A letter
published in yesterday’s Singapore Straits
Times once again raised the unfortunate spectre of musical
nationalism.
Musical
nationalism was a feature of late 19th century music, when it was
used as a means of countering what was seen as German Musical Imperialism in
the run up to, and subsequent creation of, the unified nation of Germany. The elevation of German composers (Bach, Haydn,
Beethoven) to the stature of Greats by German philosophers and critics, as well
as the establishing of German musical ideologies as pre-eminent by German music
scholars, still govern our general perceptions of Western Classical Music. Attempts by composers including Dvořák,
Grieg, Sibelius, Bartók and others to create non-German nationalist voices
within Western Classical Music, only succeeded in distinguishing their own
music, and did little to offset the encroaching Germanisation of music during the
20th century. The fact that
we also hold up as musical heroes of the 20th century a trio of
Germanic composers (Schoenberg, Berg and Webern) whose lasting legacy has been
minimal to all but a few die-hard anti-populist composers is surely just
another symptom of this issue.
In his essay
National Music the English composer,
Ralph Vaughan Williams, poured scorn over the idea of music being an international
language, and suggested that it was the job of composers to celebrate their
nationality in their music. He wrote
that essay in 1934, as the spectre of Nazism and nationalism was taking root in
Germany, and was attempting to dilute the stranglehold German ideals seemed to
have over music at the time. Consciously
or otherwise, the idea of promoting one race and culture above another fell out
of fashion in music, if not in all national leaders’ ambitions, after the
Second World War. So we revisit the idea
at our peril.
Superficially
the letter in the Straits Times
seemed innocuous enough. A sub-editor
had given it an enticing headline (“Do more to support local Western classical
musicians”) and the letter writer herself bemoaned the lack of interest and
negative attitudes towards Western Classical Music amongst most Singaporeans; something
with which no musician here could possibly disagree. What harm can there possibly be in calling
for Singapore to support those of its citizens who aspire to a career in music?
Unfortunately,
the letter was couched in terms which appealed (understandably) to other
Singapore citizens, and seemed to hint that, within Singapore, the presence of
foreigners undermined the credibility of native Singaporean musicians. We read that “although the [Yong Siew Toh]
Conservatory is located in Singapore, it is shocking to find that the majority
of students there are not Singaporeans”.
This is factually incorrect, but the sentiment that prompts that
statement is shared by many not just in Singapore but in many of its near
neighbours who also boast a bourgeoning Western Music presence. And that is extremely dangerous, for it
promulgates nationalism and isolationism.
Perhaps Vaughan
Williams was wrong in his dismissing the concept of music as an international language,
or perhaps he was (as I suspect) merely provoking debate in an issue which
concerned him deeply, but I believe that in our time Western Classical Music
can ONLY survive if we recognise and celebrate its internationalist credentials.
Look at any
of the world’s major symphony orchestras; there is not one which does not have
at least one (and usually many more) visibly Asian players in its ranks. The great conductors and composers of the
world are drawn from every continent and ethnicity; in the last year alone I
have attended orchestral concerts conducted by Taiwanese, Filipino, Indian,
Chinese, Singaporean, Australian, New Zealand, Swiss, Finnish, Estonian,
Russian, Dutch, German, French, British, Brazilian, Canadian and American conductors
and heard music by African, European, Asian, Australian and South and North American
composers; not deliberately, I hasten to add, but by the simple accident of attending
a Western Classical Music concert. In
music, we take internationalism in our stride, and to crave for something more
nationalist is to crave for isolationism.
We had
exactly this issue with the Malaysian Philharmonic Orchestra, and it almost killed
it. Our appallingly weak CEO was
summoned to explain why the orchestra, which called itself Malaysian, comprised
mostly non-Malaysian players. I urged
her to counter that with the observations that the Malaysian F1 Grand Prix featured
no Malaysian drivers (well it did for a brief time, but he did not survive the heat
of professional competitive racing), Malaysian Airlines owned no Malaysian
aircraft, and looking further afield, Manchester United Football Club fielded
no native Mancunians (and at the time, no native English) while not a single
Chelsea player came from Chelsea (or anywhere close by). That did not stop them identifying with the
place of their name and, indeed, the very fact that the best in the world were attracted
to these locally-based organisations, immeasurably elevated the prestige of
these places in the eyes of the world. As
Tan Sri Azizan, the founding father of the Malaysian Philharmonic, said on more
than one occasion, he did not want the Malaysian Philharmonic Orchestra to
showcase Malaysians, but to showcase Malaysia to the world as a place which could
attract the very best in their field.
So it is
with Singapore and its educational institutions. Yes, they do have an obligation to focus on the
education of their local people, and it is right that Singapore students are
given priority in being offered places in tertiary and specialist education institutions. But is it not also right a Singapore
educational institution ought to attract students (and staff) from all around the
world? This, surely, adds immeasurably
to its prestige, and reflects well on both its students on Singapore. How better do local students benefit in
education than from being exposed to ideas and concepts from cultures with
which they would otherwise have little direct connection? And how much more advantageous it is for
local students to claim to have studied at an institution which has a
world-wide reputation for attracting the very best students and staff?
There is an
argument to be made (although not one to which I wholeheartedly subscribe)
that, in terms of education, national isolation has some relevance in helping
create a unified citizenry. This is
especially relevant in a place like Singapore where the citizenry is
ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse. But this can never be the case with the
teaching of Western Classical Music at tertiary level, where the cross-fertilization
of creativity and interpretative nuances feeds into the larger body of music as
a truly international language.
By all
means change attitudes of Singaporeans towards Western Classical Music, but do not
do it by calling for exclusive and isolationist barriers to be put up, fencing
Singaporeans in and keeping foreigners out.
Singapore is demeaned by calls for national musical identity in the face
of international credibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment