Our power was out for most of the morning, requiring a change in plans. When power would go out in my old Hyde Park apartment, as it did with alarming frequency due to the poor wiring in the building and the large nest of monk parakeets on the utility pole in the alley, it was easy to know what to do. You grabbed your stuff and, depending on the time of day, either went to the library or to Jimmy�s. Out here in the boondocks, we are paralyzed without power. When the power goes out not only do we have no lights, no heat, no stove, etc., but we can�t open our garage door and therefore can�t get to the car or bicycles. And since we live in the boondocks, there�s not really anyplace you can go without some kind of mechanical conveyance (although we did consider rustling one of the horses in the field next to our yard). Even worse, we have no water. The pump on the well cuts out. We keep lots of bottled water around for such emergencies, but priorities of the little things you do � hand washing, dishes � need to be weighed carefully. Losing power starts to give you the mindset of one under siege.

There is, however, one great advantage to being in the boondocks when your power goes out: when you call ComEd, something happens. When our power would go out in Hyde Park, it would generally be at least 24 hours before we�d get it back on again, despite repeated phone calls. This morning we saw the first ComEd truck drive by about 20 minutes after I called. Three more came in within an hour. While we still had no power, at least we knew somebody was on it.

All this is by way of an apology for a cut and paste entry today. I haven�t had time to be thoughtful about much of anything. A friend wished me �Happy days of awe� this morning (not to be confused with the days of Shock and Awe). This put me in mind of a question she had asked a couple of months ago on behalf of a friend who was supposed to perform Bach�s St. John Passion, but was having trouble with the text. For those who are not familiar with it, the John Passion is notorious for its virulently anti-Semitic libretto. I�ve been looking for a place to park my response so I don�t lose it and here seemed as good a place as any.

Whether or how to perform the John Passion is a difficult question, and perhaps one better suited to an ethicist than a musicologist, in some ways. I haven't actually ever had the chance to perform the whole John Passion, largely because the piece has been vetoed because of the difficult passages. As a music-lover, that makes me sad, for it is a stunning piece of music. As a former music administrator, it also was troubling, as the John Passion is much easier to perform than the Matthew Passion, which has no such offensive language but requires three choirs and two orchestras -- often outside the reach of smaller or less fiscally stable performing groups. However there is no question that the passages in question are very hard to listen to and even harder to sing.

Performances of the John Passion today seem to be dealt with in one of two ways. Either the offensive language is altered, compromising the historic validity of the text but removing our discomfort with it or by providing copious explanations of the historic context for that text.

Of course I am not Jewish, nor have I ever been in the position of being persecuted on account of my beliefs. That said, as a historian and a generally liberal person, I prefer the latter approach. I don't feel that the text should be censored. I don't think we do ourselves any favors by whitewashing some of the less than beautiful aspects of ourselves and our history. And personally, I think it can be quite striking to note the exquisite beauty of a piece of music like the John Passion in contrast to a text that is, frankly, quite horrifying in places. Like all of us, Bach was a creature of his time and place. He spent his life working for the Lutheran Church and was no doubt affected by its beliefs. It is nice to believe that all great geniuses are good, but it is probably more educational to understand the complicated definition of genius. Bach's music was inspired by his personal spiritual dedication, which probably meant that he was an anti-Semite. It doesn't mean that his music wasn't beautiful. And just because his music is beautiful doesn't mean that it makes a good (in the ethical sense) statement. Nor does it mean that the text must remain relevant to us today. [Incidentally, we've also had to come to terms with this question in the music of Richard Wagner who was a vocal anti-Semite with Hitler as one of his biggest fans. His texts aren't complicated in the same way, but he certainly is.]

The real question of how to (or whether to) perform the John Passion may lie with the choir and the intended audience. Is the text going to prevent them from performing the piece well? Will the core audience be very offended? It might be wise for all parties to be warned about the offensive text in advance. When Chicago�s Music of the Baroque performed the John Passion, Lutheran theologian Martin Marty wrote a wonderful essay as a program note discussing the complexities of performing that music with that text. I might suggest that an ensemble performing the John Passion send the notes out to ticket holders in advance, so no one would be caught by surprise. While I think it might be beneficial to our understanding of Bach and his music to take in the whole John Passion, I also don't think people should have to hear it who aren't prepared to deal with it.

Finally, in most cases, the John Passion is clearly presented as an historical artifact and not as a religious service. Any performers who specialize in Renaissance and Baroque music do a lot of Christian texts. The question of whether or not it makes sense to sing such works if you don't believe in what they say never comes up, at least with secular choirs. They are not seen as a statement of belief but as a statement of art. But of course if you sing the credo from Bach's B Minor Mass, you are saying you believe in Jesus Christ, etc. etc. We don't generally find these texts offensive because we know what we believe and we are not performing them in a religious context (and even so, lots of non-Jews sing High Holy Days services and non-Christians sing in paid church choirs). Those texts, of course, do not appear to be making prejudiced and somewhat violent statements about a whole group of people in the way the John Passion is. But it

is not actually that different a situation in kind. Only in quality. And if the ethical question is whether or not one should sing texts as if one believed what they say even when one doesn't, then perhaps we should rethink our participation in any music which states as our beliefs things that we don't believe.

0 people said it like they meant it