My dream was like reality in that we had one performance left of a very large choral work. In every other detail it differed, though I can see where parts are based in reality. The work was set in some Hindustani classical raga which used what is called in Bengali 'kori ma' - the sharp fourth or in Western music, if set as an interval against the tonic, the tritone.
The choir I was singing with was run by the Episcopal church, which had (also sadly true outside of dream) been bitterly divided on the topic of how gay people were to be viewed and their role in the church. And somehow this issue of politics also got tied up with a musical controversy: the conservative contingent had also decided to change this raga to include shuddh ma instead of kori ma. (Upon waking, I realize this is analogous to the demonization of the tritone in the Middle Ages.) In this case, the conservative contingent had won out and we were now to sing all pieces without using kori ma.
But we had one concert left.
Even among choir members we were divided. To sing it as we had been singing previously would be to defy the church and show support for the liberal agenda - even if the reason we were doing it was because it was impossible to relearn the whole work in a day, it would still be construed as such. Hardcore conservatives and those who were scared of backlash said 'change it, even if it means we make mistakes in performance.' Liberal people such as myself thought this was ridiculous and wished to sing it as it was, and those who didn't care thought "there is one concert left; can't this be grandfathered in?" The director of the choir seemed to fall in the "I don't agree with this but I don't want to lose my job" camp but also the "We can't relearn this in one day and it will sound terrible" camp and could not make up his mind, leaving us to fight it out amongst ourselves.
I wrote a scathing op-ed about it, how it was against the message of the church and also particularly against the message of the piece we were performing to be so legalistic, Pharisaical, and political that the litmus test of where you stood was whether you sang a piece as it was written or a revisionist version with a note one-half step down. How this piece was based on a particular scale that gives a particular feel and you can't just go changing it to flaunt your position on an issue that has nothing to do with the music. And how this ridiculous question of the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type only serves to point out who is obedient enough to do what we ask and who is not, and does not make the church any better and only serves to make music worse.
I woke up before a final decision was made but I am sure I would have refused to perform regardless of the outcome.
The choir I was singing with was run by the Episcopal church, which had (also sadly true outside of dream) been bitterly divided on the topic of how gay people were to be viewed and their role in the church. And somehow this issue of politics also got tied up with a musical controversy: the conservative contingent had also decided to change this raga to include shuddh ma instead of kori ma. (Upon waking, I realize this is analogous to the demonization of the tritone in the Middle Ages.) In this case, the conservative contingent had won out and we were now to sing all pieces without using kori ma.
But we had one concert left.
Even among choir members we were divided. To sing it as we had been singing previously would be to defy the church and show support for the liberal agenda - even if the reason we were doing it was because it was impossible to relearn the whole work in a day, it would still be construed as such. Hardcore conservatives and those who were scared of backlash said 'change it, even if it means we make mistakes in performance.' Liberal people such as myself thought this was ridiculous and wished to sing it as it was, and those who didn't care thought "there is one concert left; can't this be grandfathered in?" The director of the choir seemed to fall in the "I don't agree with this but I don't want to lose my job" camp but also the "We can't relearn this in one day and it will sound terrible" camp and could not make up his mind, leaving us to fight it out amongst ourselves.
I wrote a scathing op-ed about it, how it was against the message of the church and also particularly against the message of the piece we were performing to be so legalistic, Pharisaical, and political that the litmus test of where you stood was whether you sang a piece as it was written or a revisionist version with a note one-half step down. How this piece was based on a particular scale that gives a particular feel and you can't just go changing it to flaunt your position on an issue that has nothing to do with the music. And how this ridiculous question of the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type only serves to point out who is obedient enough to do what we ask and who is not, and does not make the church any better and only serves to make music worse.
I woke up before a final decision was made but I am sure I would have refused to perform regardless of the outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment