Reading:
- Walter Spalding, "Music as a Necessary Part of the Soldier's Equipment," The Outlook (June 5, 1918)
- Fullerton Waldo, “Music and the War,” The Outlook (19 January 1916)
- Christina Gier (2008) “Gender, Politics, and the Fighting Soldier's Song in America during World War I,” Music and Politics
- Carol Burke (1989) “Marching to Vietnam,” Journal of American Folklore
Listening:
- “Over There,” “Good-bye Broadway,” and “Joan of Arc” (all available as links on p. 8 of Gier article)
*Artifact posting may be on one of the Outlook articles, or on one of the songs
NOTE: If you do not read music and/or are unfamiliar with some of the musical terminology in the Gier article, do not worry--just do the best you can and try to figure out what the overarching points are of those paragraphs.
8 comments:
Question: It is apparent that many of the chants reproduced in Burke’s article had a sadistic undertone meant to break the civilian and create a combat soldier. However, as the move from a combat solider to a more technically trained soldier and the admission of women occurred during the last quarter-century, have chants reflected these changes or have they remained just as brutal?
Artifact discussion:
These songs have a very important feature in common. They rouse a sense of patriotism, nationalism, and happiness, as depicted by their upbeat and march-like sense. The repeated musical phrases give it the ability to be easily recognizable and learnable by soldiers. The phrase “do or die,” as depicted in chants reproduced in Burke’s article and in “Over There,” seem to depict the fundamental nature of the solider during wartime. The redefinition of a normal citizen concerned with finances, culture, TV programs, etc., has been reduced to the most fundamental of axioms – “do or die.” Music and war have always enjoyed an intimate relationship and the efforts of the United States to exploit this relationship has been explicit through their use in chants, marches, entertainment for soldiers, and recruiting mechanisms.
At one point, many of these songs such as “Good-bye Broadway” seem to blend together after listening to them. They all discuss leaving woman and going overseas to fight for their country and the honor associated with this position. The nationalistic sprit that was even evoked in “Over There” makes it that much easier for soldiers to leave their homes and fight. The ability for a majority of soldiers to know these songs and recite them allows them to adopt an ideology and necessity of war. The almost complete adoption of an idea through constant repetition makes it that much easier to “sever ties with a civilian past and to embrace, however reluctantly a martial future” as Burke suggests about chants. With the changing idea of masculinity from the refined, cultured man in the 19th century to the man filled with more “aggression and physical strength,” it became especially easier for soldiers to abandon a calm life for war (Gier 8).
Question:
In Gier’s article, women were held in high regard. For instance, the icon of feminity in the “Enlist” poster appealed to the idea of cherished motherhood. This idea was also found in sheet music such as “So Long Mother,” “That wonderful mother of mine,” and “I am fighting for country, for you and little Nell.” On the other hand, in Burke’s article, women in songs were treated as a playful sex object, and cadence calls oppose the longing for loved ones. What is the cause of the difference in the ways in which each article treats women back home?
Artifact Discussion:
I listened to the song “Joan of Arc,” written by Jack Wells. Women were discussed in a wide variety of ways in the articles and in the songs. Sometimes, women at home (mothers, wives, sweethearts, etc.) were the object of longing and desire. Other times, the soldiers singing the songs attempted to replace their thoughts of women with a sense of community in the military. Additionally, although the Gier article makes it clear that virile abstinence was a virtue, the Burke article brings up the fact that women in songs were sometimes sex objects.
The song “Joan of Arc,” however, relates to females in an entirely different manner. Joan of Arc is a French heroine who led the French army to several victories during the Hundred Years’ War. Later though, Joan was captured; the English and Burgundians knew killing her immediately would cause an outrage and create a martyr. Instead, they enlisted the church to discredit her first. After two escape attempts, including a leap from sixty-foot tower, Joan came to trial suspected heresy and witchcraft. The bishop, who continually tried to make her admit that she had invented the voices, found her guilty of heresy. Before being handed over to secular authorities, Joan signed an abjuration admitting that her previous statements had been lies. But after a few days, she said she hadn't meant the abjuration, and she was sentenced to burn at the stake. Only nineteen, Joan was burned to death.
Joan’s abjection of self and her willingness to sacrifice her life for the nation are the basis of the song “Joan of Arc,” meant to inspire soldiers. The song helps soldiers realize the actuality of the potential for death, but the song also inspires them to potentially offer the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Also, “Joan of Arc” helped to remind the troops to strive for a virile abstinence (pure sexuality). The song itself is has a jaunty, happy mood that extols Joan of Arc, painting her in a favorable manner and as a model to be followed.
Question:
The military songs mentioned in both the Burke and the Gier articles mostly discussed music from World War I and the Vietnam War. Music trends have changed from those two periods to now, so I wonder whether modern war music has the same march-like rhythm, patriotic melodies, and smooth chord progressions as the three songs for today’s listening.
Artifact Discussion:
The opening of the Gier article reminded me of the two greatest powers of music: to inform and to please. Gier states that music is “a vehicle for propaganda and an agent of comfort” – in other words, something that can help rally soldiers and civilians alike in times of war (Gier 1). With this in mind, one ought to consider war hymns in terms of these criteria to assess their effectiveness. The outline given on page 5 of the Gier article, although not complete truth like what the author herself states, does highlight many of the pros of military song. For example, making soldiers sing together not only allows – on a small-scale analysis – the physical strengthening of each soldier’s voice and perhaps adjacent muscles, but also creates unity among the troops from a more macroscopic perspective. In addition, it also strengthens the mind, forcing it to remember lyrics and melodies and concentrate on delivering an accurate performance.
The song “Good-bye Broadway” fits many of the points made by the Gier article. First and foremost, it has the sound of a confident, patriotic, and spirited march, and through this sound the song can transfer its hope and vibrancy to the soldiers who sing it. The line “We’re united in this fight for liberty” encourages troops to uphold the greatness of America, which is often represented by the Statue of Liberty, similar to a point made by Gier. Also, the line “Now that we have a change, Let’s pay our debts to France” inspires men to fight valiantly against the enemy, to whom we “owe” a belligerent debt.
In addition, the lines “Goodbye sweethearts, wives, and mothers, It won’t take us long / Don’t you worry while we’re there, It’s for you we’re fighting for” affirm Gier’s argument that “the emotional weight of war is figuratively born by woman” and in this manner thus has “military use in song” in inspiring men to fight for their women (Gier 11). According to Gier, the chord changes in these lines help create the erosion of hope implied in these lyrics. Although this point goes against the argument for inspiration in military music, it proves that the songs sang in the camps are not entirely blithe and that they have some bits of reality in them.
Question:
Was individual male confidence affected by the way the war was carried out? If men were fighting to save “the young girlhood raped… in Belgium” and to rescue a barbaric Europe, did they question what was in it for them personally? Especially if they were considered expendable objects meant to be celibate.
Artifact Discussion:
What interested me in the article called “Music as a Necessary Part of a Soldier’s Equipment” was that Americans did not seem to have their own style of music. Today, most American music is sent around the world and the top songs on international radio always seem to be American. The lack of domestic music at the time may further explain why the “Joan of Arc” song may have been so popular. Americans were familiar with foreign history and culture icons, so a song about a foreigner was not unwelcomed. I wonder whether the author of this article was right, in that the war would birth American music culture. Based on the large number of songs being printed for the army it seems that answer is definitely yes. Also it makes sense that men in the army who were empowered to sing their own songs, would want to create their own music in the future.
The argument at the end of the article was also interesting, because in this case music does become a necessity. Whether or not music can drive men to accomplish impossible feats, it can certainly calm and distress a soldier. That is why music was so important to the Red Cross in Waldo’s article. Even today, there are still programs today that perform music for injured persons. It seems to me this is the dawn of the immense popularity of music in the U.S.
Question:
In all these articles, singing was seen as enhancing masculinity, especially among American soldiers. Do you think that this cultural perception is still true? What would our government think, today, of the mass singing and organization of music by our troops? Would it be encouraged or discouraged?
Artifact Discussion:
After listening to the song “Over There,” I was immediately aroused by clear feelings of patriotism. There are many ways in which this was achieved. Firstly, the opening lyrics of “Johnny, get your gun” appeals to the average middle-class American male by the use of the generic American name. When this line is repeated a couple times, as are many lines in this war song, the message is really hammered home. The upbeat words we hear are intended to motivate the young American man to feel pride for his nation, and get up and fight. The peppy rhythm also speaks exactly to Christina Geir’s point that the song sets a fun and playful mood to the war. At the same time, though, almost the entire song’s lyrics are giving demands to “Johnny.” The American man is being imperatively told to grab his gun, go fight “over there”, and to not come back until we win. His masculinity is also challenged when the song says to make his girl proud, implying that the only way to do this is by fighting in the war. So, while the song is upbeat and enjoyable, it is also persuasive and encouraging, filling the American male with pride to be a soldier in the war.
In my opinion, “Over There” definitely exemplifies an effective method of enthusiasm for soldiers. Geir argues in her article “Gender, Politics, and the Fighting Soldier’s Song in America during World War I” that the American soldiers would listen to and sing songs like this to feel pride for their nation and enthusiasm for fighting for their country. Even today, we use similar methods to get pumped up for certain events. For example, many people listen to inspirational music to get excited before and at athletic events. I strongly believe that there is a clear link to music and performance, and songs like “Over There” are early examples taken from a patriotic context.
What characteristics make up the genre of patriotic music?
I find it interesting that Walter Spalding specifies and defines the type of music that can appropriately accompany a war. He explains that patriotic music "should be of a dignified and exalted tone, worthy of those who are offering their lives in support of a high ideal or are taking the lives of others who are opposing that ideal." In my opinion, this is a very broad, vague definition of patriotic music. What exactly does music stemming from "high ideals" entail? Spalding goes on to complain that the collection of American music pales in comparison with the musical accomplishments of the European allied nations. His solution for this disparagement is to "plunge into the way with the same 'do or die' spirit which has been so gloriously manifested by our allies." I fail to see the connection between war and the composition of new music. Is Spalding suggesting that war inspires musical creativity and innovation? If so, this creativity seems forced within the violent circumstances of wartime, and I feel that war would inspire the creation of a very limited genre of music.
Spalding maintains his vague categorization of music in his final paragraph as he calls for the introduction of “more thoughtful” music into army camps. Perhaps he is suggesting that members of the army should listen to a more highbrow selection of music. However, he never specifies what style or genre of music he deems “more thoughtful.” I agree with Spalding that music “has always been a force to quicken endurance and to unify the mass spirit of men to the highest degree.” Today, we use music to maintain endurance during workouts and athletic events. However, I don’t understand why Spalding limits the scope of “patriotic” music to exclude certain styles and genres.
Question:
In Grier’s article, she makes the point a few times that marching music enhanced a soldier’s ability to fight and even made him seem more “manly.” However, it seems as though in today’s culture, we sometimes view the creative men as less strong and less willing to get into a physical fight than those involved in less creative fields. Why has this perception shifted?
Also, could it be that it’s not so much music that helps boost the moral states of soldiers, but rather the fact that they are singing together and creating their own songs? Perhaps it’s the unity that singing as a troop brings and/or the brief moment of freedom that writing your own lyrics to a song provides that are important, meaning any other shared creative experience would have similar effects.
Artifact:
The song “Over There,” as was mentioned in the reading, does seem to present the war as much more playful than it really is. The light-hearted lyrics almost make it sound like the soldiers are heading out for a game of football rather than an actual war against another country. The upbeat tempo and full sound of the piece also create this party-esque atmosphere, and the use of repetition adds an undertone of simplicity. It hard to imagine being a young man during this time and not wanting to go to war after listening to a tune like this one.
Aside from making war look much easier and more fun than it actually is, the song also brings up certain themes which can persuade someone to enroll into the army. The first one is pride, a feeling mentioned various times with the argument that being a good soldier will make your father, mother, girlfriend, and country proud of you (which is obviously a desirable achievement). Another theme is the concept of “us vs. them.” The title alone helps creates this idea, as soldiers have to go somewhere else to solve a problem (because God forbid we should ever have problems on American soil!). There is also constant mention of not coming home until we beat them, because we will without a doubt beat them, seeing as we are better than they are. This then leads to the third important theme: the unnamed enemy. Who exactly is “they,” and where is “over there?’ We never get any information or at least a brief description of who these people we’re fighting are. We, the “Yanks,” are the only ones important enough to be mentioned by name in the song; those who are against us are not worthy of such an honor, and are far too removed from us (both geographically and psychologically) for us to bother knowing anything about them.
Question:
What are other ways in which popular music has given rise to articulations of gender?
Artifact Discussion:
Gier asserts that there is, perhaps, an ethical conflict that results from singing songs while engaging in warfare. The quote that best illustrates the significance of this assertion is, "As Simon Frith argues about contemporary popular song, 'Pop love songs do not ‘reflect’ emotions . . . but give people the romantic terms in which to articulate and so experience their emotions.'" This quote is very insightful. I realized that some emotions are experienced and processed as a culture. For example, emotions surrounding September 11th have certainly become embedded into American culture (i.e. public mourning directly after the attacks and ongoing sentiments of injury that were used to justify moving the Islamic mosque). So if it's clear that emotions surrounding warfare are a cultural experience, then why wouldn't music either define, give birth to, or reshape those emotions? And the idea that our deepest emotions are often impossible to express or understand, that we are constantly searching for a way to articulate these feelings, and that a song lyric that is a close enough fit can take the place of the "actual" articulation...is very appealing to me. As far as analysis of the music, I was very surprised at the upbeat tempo of "Over There." I expected a more somber tone. Especially after having read Gier, I found that to be inappropriate. The Spalding article suggested that the music was meant to inspire soldiers as they went into war, which would explain this tempo.
Post a Comment