|
Translating and Editing “Lesbian and Gay Music”
by Elizabeth Wood and Philip Brett
The author is the editor of "Lesbian and Gay Music."
For the full text of that article, click
here.
- The second edition of The New Grove Dictionary of Music
and Musicians was launched in January 2001 and sought
to keep pace with changes in musicology worldwide, and
in the English-speaking
world in particular. The inclusion of an entry on “Gay
and Lesbian Music,” by Philip Brett and Elizabeth Wood,
represented one more stage in the process of institutionalization
of a new field of study officially acknowledged by the American
Musicological Society in 1989 with the foundation of its
Gay
and Lesbian Study Group (GLSG). The Grove commission
also represented a significant step towards the tacit acceptance
of “changes within musicology and criticism brought about
by the belated impact of poststructural interdisciplinary
ways
of thinking” (Brett and Wood, “Lesbian”).
So far as Grove is concerned, this impact translated
into a series of articles on attitudes and ideologies: “feminism,”
“gay and lesbian music,” “Marxism,”
“nationalism,” “Nazism,” “socialist
realism.” As Michael Church gathered from an interview
with Grove co-editor Stanley Sadie for the British
newspaper The Independent a few days before the
official launching, “the discussion of homosexuality
gave a lot of problems”:
Sadie has an article on gay and lesbian music, whose
authors — a male Brit and an Australian female —
initially wanted it billed as ‘lesbian and gay music.’
“I said no to that, and I also suggested that ‘gay’
covered both sexes, but they said no to that. In fact, I said
no to quite a lot of things. They wanted to list gay and lesbian
composers, and I said you can’t do that without specific
permission if they’re alive, and I didn’t like
it being done if they were dead.” He pours scorn on
the sexual fellow-travelers who now claim Schubert as gay.
“The evidence is non-existent, but you can’t say
that in America without being branded a homophobe.”
Since Wood and Brett were allotted 2500 words, and wrote almost
five times as much, they expected cuts. These came not as they
feared in the more theoretical sections, but in targeted areas
such as names, popular music, and the role of women. Though
some living lesbian and gay musicians were included, Sadie excised
all those thought to be uncomfortable about their sexual orientation’s
being publicized, beginning with Boulez. “Our editor …
viewed our topic as an exclusively (North) American concern,
and did a good deal to enforce that opinion” (Brett and
Wood, “Lesbian”). The editors altered large sections
on popular music, disrupted the balance the authors had sought
to strike between lesbian and gay musicians, and changed the
title to “Gay and Lesbian Music.” Finally, the Grove
editors rejected the authors’ desire “to relate
the gay and lesbian movement post-Stonewall and the appearance
of lesbian and gay perspectives/studies in music in the 1990s
to political and intellectual contexts and developments”
(Brett and Wood, “Lesbian”).
- What Brett termed “the unexpurgated full-length original
article,” “Lesbian and Gay Music” (as opposed
to “Gay and Lesbian Music,” the excised Grove
version), first appeared in the GLSG Newsletter in
the Spring 2001 issue. In the same issue, Ivan Raykoff’s
“Comparative Notes” collated the Grove
and GLSG texts. For the Electronic Musicological Review,
I took the GLSG Newsletter as a starting point, adding
a few alterations as requested by the authors, illustrations,
sound excerpts, a Portuguese translation including fifty-six
explanatory notes, mostly derived from an extensive correspondence
with Brett, Wood, and other members of the academic and/or lesbian
and gay communities.
- In its original online format as published in the Electronic
Musicological Review, “Lesbian and Gay Music”
is divided into eleven sections. The first, an “introduction
to the original version,” reports on the vexations of
the editorial process: “[it] was like having teeth pulled”
(Brett, e-mail message of 4 January 2001 to the GLSG list).
The second section, “(homo)sexuality and musicality,”
tackles the relationship between both terms, and the manner
in which that relationship was obliterated in many historical
accounts. From here, Wood and Brett recount the history of the
homosexual liberation movement as it relates to academic research
in music, opera, ballet, pantomime, women’s music, and
lesbian/gay bands and choruses. Then, they discuss issues of
homosexuality in “musical theatre, jazz and popular music,”
with particular reference to popular songs. The fifth section,
“music and the AIDS/HIV crisis” recounts the conservative
reaction that followed the epidemic, as well as the wave of
support for lesbian and gay issues that flowed from both artists
and the population at large. “Developments in the 1990s,”
describes how this wave coincided with changes in musicology,
music criticism, and activism. The seventh section, “divas
and discos,” situates homosexuality less “in the
music” than in its listeners. Next, “anthropology
and history,” questions the application of the terms “lesbian”
and “gay” beyond the limits of 20th-century Europe
and North America. The article concludes with
the authors’ acknowledgements, a succinct discography
and an extensive bibliography.
- Wood and Brett supply two conceptual turning points. The first
one occurs in the penultimate section, “divas and discos,”
where the focus shifts from producer to consumer:
The approach so far in this discussion has been
along the traditional modernist lines of emphasizing production:
the composer and, perhaps less so, the performer. An arguably
better way of defining “lesbian and gay music,”
and countering arguments about sexuality and gender’s
being “inaudible in the notes themselves,” is
to invert that model and, invoking the “politics and
epistemologies of location, positioning, and situating”
(Haraway 196), to consider both the audience and particular
venues as creating (if only by contingency and for the moment)
a label for the music.
The second turning point is in the final section, “anthropology
and history,” where the authors question the indiscriminate
application of the homo/hetero label in time and space:
The discussion so far has pertained to the 20th
century, to Europe, North America and their outposts, and
has largely been confined to recent musical phenomena. “Lesbian
and Gay Music” is arguably confined to these specific
times and places and even then needs greater inflection to
describe exactly what was going on … In non-Western
musics, gender and sexual ambiguities and inversions, not
to mention same-sex sexual practices, found in many cultures
with different musics and different sexualities, have drawn
the imagination of the West, with its attraction to and cultural
fantasies about them.
My task as a translator has entailed narrating the well-documented
history of homosexuality in “the West” in the incipient
terms of the history of Brazilian homosexuality. The striking
paradox is that, being so alien to the “Brazilian character,”
where miscegenation articulates the very essence of national
identity (Hosokawa), identity politics enters Brazilian musicology
at the very moment identities are being deconstructed at “the
center.”
- Eventually diverting the focus from producer to consumer,
and then questioning indiscriminate application of the homo/hetero
label, Wood and Brett didactically illustrate
a practice dear to contemporary musicology, deconstructing the
very categories to which the article is devoted. The critical
nature of the authors’ approach, however, was evident
in the very first lines, where the fundamental paradox of lesbian
and gay critical work emerges:
To think about sexual categories as being arbitrary,
or contingent on historical or social practice, is still difficult
for most people because sexuality, like musicality, has been
so thoroughly naturalized during the 20th century, and intimately
embedded in an individual sense of self (Jagose 17–18).
But, while maintaining the importance for modern society of
the categories of heterosexuality and homosexuality themselves
and the process of acculturation that surrounds them, thinking
historically about that ‘sense of self’ has, paradoxically,
become the basis of much lesbian and gay critical work.
- In their vast bibliography, solid theoretical and historical
contextualizations, and sober prose, Brett and Wood’s
care in following the reference-work format becomes evident.
“Lesbian and Gay Music” keeps at a distance an inexhaustible
wellspring of anecdotal facts and legends and gets dangerously
close to the ideal of language as a mirror of thinking. As Wood
explained in her interview with me:
We wrote within Grove’s boundaries,
as you put it, because it was important to us to insure that
this piece would not be rejected. Both of us have written
for Grove in the past. We knew the ropes. This commission
was not only the first of its kind but possibly the only opportunity
the two of us would get to write a review essay (and that’s
what we meant it to be) and have it appear in Grove,
where it can be expected, firstly, to have a long life and,
secondly, to be read beyond our own immediate circle of gay
and lesbian musicologists. (Wood and Palombini)
Sobriety, nevertheless, is also an artifice. It provides the
backdrop from which provocative statements emerge. For example,
referring to Dorothy/Billy Lee Tipton, “her impeccable
improvisations, gift for mimicry, same-sex marriages and adopted
sons may have had more to do with making it in a male-dominated
music and its venues than in a dildo and tuxedo.” Along
the same vein, the authors discuss the ballet that Tchaikovsky
and Saint-Saëns danced for each other during the latter’s
visit to Moscow for a concert in December 1875 and ask is this
really “a couple of middle-aged queens, one in drag, camping
it up on the main stage of the Moscow Conservatory?” This
final rhetorical question leads to Brett and Wood’s succinct
conclusion: tensions of the human spirit such as those epitomized
by these two composers occupying a central site—the stage
of the Moscow Conservatory—to enact a closet drama, need
deciphering to make greater sense of social and musical experience.
- The controversy surrounding Wood and Brett’s Grove
submission may have had less to do with stylistic boldness than
with evocation of such tactics from the gay and lesbian movement
as outing and zap.
Although Brett and Wood did no outings that were not already
on public record (which is not to say they were against outing
as a political act),
|
Mau
Mau
© leklub.net
|
|
Mauro
Borges
© Fabio Motta
|
|
Renato
Lopes
© uol.com.br
|
the long fifth paragraph of the initial section, “(homo)sexuality
and musicality,” presents an extended roll of illustrious
musicians that is also a catalogue of “signs of both an
accommodation to as well as subversion of the pervasive fact
of the closet.” And if the authors’ intention was
not to interrupt publication or cause maximum embarrassment
to Grove’s editors, then their insistence on
the change of title from “Gay and Lesbian Music”
to “Lesbian and Gay Music” bears witness to a provocative
disposition. “Lesbian and gay musicology has everything
to do with ‘in your face’ and zap, it’s not
just foreplay but the main act,” says Wood (Wood and Palombini).
- For Brett in 2001, use of the word “queer” was
on the wane, as was queer theory (e-mail message to the author,
June 26, 2001); for Wood in 2003, identity politics is on the
wane, as is theory itself (Wood and Palombini). At the time
of writing, neither Brett nor Wood had expertise in popular
musics. However, perusing the lyrics of the songs they cite
reveals that homoerotic desire and same-sex sexual practices
have played a significant role in a wide range of popular musics
in various guises: allusive (“You’re a Queer One,
Julie Jordan,” “Mad About the Boy”), humorous
(“Farming”), manly (“Jailhouse Rock,”
“Cocksucker Blues”), casual (“Walk on the
Wild Side”), sentimental (“Daniel”), corny
(“The Killing of Georgie”), activist (“Glad
to Be Gay,” “Smalltown Boy”), hilariously
ambiguous (“YMCA”), etc.
- The authors pay some attention to disco, but mention house
and techno music only in passing. The electronic dance music
scene of today provides a compelling new field for the investigation
of more unstable sexual identities within the geographic confines
of what current academic jargon terms “the center”
(rather than as projected onto an exotic “other”).
One possible location for future research is the international
phenomena of distributing dance music directly over the internet,
exemplified in Brazil by the Bit
Cousins (I am
indebted to Pedro Durães for bringing this "little
culture" to my
attention). Since the music itself is for the most part wordless,
the lesbian and gay issues remain undecipherable at the surface
level. Wood hopes that the next generation of scholars will
add to future editions of the essay (Wood and Palombini).
Carlos Palombini
Works Cited
Brett, Philip and Elizabeth Wood. “Lesbian and Gay Music.”
Electronic Musicological Review 7 (2002). 21 February
2004 <http://www.rem.ufpr.br/REMv7/Brett_Wood/Brett_and_Wood.html>.
———.
“Bibliography for New Grove Article.” GLSG Newsletter
11.1 (2001): 16–20.
———.“Foreword:
Regarding the New Grove Article.” GLSG Newsletter
11.1 (2001): 1–2.
———.“The
Original Version of the New Grove Article.” GLSG Newsletter
11.1 (2001): 3–16.
———.“Gay
and Lesbian Music”. In The New Grove Dictionary of Music
and Musicians. Ed. Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell. London:
Macmillan, 2001.
Church, Michael. “How Music Got Its Grove Back.”
The Independent 8 December 2000, feat.: 6.
Haraway, Donna J. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention
of Nature. New York: Routledge, 1991.
Hosokawa, Shuhei. “Singing Contests in the Ethnic Enclosure
of the Post-War Japanese-Brazilian Community.” Brazilian
Musics, Brazilian Identities: British Journal of Ethnomusicology
9.1 (2000): 95–118.
Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New
York: New York University Press, 1996.
Raykoff, Ivan . “Comparative Notes”. GLSG Newsletter
11.1 (2001): 2.
Wood, Elizabeth and Carlos Palombini. “Nine Questions and
Two Statements from Carlos, Some Replies from Liz.” Electronic
Musicological Review, forthcoming.
|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
Review Essay
|
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
|
|
|