Here is something (with an interesting philosophical twist) that may interest those of you who are into classical music. A friend of a friend of mine is directing a new non-profit organization called “The World Civic Orchestra.” According to the website: “The mission of the World Civic Orchestra is to use music as a means to bridge the world’s differences. The WCO believes that music can help the world understand and appreciate the differences that too often lead to conflict because its essence is not bound by culture, race, or religion. Rather a universal language touches the human soul.” The group has set an inaugural concert at Carnegie Hall on June 20, 2010. The program will include Beethoven’s “Choral” Symphony. If you’re a performer as well as enthusiast, the site also says that the organization is “actively accepting membership applications for both instrumental and choral sections.” (For more information on the orchestra you may want to check out organization’s website at www.worldcivicorchestra.org) All of the above presents an interesting philosophical question: Can music, and art in general, really help to “bridge the world’s differences” in a practical way? I would be interested in seeing what people think.
I'd say 'yes', but only slightly. A century ago all of Europe had embraced the same musical forms, and was on the verge of ripping itself to pieces in two crazy world wars. Music, like many of the visual arts, can work non-verbally and non-conceptually, so it can fairly easily be snipped out of its original cultural context and dropped into a new one. African traditional arts are an example of that. Many of them originally had solemn ritual significance and symbolized items from myth. Today reproductions are mass produced and knock-offs sit in Western homes as decorative objects, owned by people who don't have the faintest clue what they once meant and were used for. But they look cool. In the new China, cut free of its own millenial traditions but still unsettled on a new cultural direction, many young people have taken to Western clothing and pop music. They play video games and wear t-shirts with English words on them that most of them can't even read. But that doesn't mean that they are culturally Western or even sentimentally pro-Western. They are often extremely chauvinist and embrace radical forms of nationalism. They enjoy seeing Europe and the US put in what they believe is their place. But Western pop culture is cool. It's real, but I wouldn't put much hope in it.
Agreed-- I think there is a distinction to be made between sharing music and art (popular or otherwise), and acceptance of another culture on other levels. After mulling over this topic I remembered hearing many years ago that musicians such as Louis Armstrong and Benny Goodman were cited as “ambassadors of jazz” for their overseas work. A little work with Dr. Google uncovered this illuminating article: http://www.meridian.org/jazzambassadors/ The author, Dr. Curtis Sandberg, says the program was “remarkably successful” in courting the “hearts and minds” of the world’s people. He notes that the Soviet Union was engaged in a similar effort with folk and classical music and dance. Maybe the program was successful but I don't know how that could be proven.
I have read that throughout the 20th century, when racism abounded in the United States, black musicians found cultural acceptance several decades before discrimination against black people as a whole began to subside. It's as if the popular musicians were given the title of an honorary white person.
