idea. For those who are sensitive to style
>>to claim that condescension is merely "a matter of style rather
>>than of feeling" is to admit that they feel superior: one does not
>>choose a deliberately deprecatory style for the fun of it. For
>>those who claim that they do not, in fact, feel superior but only
>>appear to because they affect a condescending style is an
>>admission of callousness, of gross insensitivity to the feelings
>>of others --- not that we all are not guilty of this shortcoming
>>at times.
>
> Style is linked to perception. The perception of the Reader can
> be based on the style of the Writer. The Writer may not have any
> sense of superiority or feel he is being condescending. His
> style, though, may cause a person particularly sensitive to
> thinking he is being put down to over-react.
Yes, style is a matter of perception. But the perception in mutual.
First, the writer (I'll stick to writers for simplicity's sake)
perceives his own style as conveying certain feelings. The reader
perceives the style to convey certain feelings. Sometimes the reader
and writer agree, and sometimes they don't. This doesn't mean that
one is right and the other is wrong. It is only when a great many
readers complain about the writer's style that the writer must
seriously consider the possibility that his assessment of the
feelings he has conveyed may have been in error. One overly
sensitive reader means nothing if almost everyone else is in tune
with the writer's assessment.
>>Chalking condescension up to style is dangerous. If that's your
>>style, then it's deliberate and so you cannot claim that your
>>style does not reflect your true feelings, or else it is an
>>unthinking expression of your real feelings and of your ignorance
>>of how your personal style betrays them.
>
> How do you go from "It is often a matter of style...." to
> "chalking up condescension to style...." and the rest of those
> suppositions? There's nothing fixed and absolute about any of
> this.
Sorry, but I don't have the time or patience to go through the baby
steps that would be required to teach an old dog like yourself any
new tricks. You'll have to use the brain you were born with to
figure it out all by yourself.
>>When someone condescends to me, I am insulted or offended
>>regardless of whether the person doing the condescending is aware
>>or ignorant of the condescension.
>
> Then I would put you into the insecure group that sees offense
> where no offense may be intended.
Of course you would. And I would put you into the same group as my
fourth wife, the one who always thought that she was never at fault
and blamed everyone else for the problems surrounding her. Just like
you, she was one of those eternally happy people who could do no
wrong and who refused to take anything seriously.
> That becomes more your problem
> than mine. It's not up to me to shield you from offense. Stay up
> on the porch if that's your problem.
There you go twisting a rather abstract discussion into something a
bit too personal. Raise yourself from the level of insinuendo and
this kind of attempt at sly ad hominem attack and you might have
something worthwhile to say. God knows that after 67 years, you
ought to.
>>Style is a matter of choice. It is deliberate
>>if you want to call it "style". Song stylists and writing stylists
>>go to great pains to create distinctive styles simply because
>>those styles express their feelings. People who don't think about
>>style but say, in order to excuse or explain their behavior or
>>appearance, "Well, that's just my style" are either being
>>disingenuous or else they are demonstrating their insensitivity.
>
>>I am quite aware of the meaning of my style of dress, for example.
>>It screams out "I don't particularly care what I look like. I
>>loathe fashion and dress to please myself".
>
> What a ridiculous hodge-podge of straying.
If you cannot appreciate the analogy, then simply say that the
analogy fails. There is no need for this kind of snotty response. It
reveals too obviously who and what you are, but you are too
insensitive to understand that.
> You often bleat about
> your words being twisted, but you wander off in these offshoots
> that have nothing to do with the point. It's difficult to follow
> what, exactly, your point is.
You lying bastard! Without any indication whatsoever, you have
snipped a great deal from my original post and let something that
was part of a larger piece of discourse sit here all alone out of
context. Had you left it in the original context, you would not be
able to make this false and arrant claim. But once again you prove
yourself to be a thoroughly dishonest person, the kind of pond scum
that will sink to any level to win a point in a losing battle, the
kind of liar who will stop at nothing to misrepresent those who put
a finger on your weak points. You go back into my killfile of
worthless posters again. For good, this time.
>>You might want to test that hypothesis by using the term "Negro"
>>when you talk about black folks with black folks. That would be
>>the only way for you to verify or falsify it, and it is
>>falsifiable, so it's a perfect hypothesis for empirical testing
>>rather than the kind of rationalization. you offer here.
>
> Perhaps you didn't notice, but one of those "black folks" posted
> on this subject this morning.
I have no idea who or what you are talking about, Pooper. I don't
keep track of the color of any poster's skin, so I am not aware of
who here might be black or white or any other color. Everyone to me
is black type on a blue background.
> He didn't offer any objections, and mentioned something
> about it being a rather old-fashioned term.
This is what is called anecdotal evidence and proves nothing. Who
knows what was in that poster's mind. Maybe he had read your
seminal explanation about the difference between white people who
sing hymns and black people who sing spirituals. Maybe he felt that
you were almost as black as he was because you seem to understand
the souls of black folk so well. Maybe he was being polite and
diplomatic by saying that the term is "old-fashioned" rather than
"offensive" and "pejorative".
Not everyone spells everything out. Sometimes they believe that if
you are sensitive or intelligent enough, you will understand that
such a remark might mean "Please don't use this word. Such
old-fashioned terms are offensive because they suggest that you
still live in the era of the virulent American racism practiced
before the 1970s". Or "Using old-fashioned terms is disrespectful,
and somebody who can declare with such conviction that dem darkies
sho'nuff got rhythym, the way you did in your earlier post, ought to
also be able to understand that only people with malicious intent
use old-fashioned racial terms in 2003".
CyberCypher
I've heard "Negro" used by a similarly limited group of speakers. It
is indeed an old-fashioned word that is no longer in the lexicon of
terms of respect, but it does fall into the category of that
old-time religion: "It was good enough for granddad and it's good
enough for me". There are still plenty of geriatrics whose
fossilized gray matter cannot grok the difference.
I also think that a lot of the insular folks in the less
cosmopolitan sections of the USA are prone to such outdated
language. Woody Allen's stereotype of the grandmother who uttered
the line "You're a real Jew" was not very far from the truth back in
the 70s, and it still holds for many of the same people in the same
places in their 50s now. These are the very same people who continue
to use "Negro" because ML King Jr did.
R J Valentine
} On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:50:54 -0000, R J Valentine <r...@smart.net>
} wrote:
}
}>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:51:44 -0400 R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote:
}>
}>} On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Tony Cooper wrote:
}>}
}>}> Groups like "Black 47", that deliberately incite, don't get down this
}>}> way.
...
}>Or at least move the one after "incite" to after "Groups".
}
} Then, it becomes "Groups, like 'Black 47 that deliberately incite,
} don't get down this way." That is completely wrong. It changes the
} meaning of the sentence. That says that groups don't get down this
} way and that "Black 47" is an example of a group.
}
} How can you Oy! someone else with such slip-shod Oy!ability in your
} own suggestions? You should be ashamed.
Yeah, maybe. How about if I had said, 'Or at least move the one THAT IS
after "incite" to after "groups"'? (The "one" being the comma, of
course.) I used to be notorious for having a tin ear, and now I'm getting
notorious for being slip-shod. Could be worse. I could have said, 'At
least move whichever comma you get to first to after "groups". Then I'd
*really* feel ashamed.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>> Charles Riggs wrote:
>>>Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, John, but you are completely off-base here.
>>>
>>> This is the only hard evidence I can recall showing that C**per may
>>> be a member of the sweetie-pie set, not that I have any problem with
>>> swishers, but it is interesting to note.
>>>
>>> Few men would write or say "Oh, John,...", although this is something
>>> one hears from pansified boys and men often. I'd expect "John,
>>> you..." or "Ah, but John, you..." or "Jesus Christ, John, you
>>> are..." or even "Holy shit, John, you are...", but what we saw just
>>> now is quite remarkable.
>>
>> You just don't analyze things well enough, Charles. The "Oh, John" is
>> offset by the "off-base" baseball term which brings in very masculine
>> crotch-grabbing, public-spitting imagery.
You may be a top rather than a bottom, but gay just the same. Yes,
that would explain it.
>> Had you been really in tune with issues like this, you would have
>> pounced on my compliment on your necktie. Real men don't make fashion
>> observations about other men unless the other man is wearing a
>> hand-painted necktie with a hula dancer on it.
I'm sure you see many such ties in your area. Where I am no
haberdasher would be foolish enough to even stock such a tie, knowing
no self-respecting man would buy it. You Floridians have such lovely
taste in sports shirts as well. Sheesh.
>> However, you were distracted and started preening and thus missed out.
Nonsense. I can preen and pay full attention simultaneously. How else
would I know how effective my preening had been? (Of course, I do *my*
preening for the women.)
>I am curious about your use of "off-base." I would say, "off base." If
>you were using the term another way, say "he has off-base ideas," then
>the hyphen seems okay to me.
>
>As for "Oh, John, but you are completely off-base here," I have to say
>that it sounds a wee bit affected. *I* might say it with no resultant
>baggage. You might say it if the "John" involved were a female. But the
>John involved wasn't, AFAIK. Otherwise, it sounds odd to me.
Absolutely, Maria. It would be a normal thing for you to say or even
for Michael Jackson to say. Perhaps, like Michael, C**per is both
Negro, as Simon has discovered, and bisexual; that would help explain
his mannerism in this case. However, until we see some evidence he is
bisexual, he has biased me into thinking he swings but one way. And a
top, not a bottom, or else he'd know many good cooking recipes, which
he admits he does not.
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggsŚatŚeircomŚdotŚnet
Tony Cooper
<huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>>You certainly continue to have strange ideas. People who "attempt"
>>>to appear superior either actually do feel superior and want to
>>>let those to whom they have condescended know it, or else they
>>>feel inferior and wish they were superior. Either way,
>>>condescension is pejorative because it is a belittling of the
>>>person condescended to
>>>
>>
>> To make this assumption, you must understand what goes on in the
>> mind of the person that is being condescending.
>
>Your rules of evidence are impossible to meet. We understand what a
>person means by that peron's behavior, including that person's
>speech. That is usually --- but not always --- a sufficient
>combination of actions to serve as adequate evidence for make a
>reasonable inference about what is going on in the mind of the
>person who is being condescending or anything else.
>
>> You can't, so you
>> can't.
It took you a paragraph to say what I said in five words. And, a
ponderous convolution of pretentious verbiage to make a point that had
already been ceded.
> You really can't tie condescension and
>> superiority/inferiority together like Siamese twins. The
>> application of "condescend" is too wide.
>
>Sorry, but I am entitled to tie "condescending" to deprecatory
>behavior without your permission. That is the primary meaning of the
>word and the way most people who understand the connotations of the
>word will understand it. You may think what you choose and you may
>choose to tell everyone thaqt you explain things to that you are
>condescending to explain things to them, and you may appreciate the
>umbrage taken by those to whom you are condescending.
Frank, do you ever read what you write? Does it even make sense to
you? Jesus, Frank, reading your stuff is like wading through a field
of muck.
>> If I condescend to let you in on some secret joke, no
>> superiortiy/inferiority is involved. If I condescend by
>> explaining something in baby-steps, the superiority involved can
>> be limited to a very narrow range of information and general
>> superiority is not involved.
>
>Well, there you go. You are claiming that the feeling of superiority
>involved in having superior knowledge has nothing to do with a
>feeling or knowledge of superiority.
A field of sticky muck.
>When I teach students, I do not condescend to them no matter how
>simple I make the explanation.
I sincerely hope that your teaching style is more understandable and
less painful to decipher than your writing style. Based on your
writing, I don't think you could teach the alphabet in less than 26
weeks.
> And I suppose that you
>would style your teaching your children how to be decent Americans a
>kind of condescension. I do not consider teaching my son to be an
>honest, decent, and thoughtful adult to be condescension. There's
>another major difference between us. You demonstrate your contempt
>for those who do not know as much as you think you know.
Frank, don't bring my children into this.
>
>> That becomes more your problem
>> than mine. It's not up to me to shield you from offense. Stay up
>> on the porch if that's your problem.
>
>There you go twisting a rather abstract discussion into something a
>bit too personal. Raise yourself from the level of insinuendo and
>this kind of attempt at sly ad hominem attack and you might have
>something worthwhile to say. God knows that after 67 years, you
>ought to.
Uhhh...too personal? Ad hominem? From you?
>> You often bleat about
>> your words being twisted, but you wander off in these offshoots
>> that have nothing to do with the point. It's difficult to follow
>> what, exactly, your point is.
>
>You lying bastard!
At last! A simple declarative sentence!
>Without any indication whatsoever, you have
>snipped a great deal from my original post and let something that
>was part of a larger piece of discourse sit here all alone out of
>context.
Of course I snipped. What I snipped was tedious, boring, stuffy,
wandering, convuluted crap in the form of one of your usual
pretentious rants.
>Had you left it in the original context, you would not be
>able to make this false and arrant claim. But once again you prove
>yourself to be a thoroughly dishonest person, the kind of pond scum
>that will sink to any level to win a point in a losing battle, the
>kind of liar who will stop at nothing to misrepresent those who put
>a finger on your weak points. You go back into my killfile of
>worthless posters again. For good, this time.
Tell me again about that ad hominem thing.
>>>You might want to test that hypothesis by using the term "Negro"
>>>when you talk about black folks with black folks. That would be
>>>the only way for you to verify or falsify it, and it is
>>>falsifiable, so it's a perfect hypothesis for empirical testing
>>>rather than the kind of rationalization. you offer here.
>>
>> Perhaps you didn't notice, but one of those "black folks" posted
>> on this subject this morning.
>
>I have no idea who or what you are talking about, Pooper. I don't
>keep track of the color of any poster's skin, so I am not aware of
>who here might be black or white or any other color. Everyone to me
>is black type on a blue background.
>> He didn't offer any objections, and mentioned something
>> about it being a rather old-fashioned term.
>
>This is what is called anecdotal evidence and proves nothing.
There you go, Frank. Read your paragraph that starts "You might
want..." and then your line above. Then think about it.
> Who
>knows what was in that poster's mind. Maybe he had read your
>seminal explanation about the difference between white people who
>sing hymns and black people who sing spirituals. Maybe he felt that
>you were almost as black as he was because you seem to understand
>the souls of black folk so well. Maybe he was being polite and
>diplomatic by saying that the term is "old-fashioned" rather than
>"offensive" and "pejorative".
>
>Not everyone spells everything out. Sometimes they believe that if
>you are sensitive or intelligent enough, you will understand that
>such a remark might mean "Please don't use this word. Such
>old-fashioned terms are offensive because they suggest that you
>still live in the era of the virulent American racism practiced
>before the 1970s". Or "Using old-fashioned terms is disrespectful,
>and somebody who can declare with such conviction that dem darkies
>sho'nuff got rhythym, the way you did in your earlier post, ought to
>also be able to understand that only people with malicious intent
>use old-fashioned racial terms in 2003".
So, then how does anyone test a hypothesis as you suggest? Wouldn't
the empirical evidence be subject to the same "maybe"s you list above?
Frank, killfile me, please. Please. It's for your own good. You
won't have to work so hard to say so little.
PS...you forgot "hair style" when you meandered off the point and
starting shoveling in all those non-related comments that I left
hanging bare-assed and unsnipped. It's about as germane as the rest
of your ravings. You could cover "hair style" and how it relates to
"condescending" in about 146 lines of pompous phrasing, confusing
analogies, and turgid text.
I know you're reading this, but killfile me now. Pretend I'm already
killfiled like you have in the past.
Tony Cooper
<huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>I also think that a lot of the insular folks in the less
>cosmopolitan sections of the USA are prone to such outdated
>language. Woody Allen's stereotype of the grandmother who uttered
>the line "You're a real Jew" was not very far from the truth back in
>the 70s, and it still holds for many of the same people in the same
>places in their 50s now. These are the very same people who continue
>to use "Negro" because ML King Jr did.
They should all move to Taiwan where they can keep their finger on the
pulse of modern American usage.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>>> Had you been really in tune with issues like this, you would have
>>> pounced on my compliment on your necktie. Real men don't make fashion
>>> observations about other men unless the other man is wearing a
>>> hand-painted necktie with a hula dancer on it.
>
>I'm sure you see many such ties in your area. Where I am no
>haberdasher would be foolish enough to even stock such a tie, knowing
>no self-respecting man would buy it. You Floridians have such lovely
>taste in sports shirts as well. Sheesh.
Actually, I wish my closet was full of such ties. "Vintage" clothing
is all the rage in some sets, and a hand-painted tie would go for $25
easy. Of course the sky would be the limit if it was one where the
skirt moved at the tug of a string.
Harvey Van Sickle
That's really what I was trying to suggest: it's for these reasons
that the songs become, in effect, unperformable. (I'd include dialect
folk-songs in the same category as "singin' as ah'm workin'" lyrics:
historical artefacts rather than performable repertoire.)
david56
Possibly. These terms are unlikely to offend anybody (other than the
Chinese and Japanese who might be upset by the relocation of
Butterfly).
But I don't feel strongly about it, which is why I am not giving
definitive replies.
--
David
=====
david56
>
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, david56 wrote:
>
> > Porgy and Bess is a special case. Gershwin decreed that the major
> > roles must be only performed by black actors and singers. It's
> > possible that this rule has been dropped since it came out of
> > copyright (if it has come out of copyright - the goalposts keep
> > moving).
>
> It probably hasn't come out of copyright -- the Gershwin estate is
> notorious for its iron-fist-like use of the copyright to micromanage
> performances of G. Gershwin's works. This is a major reason why
> relatively few Gershwin shows get performed.
>
> If such a requirement is part of the copyrighted work, could it be
> enforced by the copyright owner? Straight question. My guess is that it
> could.
I think the answer in the UK would be Yes. Until the Savoy Operas
came out of copyright, the Doyly Carte company enforced fantastically
strict rules on how G&S was to be staged and performed, even in
schools, before they would grant a performing licence. We had to
wear tights!
--
David
=====
david56
You're right of course, but the Church of England has a traditional
pronunciation for Latin, so we don't have to concern ourselves about
it too much.
--
David
=====
CyberCypher
> john...@frag.lineone.net spake thus:
>
>> david56 wrote:
>> > john...@frag.lineone.net spake thus:
>> >
>> >> david56 wrote:
>> >>> john...@frag.lineone.net spake thus:
>> >>>
>> >>>> If you're talking about the performance of these things, I
>> >>>> still find it strange to call them 'negro' spirituals.
>> >>>> 'Porgy and Bess' doesn't feature negro opera, even though
>> >>>> you mostly hear black people singing it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Porgy and Bess is a special case. Gershwin decreed that the
>> >>> major roles must be only performed by black actors and
>> >>> singers. It's possible that this rule has been dropped since
>> >>> it came out of copyright (if it has come out of copyright -
>> >>> the goalposts keep moving).
>> >>
>> >> Yes yes. Returning to our sheep - is it 'negro opera' as
>> >> opposed to 'white folls' opera' or just plain 'opera'?
>> >
>> > It probably is "negro opera", but I'm unlikely to have come up
>> > with this as a phrase. I might say that is "black opera"
>> > though.
>> >
>> > We don't use the word "negro" much these days except in fixed
>> > phrases, yes, such as "negro spirituals". As "negro opera" is
>> > not a standard phrase, I would be unlikely to utter it because
>> > of my inability to decide whether it's likely to offend.
Porgy and Bess is neither "Negro opera" nor "Black Opera". It's a
George Gershwin opera. GG was not black. He was an American
songwriter. That makes it "American Opera".
[quote]
What is Summertime?
Summertime, and the livin' is easy
Everybody will know this song. It's one of the most well-known songs
and melodies. Summertime is probably the most covered song on the
world. There are more then 2600 known covers and every year a new
cover is recorded.
The song is composed by George Gershwin for the opera "Porgy and
Bess". DuBose Heyward has written the text of the song. In 1924 he
wrote the novel "Porgy". In 1926 Heyward and his wife Dorothy made a
play of the book. It should had been called "Catfish Row", but later
it was called just "Porgy". Many negro-spirituals and traditionals
were performed. Bess sings in the play:
Hush, lil' baby, don' you cry
Hush, lil' baby, don' yo cry
Fadder an' mudder born to die.
Since 1922 George Gershwin wanna make a (negro)-opera. Many times he
wrote to Heyward that he was interested to write an opera about
"Porgy", but Gershwin was too busy to work on it right a way. In
1933 DuBose Heyward and George Gershwin signed a contract with the
"Guild Theatre". Together with Ira Gershwin they wrote "Porgy and
Bess". The first song Gershwin composed was Summertime.
[/quote]
http://members.lycos.nl/summertimeweb/What_is.html
About 32 years ago when I put a play by Athol Fugard on my first
ex-wife's list of worldwide black literature. Professor Darwin
Turner, the head of the Afro-American Studies Program at The U of
Iowa then, rather curtly informed my ex that Fugard was a white
South African and that his work did not belong in a list a black
authors regardless of the subject matter.
Prof Turner was a very serious, very formal, very conservative man
who was in every way a scholar and in no way a wide-eyed radical. I
know that he would object to calling _Porgy and Bess_ "Black Opera"
or "Negro Opera".
>> Madame Butterfly is Chinese opera? Aida is Egyptian opera?
> Possibly.
Certainly not. They are both Italian opera. Chinese opera comes in
two flavors that I know of[1], Beijing Opera, a very specific kind
of stylized opera in which all the singers hurt my ears, and
Taiwanese Opera, which is more mellifluous. The former can be very
roughly compared with Japanese Noh plays and the latter with Kabuki.
Things cannot be given a national adjective simply because they deal
with topics in a particular nation. Except, of course, when
referring to _Aida_ as Verdi's Egyptian opera and _Madama Butterfly_
as Puccini's Japanese[2] opera. But the national adjectives in
these two references allude to content and not to the style of the
operas.
> These terms are unlikely to offend anybody (other than
> the Chinese and Japanese who might be upset by the relocation of
> Butterfly).
>
> But I don't feel strongly about it, which is why I am not giving
> definitive replies.
Note:
[1] But, see "Chinese Opera including Beijing opera, Sheng opera,
Yue opera, Kun opera and more" at:
http://chineseculture.about.com/cs/opera/
[2] Japan was the original location of the short story, written by
John Luther Long and published in 1903, that led to the play and the
opera.
[quote]
John Luther Long was born in Hanover, Pennsylvania on January 1st,
1861. He was a lawyer by trade, and practised for much of his
career. Meanwhile, however, he indulged an interest in writing,
producing both plays and short stories. Of the latter, one in
particular sparked interest--"Madame Butterfly". Long based the
story on the recollections of his sister, Mrs. Correll, who had been
to Japan with her husband, a missionary.
Long selected David Belasco, a well-regarded producer and writer, to
transform the story into a play. The work was a success, eventually
catching the attention of Puccini, who would compose the opera
Madame Butterfly with a libretto penned with Long's assistance.
[/quote]
david56
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, david56 wrote:
>
> > I have a personal difficulty in this area. I am very fond of "Old
> > Man River" and would like to sing it as a party piece - there aren't
> > a lot of well-known songs suitable for a low bass. The choruses
> > present little problem, but the words of the verse would impossible
> > for me to sing without feeling uncomfortable and possibly offending
> > the audience. The words have been revised over the years, from
> > "Niggers all work on the Mississippi" to "Colored Folk work on the
> > Mississippi" to "Here we all work, on the Mississippi". Knowing the
> > context, the last seems like a cop-out, but I can hardly sing the
> > first.
> >
> > Sadly, I just haven't been able to sing it in public. I probably
> > never shall; maybe that's as it should be.
>
> I just want to point out that "Old Man River" is not a spiritual, Negro
> or otherwise; it's a show tune.
Yes, I knew that - I was commenting on the lyrics as set down in the
score, replying to John's comments about the issue of "singing like a
darkie".
--
David
=====
John Holmes
>
> The entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir can't do justice to a spiritual
> compared to the twelve ladies in the 14th Avenue Church of the Blood
> of Jesus (AME) even though the acoustics of the storefront aren't
> quite up to par.
Is there any correlation between the enthusiasm of the singing and the
length of the name of the church?
--
Regards
John
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
> [quote]
> What is Summertime?
> Summertime, and the livin' is easy
>
> Everybody will know this song. It's one of the most well-known songs
> and melodies. Summertime is probably the most covered song on the
> world. There are more then 2600 known covers and every year a new
> cover is recorded.
I realise this is from a quoted source, but I thought the honour of
"most covered" was generally given to "Yesterday". (I've certainly
seen the claim in articles about the latter song.)
A quick google turns up lots of seemingly-factual statements -- for
"Summertime" as well as for "Yesterday" -- but without any apparent
supporting references.
Any idea where to find a definite list?
CyberCypher
one day
> On 12 Oct 2003, CyberCypher wrote
>
> -snip-
>
>
>> [quote]
>> What is Summertime?
>> Summertime, and the livin' is easy
>>
>> Everybody will know this song. It's one of the most well-known
>> songs and melodies. Summertime is probably the most covered song
>> on the world. There are more then 2600 known covers and every
>> year a new cover is recorded.
>
> I realise this is from a quoted source, but I thought the honour
> of "most covered" was generally given to "Yesterday". (I've
> certainly seen the claim in articles about the latter song.)
>
> A quick google turns up lots of seemingly-factual statements --
> for "Summertime" as well as for "Yesterday" -- but without any
> apparent supporting references.
>
> Any idea where to find a definite list?
I have no idea. Nor do I know when the quoted source was posted nor
whence its facts and figures come. They could be old.
I don't even really know what the source means by "most covered
song". From the final sentence above, though, I suspect it means
"album covers", and that ought to mean both new and different
recordings as well as collections of recordings that are included in
some of albums represented by those 2600+ "known covers".
R F
Unclear. There's the conventional post-Suez "cover" which seems to be
restricted to a vocalist's rendition of a song originally done by a, well,
an original singer. Does something like "Summertime" even fall into that
sort of category? I suppose there was a first performance, and maybe it
was even recorded, so does that make every subsequent recorded performance
of "Summertime" a "cover"? I don't see that being applicable to a
show-tune, let alone an opera sub-piece.
My intuition tells me that "cover" is being used dead-wrongedly here,
perhaps by someone familiar only with terminology conventional in the
post-Suez pop music world. If this writer is including as "covers"
non-vocal performances of "Summertime", I certainly don't think we
generally speak of those as "covers" even in the post-Suez world.
I thought it was "Happy Birthday" that was supposed to be the most-done
song of all time, anyhow.
SWBZS.
david56
Most performed, yes, but probably not frequently recorded. It's
still in copyright IIRC, so permission has to be sought to include it
in a film or TV programme. I also though that the "most recorded"
honour went to Yesterday.
--
David
=====
Harvey Van Sickle
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, CyberCypher wrote:
>> The inimitable Harvey Van Sickle <harve...@ntlworld.com>
>> stated one day
>>> On 12 Oct 2003, CyberCypher wrote
>>> -snip-
>>>> [quote]
>>>> What is Summertime?
>>>> Summertime, and the livin' is easy
>>>>
>>>> Everybody will know this song. It's one of the most well-known
>>>> songs and melodies. Summertime is probably the most covered
>>>> song on the world. There are more then 2600 known covers and
>>>> every year a new cover is recorded.
>>> I realise this is from a quoted source, but I thought the honour
>>> of "most covered" was generally given to "Yesterday". (I've
>>> certainly seen the claim in articles about the latter song.)
-snip-
> My intuition tells me that "cover" is being used dead-wrongedly
> here, perhaps by someone familiar only with terminology
> conventional in the post-Suez pop music world. If this writer is
> including as "covers" non-vocal performances of "Summertime", I
> certainly don't think we generally speak of those as "covers" even
> in the post-Suez world.
I think you're right -- in the google hits I looked at, it was used to
mean both "most covers of the original performed by..." and "most
recorded tune".
> I thought it was "Happy Birthday" that was supposed to be the
> most-done song of all time, anyhow.
Different category, I think -- that's usually said to be the the most
*sung* song, whereas the (mis)used "covers" is referring to the one
with the most "recorded versions".
R H Draney
>
>On 12 Oct 2003, R F wrote
>
>> here, perhaps by someone familiar only with terminology
>> conventional in the post-Suez pop music world. If this writer is
>> including as "covers" non-vocal performances of "Summertime", I
>> certainly don't think we generally speak of those as "covers" even
>> in the post-Suez world.
>
>I think you're right -- in the google hits I looked at, it was used to
>mean both "most covers of the original performed by..." and "most
>recorded tune".
>
>> I thought it was "Happy Birthday" that was supposed to be the
>> most-done song of all time, anyhow.
>
>Different category, I think -- that's usually said to be the the most
>*sung* song, whereas the (mis)used "covers" is referring to the one
>with the most "recorded versions".
Just to throw another log on the fire, there's also the most *played* song
(performances of any artist's recording), which I'm told is "You've Lost That
Lovin' Feeling"...my source is none other than BMI, which has an official stake
in keeping track of such things....
The original point of the term "cover" had nothing to do with "album covers"; a
blues or soul musician attached to a record company in the 1950s might write and
record a brilliant piece of music, but radio stations in many parts of the US in
those days wouldn't play "race" records...record-company solution was to hire
someone like Pat Boone to record a "safe" version that could be played in the
more lucrative markets (check out Pat's version of "Tutti Frutti" to see what
could result)...with both the authentic and the adaptive forms of the song
assigned to the same publisher, the rights to the song were thus "covered"....r
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
> The original point of the term "cover" had nothing to do with
> "album covers"; a blues or soul musician attached to a record
> company in the 1950s might write and record a brilliant piece of
> music, but radio stations in many parts of the US in those days
> wouldn't play "race" records...record-company solution was to hire
> someone like Pat Boone to record a "safe" version that could be
> played in the more lucrative markets (check out Pat's version of
> "Tutti Frutti" to see what could result)...
I don't remember that one, but I had most of Pat Boone's stuff drilled
into my head by continuous record-playing by my sister -- she was born
in 1944 (8 years older than me), so she was exactly the right age in
the late 1950s' to buy 78s which she played until they wore out.
This brings up one of those "where movies oversimplify" things.
Invariably, movies set in the 1950s have the teenagers listening *only*
to Elvis (or Bill Haley or, at the end of the decade, Buddy Holly) --
the stuff that's now seen as 1950s-cutting-edge -- but the record
buyers of the day were *way* more fickle in their taste.
My sister was a *huge* Elvis fan, but was also very, very, very hot on
Pat Boone's records, and I certainly recall her playing a number of
Perry Como discs (over, and over, and over again).
I don't think she was an exception: real taste is always complex. But
I daresay you won't see *that* mix in any movie set in the 1950s.
Tony Cooper
<harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I don't remember that one, but I had most of Pat Boone's stuff drilled
>into my head by continuous record-playing by my sister -- she was born
>in 1944 (8 years older than me), so she was exactly the right age in
>the late 1950s' to buy 78s which she played until they wore out.
J'ever wonder how it came to be that records spun at 78, 33 1/3, or 45
rpms? I suppose there's some sort of mathematical explanation, but
thinking about it makes my mind skip. I just can't get in the groove
of that kind of thinking.
Harvey Van Sickle
I hope somebody else can answer that; I've no idea.
But it reminds me of an old throw-away line, mentioning "Miss
Phonograph Record of 1953: her measurements were 33 1/3, 45, 78".
--
Cheers, Harvey
...k'tish boom....
Raymond S. Wise
news:3F88AA84...@it.net.au...
> Raymond S. Wise wrote:
> > "Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:3F88987C...@it.net.au...
> >
> >>david56 wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Apart from some G&S at school 30 years ago, I've spent all my adult
> >>>life singing sacred works, where the words are straightforward
> >>>English, German, French, Russian or Latin.
> >>
> >>Hmm - I've heard quite a few heated arguments about which Latin
> >>pronunciation should be used.
> >>
> >>Rob Bannister
> >
> >
> >
> > Last month I came upon a Web page, located at
> >
> > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Pranum/Page8.html
>
> Fascinating, if somewhat confusing stuff. I noticed he didn't mention
> 'oignon'.
>
>
> --
> Rob Bannister
For those not in the know, the pronunciation of the French word "oignon" (
meaning "onion" ) is an anomalous one: Instead of being pronounced /wa/, the
"oi" is pronounced /O/. The spelling "oignon" is one of those which was
changed in the "nouvelle orthographe" of the '90s, to "ognon." The "nouvelle
orthographe" has not been generally adopted.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
>> What do you get when you cross a madam with a gazelle?
> A gadam?
I was thinking of the wily mamzelle.
david56
> On 12 Oct 2003, Tony Cooper wrote
>
> > On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:28:46 +0100, Harvey Van Sickle
> ><harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't remember that one, but I had most of Pat Boone's stuff
> >> drilled into my head by continuous record-playing by my sister --
> >> she was born in 1944 (8 years older than me), so she was exactly
> >> the right age in the late 1950s' to buy 78s which she played
> >> until they wore out.
> >
> > J'ever wonder how it came to be that records spun at 78, 33 1/3,
> > or 45 rpms? I suppose there's some sort of mathematical
> > explanation, but thinking about it makes my mind skip. I just
> > can't get in the groove of that kind of thinking.
>
> I hope somebody else can answer that; I've no idea.
>
> But it reminds me of an old throw-away line, mentioning "Miss
> Phonograph Record of 1953: her measurements were 33 1/3, 45, 78".
There's a detailed explanation, which all sounds plausible here:
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/speeds.html
This maintains that the choice of 78 and 33 1/3 were chosen because
of the ease of gearing them from the 60 Hz mains, which doesn't help
us in the UK as the mains is 50 Hz.
--
David
=====
Tony Cooper
Good sleuthing. I won't accept it, though, until Donna vettes it.
(Is that the correct word? Where did it come from?)
Now, why was the hole bigger on the 45? Were all three speeds
available in the UK?
Donna Richoux
Bob Lieblich has shown himself to be the phonograph expert around here.
Ask him.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Charles Stewart
> Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:31:27 +0100, "John Dean"
> > <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> To me the question is reminiscent of the recent thread on 'jewess' -
> >> namely, why would it matter to identify these songs specifically
> >> with black people? I have heard them called 'spirituals' as often as
> >> I have heard 'Negro spiritual' and see no reason why a racial
> >> qualifier is necessary.
Have we established, then, that "negro spirituals" and "spirituals"
are synonymous? I thought that was still under consideration. I always
assumed the former was a subset of the latter, and wonder how many
others did too?
> >> In most cases, no-one is clear when or where
> >> the songs originated, nor is there evidence that they were any less
> >> popular with white audiences and singers than with black.
> >
> If you're talking about the performance of these things, I still find it
> strange to call them 'negro' spirituals. 'Porgy and Bess' doesn't feature
> negro opera, even though you mostly hear black people singing it.
It seems to me that these are different things. I call them "Negro
spirituals" because that is how they have always been identified to
me, both in church hymnals and in public school songbooks. I took this
to mean not so much that they were written by unknown blacks (indeed
the presumption was that their provenance was lost in the mists of
time), but that they had become identified with blacks because that
was who, in the past, mostly sang them, and because their style of
singing them is what prompted their most recent popularity -- keeping
them alive non-liturgically. I then associated that label with a
pattern of music that I continue to think of as the "Negro spiritual".
They are not so called for any political or social reason, but because
that is their traditional name and no one has objected enough (until
now) to evoke a change.
> But my argument is that you should only think of calling them 'negro
> spirituals' if you are sure they originated among black people.
I don't think that has ever been the criterion. To use it now would be
to change the definition. Is it worth that?
> (And even
> then, I'd be cautious). The literature on the subject is abundant. And,
> unfortunately, composed of fiercely antagonistic schools of thought. The
> oral nature of the tradition has made it difficult to trace origins and
> development. There is a 'back to Africa' school which insists the music
> traces back to various parts of that Continent. There is a 'Cherchez le
> blanc' school which avers that the music came from white church services and
> prayer meetings. A splinter group from the latter says it started white, but
> black people made it their own. I have some sympathy with that, but still
> see that as an issue of performance style. Like the difference (if there is
> one) between garage, hiphop and gangsta rap.
> As far as the lyrics go, I'm not aware of anyone who has discovered
> 'spirituals' in languages other than English (except where they have been
> translated).
Does that suggest they are musically or lyrically distinct from other
hymns?
> Now, however, Jackson had
> shown that spirituals were the combined fruit of three elements dear to
> Lloyd's heart: the melodies of Anglo-Celtic folk tradition, the vocal style
> and rhythms of Afro-American folk music and liberation politics. >>
Thanks for that research. I had no idea the sub-genre had a rich
critique attached.
Charles Stewart
Skitt
> Have we established, then, that "negro spirituals" and "spirituals"
> are synonymous? I thought that was still under consideration. I always
> assumed the former was a subset of the latter, and wonder how many
> others did too?
Here's the applicable definition from AHD4:
===========
1a. A religious folk song of African-American origin. b. A work composed in
imitation of such a song.
===========
From MWCD10:
===========
2 : a religious song usually of a deeply emotional character that was
developed especially among blacks in the southern U.S.
===========
I have never heard the term "negro spiritual" myself, but that does not mean
much.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
CyberCypher
one day
> On 12 Oct 2003, R H Draney wrote
>
> -snip-
>
>
>> The original point of the term "cover" had nothing to do with
>> "album covers"; a blues or soul musician attached to a record
>> company in the 1950s might write and record a brilliant piece of
>> music, but radio stations in many parts of the US in those days
>> wouldn't play "race" records...record-company solution was to
>> hire someone like Pat Boone to record a "safe" version that could
>> be played in the more lucrative markets (check out Pat's version
>> of "Tutti Frutti" to see what could result)...
>
> I don't remember that one,
You're a lucky guy.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Charles Stewart wrote:
>
>> Have we established, then, that "negro spirituals" and "spirituals"
>> are synonymous? I thought that was still under consideration. I always
>> assumed the former was a subset of the latter, and wonder how many
>> others did too?
>
>Here's the applicable definition from AHD4:
>===========
>1a. A religious folk song of African-American origin. b. A work composed in
>imitation of such a song.
I'm not one to be overly concerned with PC language, but I find the
above slightly irritating. I don't know the date of origin for the
term "African-American", but the origin of the popular usage of
African-American is relatively recent. By that I mean that you may
find references to African-American from 18xx, or even 17xx, but it
was not a term in general use until fairly recently.
It pre-dates most of the works called "Negro spirituals" by several
years. I think the term "of African-American origin" is wrong. I can
see the dilemma, though. The appropriate term has changed often, and
AHD4 has to use something.
I also wonder if the statement is true. Aren't many of the "Negro
spirituals" simply older hymns that have been - I guess the word would
be "adopted" - by the black churches? I wouldn't think the spirituals
would have originated in black churches or by black people before they
were involved with organized churches.
Charles Stewart
> The inimitable Tony Cooper <tony_co...@mungedyahoo.com> stated
> one day
>
> > On 11 Oct 2003 17:04:38 GMT, CyberCypher
> > <huizhe.at...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> > If I condescend to let you in on some secret joke, no
> > superiortiy/inferiority is involved.
I disagreed with you until I read this example. But it seems a little
ambiguous to make your point. Condescension so frequently suggests a
pleasure or pride in superiority that, for me, its use must be
"sanitized" by context to avoid that connotation, e.g., "Einstein
happened to be in the room chatting with Professor Jones when our
freshman physics class arrived and, to everybody's delight, he
condescended to subject himself to our questions for 20 minutes."
If one child is said to "condescend" to let another play with her toy,
attention is being focused upon the possessing child's property right
and the other's lack thereof. If that emphasis were apparent in
interaction, I would expect the other child to ignore it -- I'm not so
sure an adult would :(
> > If I condescend by
> > explaining something in baby-steps, the superiority involved can
> > be limited to a very narrow range of information and general
> > superiority is not involved.
It seems to me that "condescend" mis-characterizes this interaction --
precisely because of the benignity intended.
> > If someone wishes to explain to me how to compute the surface area
> > of a soccer ball, they had best be condescending and do it in
> > baby-steps. That is not offensive to me.
But to some it would be. Surely we all have had teachers or
supervisors that are insulting in the way they instruct, and the fact
that they have to first explain in "baby-steps" is not the source of
the insult. It is that learning is made more difficult because the
employees find themselves distracted by negative reaction to the
boss's condescending demeanor, either because the explanation is given
in overly simple terms, or because staffmembers feel expected to grasp
the matter too quickly.
But condescending behavior and taking offense are, as I think you
noted elsewhere, separate acts. There is an expectation that a
competent instructor can and will *reasonably* gauge the approximate
knowledge and learning levels of his instructees. The level at which
instruction is meted out then communicates to the learners what their
instructor thinks of the disparity between his level and theirs. If it
seems very out of proportion, some or all of the students are likely
to feel offended. This will sometimes be an over-reaction on the part
of the students. But unless one argues (and some do) that one person
is never responsible for offending another, it will sometimes be the
"fault" of the instructor.
> >>When someone condescends to me, I am insulted or offended
> >>regardless of whether the person doing the condescending is aware
> >>or ignorant of the condescension.
But the assessment from which the feelings derive is different.
Whether the condescension reflects an inappropriately high
self-opinion of that person or a low one of me matters. I am usually
less offended and more amused by the former than the latter -- up to a
point.
> > Then I would put you into the insecure group that sees offense
> > where no offense may be intended.
A character flaw few people seem to be free of. Otherwise, there would
be no need for the conventions called "manners" to ensure that we
treat people considerately by rote when thoughtfulness fails us.
Manners minimize unintended offense.
One may be offended unintentionally by someone who should know better
than to say or do something, but doesn't. One's supervisor, for
instance. It is the indifference to informing oneself about matters
one is expected not to be indifferent to that is felt as a want of due
respect.
> > It's not up to me to shield you from offense.
Ever wear clothes out of doors when it was too hot to do so?
> >>You might want to test that hypothesis by using the term "Negro"
> >>when you talk about black folks with black folks. That would be
> >>the only way for you to verify or falsify it, and it is
> >>falsifiable, so it's a perfect hypothesis for empirical testing
> >>rather than the kind of rationalization. you offer here.
> >
> > Perhaps you didn't notice, but one of those "black folks" posted
> > on this subject this morning.
>
> I have no idea who or what you are talking about, Pooper. I don't
> keep track of the color of any poster's skin, so I am not aware of
> who here might be black or white or any other color. Everyone to me
> is black type on a blue background.
>
> > He didn't offer any objections, and mentioned something
> > about it being a rather old-fashioned term.
>
> This is what is called anecdotal evidence and proves nothing.
It is responsive to your challenge.
> Who knows what was in that poster's mind.
I do.
> Maybe he had read your
> seminal explanation about the difference between white people who
> sing hymns and black people who sing spirituals. Maybe he felt that
> you were almost as black as he was because you seem to understand
> the souls of black folk so well. Maybe he was being polite and
> diplomatic by saying that the term is "old-fashioned" rather than
> "offensive" and "pejorative".
I said that "Negro" is old-fashioned rather than offensive and
pejorative because, as far as I can tell, that is so. YMMV.
I also explained why: that term, along with "colored" went out of use
so suddenly and so thoroughly that they left no lingering bad taste.
But I also said that I don't know how young African Americans who
never used or heard the terms on a daily basis might now react to
them. I find them quaint and I think many other blacks do. But I'm
sure there would be no difficulty in finding some that disagree with
me on this.
> Not everyone spells everything out. Sometimes they believe that if
> you are sensitive or intelligent enough, you will understand that
> such a remark might mean "Please don't use this word. Such
> old-fashioned terms are offensive because they suggest that you
> still live in the era of the virulent American racism practiced
> before the 1970s".
I have tried subtlety in those circumstances, that is true. In this
case, I didn't think the term generally offensive and said so. I heard
it used day before yesterday repeatedly before a diverse, though
predominantly African American audience under solemn circumstances.
The speaker was a screen actor of some note eulogizing his father, a
nationally respected judge, at the latter's funeral here in L.A. The
word was used for emphasis in both past and current contexts,
humourously and seriously, all to positive effect.
> Or "Using old-fashioned terms is disrespectful,
> and somebody who can declare with such conviction that dem darkies
> sho'nuff got rhythym, the way you did in your earlier post, ought to
> also be able to understand that only people with malicious intent
> use old-fashioned racial terms in 2003".
Hmm. I hadn't noticed that or given it consideration as a possibility.
It makes some sense to me and I'll have to pay closer attention to
context hereafter.
I have noticed that avowed racists sometimes use "Negro" rather than
"black" or "African American". They seem to object to these last terms
because they perceive them to be self-chosen or meliorative. They
repudiate any "multi-culturalist" right of Negroes to defy Western
hegemony in the matter, although it seems clear that most of Western
culture has long since validated the evolution.
Charles Stewart
Charles Stewart
Tony Cooper
Stewart) wrote:
I've snipped most of your post, Charles, because I feel only the part
of the post being responded to need be carried over.
I would point out that your reply could be a bit confusing in parts
because comments I've made are in there with Cyber's. The
attribution is a bit shaky. Since Cyber and I hold opposite
viewpoints, this could confuse.
>> Or "Using old-fashioned terms is disrespectful,
>> and somebody who can declare with such conviction that dem darkies
>> sho'nuff got rhythym, the way you did in your earlier post, ought to
>> also be able to understand that only people with malicious intent
>> use old-fashioned racial terms in 2003".
>
>Hmm. I hadn't noticed that or given it consideration as a possibility.
>It makes some sense to me and I'll have to pay closer attention to
>context hereafter.
Here, you're replying to Cyber. Frank, as I call him. Frank has gone
a bit out of bounds with this by bringing in "using". That implies
that person using the term uses the term in general conversation. For
example, "The bank just promoted John Jones to Vice-President, making
him the first Negro officer in the history of the bank."
That's not what I had in mind when I said that "Negro" is not a
pejorative term, but a term that is dated or out of fashion. That's
why I don't feel "Negro spirituals" is an offensive label.
My own application of the term would relate to time. In the example
above, I'd write "African American" because the event is current. If
I were writing about Richard Hatcher being elected Mayor of Gary,
Indiana in 1967, I might use "the first Negro..." because the term
"Negro" was the common reference in the 60s in Indiana when I was
there. I don't think it would wrong to write "African American" in
reference to Hatcher, but I don't think it would be offensive to write
"Negro" in that context.
>I have noticed that avowed racists sometimes use "Negro" rather than
>"black" or "African American". They seem to object to these last terms
>because they perceive them to be self-chosen or meliorative. They
>repudiate any "multi-culturalist" right of Negroes to defy Western
>hegemony in the matter, although it seems clear that most of Western
>culture has long since validated the evolution.
>
That's applying "Negro" to the current. There's also the supporting
context that's sure to be there that will give clear indication that
the term is meant to offend. The stone racist, or religious bigot,
can turn just about any term into an offensive term.
I don't see the racist using "Negro" to be offensive to be much of a
problem. You know what he is, you know where he stands, and you know
what his intent is. He can't be much worse because of this term or
that term.
I think it's more of a problem for the non-racist. He's often hobbled
by being unsure if a term is or is not offensive, is or is not
currently acceptable, and will or will not detract from what he's
trying to say. It's easy enough to deliberately offend, but making
sure you don't offend is often extremely complicated.