(This letter is being reprinted having been garbled in sections by a technical malfunction)
THE EDITOR, Sir:
LET ME state that I am an avid reader of Martin Henry's columns appearing in The Gleaner. Mr. Henry in his understated manner has brought an incisive mind to bear on important issues which often do not command screaming headlines. I therefore read with interest his observations on Marjorie Whylie's GraceKennedy Lecture and would like to comment on his conclusions.
Mr. Henry seems to have a difficulty with Ms. Whylie's espousal of the notion that music is "morally neutral." I infer from Mr. Henry's arguments that he believes Ms. Whylie's position is inconsistent with reality given the negative associations we often make with music in our society.
However I think Ms. Whylie is on safe philosophical ground to contend that music is "morally neutral". First I posit that it is the human uses to which the music is put which could be deemed "immoral" not the art form itself. Music like technology is "morally neutral" it makes no choices of itself and can be an agent of good or evil.
PERSONIFY MUSIC
Historically we have sought to personify music. Pitched battles have been fought as a result of this mindset. There were literal wars fought between Classicists and Romantics. The traditionalist saw romantic music as diabolical. Jazz was described as the music of the devil and we could cite so many examples of the human tendency to demonize art.
Sometimes a work can be used contrary to the intent of the author. How many times have some works been misused on political platforms?
We should also remember that morality can be contextual both from an historical and social stand point. What might be inflammatory today might be celebratory tomorrow. The shrewd Ms. Whylie has avoided a philosophical quagmire by her not ascribing moral attributes to music.
In fact the moral character of a composer might be irrelevant to the impact of his music. Many times the original intent of the author is lost in its performance which is why the law gives composers what are called "moral rights" so that those who seek to use a creator's work will adhere as close as possible to what he deems to be an appropriate use of his intellectual property.
We should also note that the ascription of moral tones to music served to slow the use of indigenous Jamaican music in local liturgy. Even today there are traditionalists in the church who believe that reggae is inappropriate in the worship of God. We should give thanks to people like Father Richard Ho Lung and Barry Chevannes who have done so much to demonstrate that our Heavenly Father understands the vernacular. Ask Lieutenant Stitchie and Papa San about some of the reaction they get from some of their church brethren.
It should also be remembered that it is not only musical genres but some languages which have been considered inappropriate for praise. There were some members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy who saw it as almost heretical to have the Mass said in any language but Latin "Dominus Vobiscum" Mr. Henry. Congratulations are in order for Ms. Whylie on a truly fine presentation. I do wish it were a series so as to allow her to expand on some of her poignant observations.
I am, etc.,
CLYDE MACKENZIE
Director, Shocking Vibes Production Ltd.
