Talk:Jewish music

Jewish Music

The section related to Jewish Musicians including Billy Joel is far fetched.. they are Musicians who are Jewish.. but that Jewish Music.. id argue that the list should be limited to those who perform Jewish music.

Contemporary Jewish pop music

A whole branch of contemporary Jewish music is missing from this article, but I do not feel that I know about musical terms and styles well enough to fill in the gaps. I'm talking about popular Orthodox musicians like Yehuda!, Mordechai Ben David, Miami Boys Choir, who sing well known Hebrew verses (or English lyrics with religious themes) over keyboards, drums, and electronic sounds. If anyone knows more about this, please help!The Box 21:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just added a small section to the article, but it really needs help from someone who knows more about the topic. The Box 22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on contemporaary Jewish pop music over at Shiny Shoe Music. Consensus has decided that that title is a misnomer, but no consensus has been reached on where to move that article (i.e., what to rename it). I just suggested there that it be merged into this article. Please feel free to continue discussion there about what to do with that article; or to continue discussion here about the general topic of contemporary Jewish popular music. Thanks!—msh210℠ 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---

This article needs a lot of work. It jumps around in time - from the temple period, to the middle ages, to synagogal music (when was that) then back to the temple, then to modern times. It is unclear when a lot of the developments took place.

But the biggest problem - the one that is pointed out in the beginning of the article - is that it is not about Jewish music. It is about Jewish liturgical music. As such, it is inappropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia catalog of World music articles.

What we need to do is rename this article "Jewish Liturgical Music" and create a new article called "Jewish Music" which is an overview of the subject, with pointers to the various specific articles.

Since moving or renaming an article is considered a major event in Wikiculture, I feel reticent to do this without some discussion. So I am opening this to discussion now.

--Ravpapa 13:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It certainly suffers from a certain schizophrenia: the disambiguation text at the beginning clarifies that the article is supposedly about sacred music, and directs readers interested in secular Jewish music to the article Secular Jewish culture. Yet a good deal of the music mentioned in the Contemporary Jewish Music section one would be hard-pressed to call sacred; neither, however, could it all be called secular -- so there's the problem: there's a good deal of music that takes its inspiration from religion or touches on religious subjects but which is not sacred music in the commmon sense of the term, including music which often formally resembles popular song but which treats of religious subjects. For this reason, I think it is too much to say that the article should be retitled "Jewish Liturgical Music," because not all religious music is either liturgical or even sacred. How about "Jewish religious music," which would cover liturgical, sacred and more contemporary music that is religious in theme or inspiration? --Rrburke 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Move and merges and creation

Everything is a mess, I created this to be the central article, similar to what Secular Jewish music and dance is and a Religious Jewish music should be created a central article as well. I also moved "Contemporary Jewish music" out of the original sacred article as it had nothing to do with it (see above) and moved it to it's own, Contemporary Jewish religious music. Furthermore, I think Synagogal Music and Sacred Jewish music at some point need to be merged. I'm not sure how this will go over, but I trying to be bold to fix this up. Epson291 13:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is MUCH better now. Really worked on it. It makes much more sense now in its structure. Also really work on the Jewish dance section. Jewish music and are more then less lists right now, but that should change with some work. Epson291 16:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok now this page needs not to look like a disambiguation page, along with the Religious Jewish music Epson291 13:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it up! and it no longer looks like a disambiguation page. Someone kind, please fix up History of religious Jewish music, I'm scared to look at! Epson291 05:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I've reduced the excessive indentations in this section (2, 4, and 9 levels!) to the appropriate 1, 2, and 3. "It is MUCH better now." And it's not just a question of looks.

On a smartphone that makes especially the last part awkward to read, like this. Epson291, do you agree?

--Thnidu (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Radical Jewish Music

If this is the central article for Jewish music, it doesn't make sense to remove "Contemporary Jewish Music". Radical Jewish music is an indigenous form of Jewish music in America in the same way that Klezmer was for Eastern Europe. It is a diverse form, incorporating avant-garde jazz such as Massada and cabaret/klezmer/punk such as Golem. It is music that focuses on the diaspora experience. Aside from its importance from within Jewish American culture, radical Jewish musicians are often the face of new Jewish music for the rest of the United States. Tzadik founder John Zorn just got a MacArthur Award for his work. The text below belongs in this article:

John Zorn's record label, Tzadik Records, features a "Radical Jewish Culture" series that focuses on exploring what contemporary Jewish music is and what it offers to contemporary Jewish culture. Other lables which focus on similar themes through diverse music stlyes include JDub Records, Oyhoo, and the Knitting Factory's now defunct label: The Jewish Alternative Movement.yokyle 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This so called "Radical Jewish Music" appears to be a one label show ("Tzadik Records"). I've never heard of it, and Goggle does not bring back many results other then directing to Tzadik Records. It is not prevlent enough to be included here in this central article, there isn't even a article on it on Wikipedia.

Is this secular Jewish music? Maybe a sourced explanation (from a real scholarly source), would be good in Secular Jewish music and dance, this music simply isn't prevlant enough to be on this main article and there are already articles to deal with Secular Jewish music. (If I walk into a Judaica shop, (or HMV), can I by this music?) Epson291 07:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Shiny Shoe Music

Since Shiny Shoe music redirect here, it might be an idea to actually mention it somewhere in the article. -- TimNelson 05:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish"

are jews really "a religion and a nation"? odd. (The preceding unsigned comment was added 20:20 June 7 2008 by User:24.141.229.248)

The adjective Jewish applies equally to Judaism (the Jewish religion) and sociocultural matters related to the people historically know as Jews (sometimes described as an ethnicity or nation) regardless of religious belief and practice. Despite possible ambiguities arising from this dual meaning, the page refers to the music of both. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisions by 60.51.136.157

User 60.51.136.157 has twice added a phrase to the last sentence of History of Religious Music. The edit renders the sentence unintelligible. The first time this user made the change, I reverted it. Now that he has made it a second time, it is clear he wants to say something, maybe important, but I can't figure out what it is supposed to mean.

60.51.136.157, if you are out there reading this, please write me to explain what you meant. You can write to me directly in Hebrew via the "E-mail this user" function on my talk page. I will try to put it into proper English so everyone can understand.

I also question 60.51.136.157's other addition to the article. Does a popular song by an Indonesian singer about Jews really qualify as "Jewish music"? Is there anything Jewish about this song (other than the fact that the text discusses Jews)?

--Ravpapa (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox and music

I followed the link to the reference given for the contention that "Many Orthodox Jews insist their children listen to music produced only by other Orthodox Jews, so that their children will not be influenced by harmful outside ideas." I found no reference in the article to Orthodox Jews, and nothing to support this statement.

The statement may well be true, even if it is probably offensive to many. But without a source, it has no place in the article. If no one shows me a reliable source for this statement, I will remove it.

Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This may relate to an Haredi ("ultraorthodox") and/or Orthodox Jewish proscription, that boys and men not hear the voice of a female vocalist (regardless of her religion or religiousity). I'll look for a reference to cite and add this to the page. "-- Deborahjay (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Music Sidebar

I suppose this isn't the correct place for this comment, but I can't figure out how to fix this myself. The Jewish and Israeli Music sidebar has a link to the disambiguation page for the Hora. I think the link should link to the Hora (dance) article specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.239.17 (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Shirulashem's edits

Shirulashem, according to your edit summary, you were correcting typos. In fact, what you did was remove wikilinks to related articles.

If that was your intention, please explain why you think the links are not appropriate. If it was a mistake, I will undo the edits to restore the links (leaving the capitalization of "Ladino" which was correct.

I will give you a few days to respond, before doing the revert. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon editor 69.248.98.23's and AnkMorpork's edits

An anonymous editor made a number of changes to this article. Some of them - for example, the standardization of the spelling of "Hasidic" - were fine, but two of them were not. In one case, she changed "immigrants" (referring to Jewish migrants to Palestine or to Israel) to "olim", which is the Hebrew word. Second, she changed "the style of the Jewish diaspora of Eastern Europe" to "the style of the Jewish diaspora still living in Eastern Europe". Aslo, she changed "Eastern European Jews" to "Eastern Ashkenazi Jews." The anonymous editor also added a comment about Hebrew pronunciation.

The first two of these edits are bad. Many, perhaps most, readers of this article do not speak Hebrew, and have no idea what "olim" means. The original word, "settlers", has become politically charged, and I can see why someone might object to it, but the word "immigrant" is completely neutral. It should be restored.

Adding that Klezmer is the style of music of Jews "still living in Eastern Europe" is patently untrue. Eastern European Jewish musical style was not practiced only by people living in Eastern Europe, but also in Palestine or Israel at the time, in New York, in Western Europe, where many Eastern European Jews had migrated, in Australia - need I continue? This change should also be reverted.

As for changing Eastern European to Eastern Ashkenazi Jews, it doesn't make a lot of sense (are there "Western Ashkenazi Jews"?) but I don't have strong feelings about it one way of the other.

User:AnkhMorpork hastened to revert my edits in this matter, and I would be interested in hearing his reasons for this. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems sound, and your edit should not have been reverted without explanation. I have restored your version for now, and would invite further discussion here. --Deskford (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Smerus's admirable work

Kudos to Smerus for attempting to fix up this article. With all due respect, though, I fear it is for naught. Because the article doesn't need fixing up, it needs a complete rewrite.

It is organized completely wrong, concentrates on issues that are more philological than musical (the difference between a peyut and zmiros), and ignores entire areas of critical importance. Since we are here discussing this, I would suggest organizing the article as follows:

1. Historiology of Jewish music: that is, the history of the study of Jewish music. Before the end of the 19th century, no one really thought there was such a thing as Jewish music. Only with the landmark survey of Marek and Ginzburg, and the subsequent researches of Idelsohn, Engel, Ephros and Rosowsky, was there recognition of Jewish music as a separate musical discipline.

2. Historical perspective: surveying the main influences on Jewish music worldwide, and concentrating on the question of whether there is (as Idelssohn tried to prove) a direct link between Jewish musical modes and the music of the Temple.

3. Ethnic Jewish musics: with sections on Eastern European, Yemenite, Arabic, and so on.

4. Jewish liturgical music: with a much more serious discussion of Sulzer and the rewriting of the Jewish liturgy during the Haskala.

5. Jewish art music.

6. Popular music: discussing not only popular music that is specifically Jewish (shiny shoe, Israeli, Theodore Bikel), but also the influence of Jewish (and specifically Eastern European Jewish) music on jazz, Broadway, Rock 'n' roll.

7. Jewish music and identity: a survey of the discussion "What is Jewish music" and the conflicting views of Brod, Milhaud, and others, who have argued over this issue.

This is, of course, a mammoth undertaking. In my younger days, I knew quite a bit about this stuff, but I have found that I forget it a lot faster than I learned it. Nonetheless, I would be willing to do my little part, if others want to take the ram by the horn, so to speak. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it needs a complete rewrite. But actually this is the (inefficient) way in which I frequently work on dud articles. By doing bits and pieces I get a feel of how (I think) it ought to be - thus (e.g.) I have been graudally erasing the philology. I don't in principle disagree with your proposed structure. If/when I get in the mood I will initiaite the complete rewrite you suggest..... and of course would be very glad to cooperate with others. NB 'behind' this article are a lot of other deadwood articles which are referred to in this one as 'main articles'.......--Smerus (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Gross bias

§ Nineteenth-century synagogue music says

By the late eighteenth century, music in European synagogues had sunk to a low standard

citing only a lengthy scornful dismissal of one occasion by a Gentile. Charles Burney, although a highly respected historian of music, clearly had no experience of nigunim, no hesitation in mocking a congregation of Jews at worship, and no apparent intention of looking further into the matter (and, just possibly, revising his opinion). He is quoted here as writing

At my first entrance, one of the priests [i.e. the hazzan] was chanting part of the service in a kind of ancient canto fermo, and responses were made by the congregation, in a manner which resembled the hum of bees. After this three of the sweet singers of Israel [...] began singing a kind of jolly modern melody, sometimes in unison and sometimes in parts, to a kind of tol de rol, instead of words, which to me, seemed very farcical ... At the end of each strain, the whole congregation set up such a kind of cry, as a pack of hounds when a fox breaks cover ... It is impossible for me to divine what idea the Jews themselves annex to this vociferation.

To draw only from this source as documentation of "[sinking] to a low standard" is a gross and flagrant violation of WP:NPOV.

--Thnidu (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Agreed (and not just as a Jew – I would say the same if it were about music in a Catholic or Muslim service as well). Devoting that much verbage (a stand-out-formatted quote) to the sole, self-described personal opinion and lack of understanding of a single source seems, at best, WP:UNDUE. Describing the congregation's sound as similar to that of a "pack of hounds" would be unacceptable writing here, and should disqualify the author as a source outright. Axe it. Has this guy been used elsewhere as source? Is the rest of his work of a similar character? (Pinging Smerus, who added it years ago) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• A couple of things here. Charles Burney, as you comment, was a noted music historian of the 18c. and his opinions reflect those of his contemporaries. So the quote, biassed as it is , is not without interest. You can't, I think, axe sources just because you don't like what they say. Moreover, it's WP:OR to just dismiss it as 'gross bias', because his description may well have been accurate - I've heard similar and worse at synagogues I've attended over the past 70 years. (Burney was btw friendly with Jewish musicians in London of the period, such as Jacob Cervetto). Secondly, other (Jewish) sources have commented on the decline of synagogue singing at this period and i will track them down and cite them. -- Smerus (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1 and Smerus: Thanks for helping with this!

By "gross bias" I don't mean his disapproval of the music as such – he's entitled to his critical opinion – but to his pejorative wording:

in a manner which resembled the hum of bees.... a kind of tol de rol, instead of words, which to me, seemed very farcical ... such a kind of cry, as a pack of hounds when a fox breaks cover ... It is impossible for me to divine what idea the Jews themselves annex to this vociferation*.

* Wiktionary: The act of exclaiming; violent outcry; vehement utterance of the voice.

I certainly agree with AlanM1's expression of much of my reasoning:

Devoting that much verbage (a stand-out-formatted quote) to the sole, self-described personal opinion and lack of understanding of a single source seems, at best, WP:UNDUE. Describing the congregation's sound as similar to that of a "pack of hounds" would be unacceptable writing here...

I'm not sure the "pack of hounds" should disqualify the author as a source outright, but AFAIC it and the rest of this rant undermine his argument as biased, rather than supporting it as a neutral expression would. And as I said originally, "a kind of tol de rol, instead of words, which to me, seemed very farcical'" proves his ignorance of nigunim and so a lack of significant understanding of Jewish congregational singing. I think it could be useful to compare the date of this quote with his (perhaps only later?) friendships with Jewish musicians.

--Thnidu (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to axe it because I don't like it (though I certainly don't), but because of the reasons I stated. His language is insulting and inflammatory more than probative. Perhaps he was comparing the experience to that of a choir in an English cathedral, which is naturally different, as he should know, being a "respected critic". Maybe this is an isolated example of his writing, but it's a darn lousy one, and it doesn't do anything to defend the assertion that "music in European synagogues had sunk to a low standard" (i.e. it's so inflammatory that no reader who is paying attention will give it credit). Much of the time, I say let the reader decide for themself, but this crosses the line. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

As you wish. i don't of course defend Burney's mode of expression - but it is of interest and relevance as expressing what many might have felt at the time. I personally feel that readers will be able to form their own opinion of Burney, but if you fear that his comments may melt some snowflakes...... Smerus (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Smerus and AlanM1: Smerus, I hope I'm misunderstanding your last sentence and specifically your use of " snowflake":

... a 2010s derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly-emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions.

In light of Burney's obvious ignorance of synagogue music—he didn't recognize nigunim!— I'm still unconvinced of his expertise on this subject at the time he wrote this. And while both his assessment of the musical quality and his condescending, insulting way of expressing it could be in alignment with "what many might have felt at the time", without other RSes, the assumption that many others did feel the same way is unsupported, OR.

If you agree, I am willing to paraphrase the quote in more emotionally neutral terms, without Burnley's vituperative choices of words. But I still hold that this one ignoramus's criticism is insufficient support for the "low standard" claim.

--Thnidu (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I have now added quotes and citations for Jewish scholars' opinion about the low standard of this period. I have also rewritten the intro to Burney's remarks to provide a perspective. But I very strongly disagree that any of Burney's comments should be edited out. They are of a part with other 18th-century musicologists' condemnation of synagogue music and many will have agreed with Burney or followed his opinion, misinformed as it is. We can't, and shouldn't, edit out the reality of history. It is views like Burney's (and of German musicologists of his period such as Forkel and Mattheson) that laid the ground for musical anti-semitism of the 19th century, including Richard Wagner's. You may think that Burney is an ignoramus - that is essentially a piece of WP:OR, and WP is not here for us to express our opinions. Burney may have known nothing about Jewish music but he was a major music historian and pundit of his time. We may not like it, but it's a fact - and we are not here in Wikipedia to cover up. The best thing is to make his situation explicit, warts and all. Best, Smerus (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the work – it's much better now. I still disagree with using the quote, though. The short (or even longer, if needed) less inflammatory quotes seem sufficient and of more appropriate weight relative to the rest of the section. How about removing the long quote and changing the last sentence of that graph to: In this context the English music historian Charles Burney, visiting the Ashkenazi synagogue of Amsterdam in 1772, observed "... a kind of jolly modern melody, sometimes in unison and sometimes in parts, to a kind of tol de rol, instead of words, which to me, seemed very farcical ..."? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it is rather misleading, as it makes him sound more sympathetic than he actually was. However, I have an idea , and am just going to edit the article accordingly. I have changed the wording in the text to an extract, as you suggest, and relegated the full text to a note wherefrom readers will draw their conclusions. -Smerus (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Truth God Your Name.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Truth God Your Name.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Song as language 50.221.143.190 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)