When rock and roll first appeared it directly clashed with the conservative, suburban culture of 1950s America. It was even labelled as “satan’s music” by church leaders and politicians. It emerged from African American musical traditions (rhythm & blues, gospel, jump blues) and was a direct threat to the segregation that was still the norm. Maybe there are a few correlations here.
I think (at least for me) there are two separate and entirely different parts to your comment.
The first, and this kind of fits with the idea of prevailing narratives, is that a lot of people (including me) would not agree that Rock'n'Roll is exclusively from "African American musical traditions". What about the influence of folk (especially Irish percussion and songwriting traditions), Country and Western (just for example, Appalachian Blue Grass, and also Hillbilly and Sacred Song music aka Gospel), actual Rock'n'Roll innovators, just for example, Elvis and Johnny Cash, and, last but by no means least, the guitar - not straight out of Africa, and developed especially for Rock'n'Roll by the likes of Leo Fender and Orville Gibson.
But it's a great example of how a prevailing narrative takes hold, becomes mainstream, and actually does the opposite of what you may think. It creates division and disagreement. Not unity and joy, which would be a fundamental aim of most Rock'n'Rollers.
Next, and I think you are spot on here, is the way this counter-culture clashed with mainstream conservative thinking. The government used every law they could in attempts to quash Rock'n'Roll. They didn't manage it. Now Rock'n'Roll is mainstream. So there is a correlation between 1950/60s USA and Islamic Al-Andalus - the powers that be attempted to outlaw music. In the USA it was just Rock'n'Roll. In Al-Andalus it was everything. Music was 'haram'. What's not entirely clear is the exact extent this was achieved in Islamic Spain... it just depends on who you choose to believe.
Fuck, man. Such a difficult, interesting, and thought-provoking question you ask here. With age (and I do realise I'm younger than most here) I'm increasingly becoming more receptive to the idea that two seemingly differing accounts can be both simultaneously true and simultaneously inaccurate when taken in isolation. When historians (or anyone wearing a historian's hat) tell a certain story, they will choose to highlight certain elements. Sometimes knowingly. Sometimes subconsciously. Sometimes, the source they are using may be biased or simply incomplete. This is why I think it's really important to read and highlight a variety of sources, a multitude of authorised voices, like I know you do in your life and like you're doing here. That may not give us all the answers, but it will definitely bring us closer to the truth. Thank you for such a terrific post.
It’s back to this topic of truth/facts vs narrative (loosely based on truth, with a smattering of facts).
The big question for me is motive. There can be many reasons why a narrative gets created and served up to us as an absolute truth, anything on a spectrum ranging from blissful ignorance all the way through to deeply calculated manipulation.
Add to this, as you so clearly point out, even if we are absolutely certain of basic facts, and even if we are aware original sources may also be biased, the truth is still illusive, and we may only get a vague glimpse of how things really were. More than one thing can be true at the same time.
That’s where I think gut feelings play a part. My gut tells me something is very off with how medieval Islamic Spain is being portrayed. My gut tells me ‘convivencia’ is a modern idea, an at least partially constructed narrative.
Big question becomes why? A clue is that funding for academics is much more easily garnered if they follow this narrative, than if they choose to oppose it - even with hard evidence and facts on their side. Academia does not seem so interested in critical thought and truth these days.
Exactly, my friend. It's only very few of us that are concerned with the truth even if it hurts. You've put it in much more eloquent terms, but it's basically what I would call "indoctrination". The creation and constant feeding of a narrative to serve certain interests.
I looked up musical censorship because I was very intrigued by what you wrote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_censorship). It can happen anywhere there is a fascist government or movements driven by fear and a need to control.
I do know from a course I took that power structures that try to suppress the human spirit have a long history of failure. The Soviet Union tried to suppress religion and it thrived underground across the country in many forms.
I can also say that it's not an Islamic thing as I've lived in two Islamic cultures and music, dance, and art thrived in both.
So I tend to lean towards Ted Gioia's view in general, but perhaps Fernandez-Morera is right about that particular society. (Sorry, I've written a thesis again! You keep bringing up great topics.)
It’s a great comment. Nuanced. I think I am mostly pointing at the academic disconnect. And this piece is definitely about back then, not now.
DFM doesn’t state that music didn’t exist in Al-Andalus, he states that it was suppressed heavily, and provides the documentary evidence, including legal texts and contemporary commentary.
On the other hand TG states he researched Islamic Córdoba for many years and his conclusion was that it became this multicultural artistic epicentre, a place of musical innovation. I’m not aware of his source material and he doesn’t reference it. He has a solid reputation as a music historian.
What’s curious, and this is just for starters, is that it is widely accepted that Sevilla was the biggest city in medieval Spain, with much less than 400,000 inhabitants. TG’s piece blows that out of the water. Also there are contemporary accounts of how the cathedral in Córdoba became a mosque. These accounts seem never to be cited when talking about this marvel of architecture. The accounts are far and away from anything that sounds like peaceful coexistence.
When rock and roll first appeared it directly clashed with the conservative, suburban culture of 1950s America. It was even labelled as “satan’s music” by church leaders and politicians. It emerged from African American musical traditions (rhythm & blues, gospel, jump blues) and was a direct threat to the segregation that was still the norm. Maybe there are a few correlations here.
I think (at least for me) there are two separate and entirely different parts to your comment.
The first, and this kind of fits with the idea of prevailing narratives, is that a lot of people (including me) would not agree that Rock'n'Roll is exclusively from "African American musical traditions". What about the influence of folk (especially Irish percussion and songwriting traditions), Country and Western (just for example, Appalachian Blue Grass, and also Hillbilly and Sacred Song music aka Gospel), actual Rock'n'Roll innovators, just for example, Elvis and Johnny Cash, and, last but by no means least, the guitar - not straight out of Africa, and developed especially for Rock'n'Roll by the likes of Leo Fender and Orville Gibson.
But it's a great example of how a prevailing narrative takes hold, becomes mainstream, and actually does the opposite of what you may think. It creates division and disagreement. Not unity and joy, which would be a fundamental aim of most Rock'n'Rollers.
Next, and I think you are spot on here, is the way this counter-culture clashed with mainstream conservative thinking. The government used every law they could in attempts to quash Rock'n'Roll. They didn't manage it. Now Rock'n'Roll is mainstream. So there is a correlation between 1950/60s USA and Islamic Al-Andalus - the powers that be attempted to outlaw music. In the USA it was just Rock'n'Roll. In Al-Andalus it was everything. Music was 'haram'. What's not entirely clear is the exact extent this was achieved in Islamic Spain... it just depends on who you choose to believe.
Fuck, man. Such a difficult, interesting, and thought-provoking question you ask here. With age (and I do realise I'm younger than most here) I'm increasingly becoming more receptive to the idea that two seemingly differing accounts can be both simultaneously true and simultaneously inaccurate when taken in isolation. When historians (or anyone wearing a historian's hat) tell a certain story, they will choose to highlight certain elements. Sometimes knowingly. Sometimes subconsciously. Sometimes, the source they are using may be biased or simply incomplete. This is why I think it's really important to read and highlight a variety of sources, a multitude of authorised voices, like I know you do in your life and like you're doing here. That may not give us all the answers, but it will definitely bring us closer to the truth. Thank you for such a terrific post.
It’s back to this topic of truth/facts vs narrative (loosely based on truth, with a smattering of facts).
The big question for me is motive. There can be many reasons why a narrative gets created and served up to us as an absolute truth, anything on a spectrum ranging from blissful ignorance all the way through to deeply calculated manipulation.
Add to this, as you so clearly point out, even if we are absolutely certain of basic facts, and even if we are aware original sources may also be biased, the truth is still illusive, and we may only get a vague glimpse of how things really were. More than one thing can be true at the same time.
That’s where I think gut feelings play a part. My gut tells me something is very off with how medieval Islamic Spain is being portrayed. My gut tells me ‘convivencia’ is a modern idea, an at least partially constructed narrative.
Big question becomes why? A clue is that funding for academics is much more easily garnered if they follow this narrative, than if they choose to oppose it - even with hard evidence and facts on their side. Academia does not seem so interested in critical thought and truth these days.
Exactly, my friend. It's only very few of us that are concerned with the truth even if it hurts. You've put it in much more eloquent terms, but it's basically what I would call "indoctrination". The creation and constant feeding of a narrative to serve certain interests.
I looked up musical censorship because I was very intrigued by what you wrote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_censorship). It can happen anywhere there is a fascist government or movements driven by fear and a need to control.
I do know from a course I took that power structures that try to suppress the human spirit have a long history of failure. The Soviet Union tried to suppress religion and it thrived underground across the country in many forms.
I can also say that it's not an Islamic thing as I've lived in two Islamic cultures and music, dance, and art thrived in both.
So I tend to lean towards Ted Gioia's view in general, but perhaps Fernandez-Morera is right about that particular society. (Sorry, I've written a thesis again! You keep bringing up great topics.)
It’s a great comment. Nuanced. I think I am mostly pointing at the academic disconnect. And this piece is definitely about back then, not now.
DFM doesn’t state that music didn’t exist in Al-Andalus, he states that it was suppressed heavily, and provides the documentary evidence, including legal texts and contemporary commentary.
On the other hand TG states he researched Islamic Córdoba for many years and his conclusion was that it became this multicultural artistic epicentre, a place of musical innovation. I’m not aware of his source material and he doesn’t reference it. He has a solid reputation as a music historian.
What’s curious, and this is just for starters, is that it is widely accepted that Sevilla was the biggest city in medieval Spain, with much less than 400,000 inhabitants. TG’s piece blows that out of the water. Also there are contemporary accounts of how the cathedral in Córdoba became a mosque. These accounts seem never to be cited when talking about this marvel of architecture. The accounts are far and away from anything that sounds like peaceful coexistence.
All very interesting, Nic. It would be good to know Ted's sources so you can go further if you wanted to do so. (You can always DM here on Substack!)
I may just do that one of these days.