Losing Harlem's entertainment is everyone's loss

If I ask you to name a choir, what names come to mind? Vienna Boys Choir, Brooklyn Tabernacle and the Boys Choir of Harlem come to my mind. Of course, Im from the city and so I may be a bit jaded. Still here is no question of the fame of the Boys choir of Harlem. A Google search of the word choir has them come up in position 4. That says a lot, and that is before the Vienna Choir which is older [started in 1498]. Some may not be aware how often they hear the Choir’s work, but it has been in the soundtracks of Jungle Fever, Malcolm X, and Glory to name a few.

So why am I thinking of choir music today? It’s not because I’ve been listening to chamber music lately (which is quite nice in a live performance), but because of NYC officials. The City seems determined to kick the choir out of its current space, effectively causing harm to this institution that has existed since 1968. They are accused of possibly not paying music staff, do not have reliable tour dates and are in debt 5 million dollars. Oh, I should mention that they are on property that can generate $550,000 a year. So the city is willing to just shut the Boys Choir of Harlem out of it rehearsal space.

Let me give you some insight, that may or may not apply, as I recall it. As a native NYC I recall the decades that the city allowed Harlem to be a drug-infested and dangerous place. Everyone knew what streets you could go to, day or night, to get whichever drug you wanted. Police enforcement of laws were laughable. Rats the size of small dogs or large cats ran around from abandoned brownstone to brownstone. It was so bad, that in 1977, according to an article by Ms. Julia Vitullo-Martin on August 3, 2003, “an entire house could be bought for $5,000.” In 2003 a brownstone sold for $2.5 million and 1 million dollar+ sales are common today.

It took roughly 50 years for Harlem to go from the Cotton Club to a literal rathole. Then after a major and historic black-owned bank (I apologize but I forgot the name, this being a ~20 year old event) was forced to liquidate before Mr. Bill Cosby and others could provide funds to guarantee its survival [I have searched for 8 hours in the last couple of days and have not found one reference to this roughly 1983 news occurrence, yet it was national media at the time], numerous other banks in the city began to give loans out to buy houses. This was the 90's and the city started to develop the abandoned and worthless land. Businesses and Yuppies (many brokers as I recall) who could get approved, as opposed to the locals who never had the chance nor could ever qualify in the past, started buying like sharks in a frenzy. Had I the money I would have done so too. It was obvious that the prices would soon soar.

I say all that because again it seems to me that rather than working the situation the City is looking for the money. The fame of the choir, and its good work seems not to be as valuable as the money the buildings they use can generate. This is the conclusion I get.

Though no January 2006 or later appearance dates are available for the choir (no surprise since they may not have a place to operate from after the 31st) dates prior to that for last year are easily found on their website. So to claim that the tour dates have been unreliable could be a stretch. It is stated via the Harlem choir’s website that they have 100% college acceptance. Attendance is 94%, the number of kids passing is 95%. Statewide tests for math and reading show 84% and 79% of the students (respective) are at or above grade level. All of this and only 125 students are actually in the choir. How many other schools can boast such achievements? How many inner city schools that cater to mostly Black African American, Hispanic and other minority can say anything close to that? It wasn’t my high school, where I estimate roughly 15% were accepted into non-city colleges, 25% if you include them. [That was roughly 20 years ago in a better time for students and Black African American youth, I graduated 6th in my class... I had a decent school, but there can be no comparison to the Harlem Choir.]

As Thomas Carlyle says “Music is well said to be the speech of angels; in fact, nothing among the utterances allowed to man is felt to be so divine. It brings us near to the infinite.” I agree with that, and as I previously stated on how AOL is restricting musical expression (in my opinion) the City is doing so and worse for the most petty of reasons, money. Expanding the minds of the youth, especially the Black African American, Hispanic and minority youth that need to be exposed to more than just the inner city, is essential. Any culture or governmental entity that restricts or damages that is a failure and dangerous in my mind. This is especially true when other alternatives can be found. Half a million dollars is not worth the price of a musical note, nor is it even close to the value of an educated and broadly influenced mind.

Let’s apply my rule used for commercials [from my post Burger King ad], if this was happening to the Vienna Boys Choir would the reaction be the same?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Entertainment, directors and movies 2006

See full post at my www.blackentertainmentblog.com> site:

...Do you think anyone at GoldenPalace.com ever read the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition in particular rule #218 - Always know what you're buying. I say this because it would seem that Mr. William Shatner, the real life counterpart to Captian James T. Kirk, has read Rule # 1 - Once you have their money, you never give it back. Of course this is good news for Habitat for Humanity, as they gain the $25,000 paid for Mr. Shatner’s kidney. [Yes I like Star Trek, TNG, and DS9 in that order] All the better that he was able to support a useful charity with something that few would even consider of value. As I’ve said in a previous post, Latin music, celebrity donations, I truly enjoy when stars show honest support for a cause, and you can’t give more than a part of the body itself (even if that part isn’t useful).

Of course not every entertainer needs to, literally, sell themselves to support a good cause. Mr. Spike Lee spent part of the Dr. Martin Luther King holiday speaking about, “many young Americans, both black and white, have no idea of the blood, sweat and tears that were sacrificed so we could drink from a water fountain, sit down in a bus, have the right to vote." I have spoken about my agreement that “the youth of today do not have the inspiration that I recieved growing up. There are few notable entertainers that strive for anything more than a paycheck. Even fewer are the number that go after the money without incident (drug scandals, violence against fans and other entertainers, infidelity, ect).”

In addition I think its important to remember that the youth of today, in particular the Black African American youth, have no leaders to follow. I’ve stated before ”leadership is both a factor of what is percieved and done. Leadership is the ability to lead. A leader is one in charge or in command of others. Black leaders, now-a-days, are arbitrary figures that only represent an aspect that the media wants to be popular. Anyone given the title of a leader should be expected to, at a minimum, lead.” Because of this we must remember to explain what has happened before and remember to look forward. Mr. Spike Lee stands out, to me, because he is one of those few willing to say basically just that and not worry if there is any collateral damage to his popularity polls (or whatever is the Hollywood equivalent).

Since I’m talking about directors and what may be in the future I think I should mention what I’m looking forward to for the 2006 movie season. The movies provided by Hollywood last year were on average miserable dreck. Not everyone will agree with that, but you should. It was abundantly clear to me (because of movies like Honeymooners, Dukes of Hazzard) that the writers employed now have run out of ideas. Or that the executives that greenlight movies assume that the lowest common denominator in America dropped a few points from 2004. The revenues the movie entertainment industry received seem to indicate that they were wrong either way. This year a slightly newer approach is being taken.

Comic books are the new source of inspiration. Novels of all sorts have long been fuel for the movie machine, but the growth and maturing or the comic book industry has lead to some quality movies. [yep, I love comic books too] Movies such as Batman Begins, X-men, Blade, Spiderman, Superman and others are driven the profit minded movie studios to make more sequels and expand into lesser know storylines. While Sin City was a great movie based on a solid graphic novel, few of the less mainstream heros are getting the depth needed to make the stories worthwhile. Even some of the successful original movies have gotten sequels that were obviously made to fill company coffers and not provide a meaningful experience to the audience. Examples to me of both types of failed half-hearted attempts include by are not limited to the: Punisher (either movie), Daredevil, Fantasic Four, Hulk, several of the Batman or Superman sequels and others. I can only hope that pure profit is not the only driving force for the other movies that will get slated to be made, or shown this year. ...

From black entertainment blog.com ... 2005 went bang, 2006 is alone ... so far

This is a post from Black Entertainment USA. I post 2 items here a month. Please go so the .com site to see the most recent posts.


So 2005 has passed and it closed with quite the bang. I mean that literally for rapper Trice. I was actually surprised that more rappers weren't shot. Another big blow was directed not to an entertainer but to the paparazzi that stalk them.

In Cali, legislation was passed on the 31st that removes the monetary incentive that has driven the frenzy of private photographs of entertainers. Of course there are those that are protesting the new law as unconstitutional. Without shock it seems to be the paparazzi themselves are claiming that the law is unfairly biased. If it is not then it should be, in my opinion. Why? Because something needs to be done to reign in the money-hungry vultures whose only purpose is to invade the privacy of people who deserve at least some time to themselves. The fact that publishers can also share in the liablity doesn't hurt either.

I agree that public personalities trade some of their right to privacy for the fame and wealth they attain. I too find interest in a story of activism, or punishment for laws broken that involves a singer, actor, politician or other entertainer. I don't care a shred about what they wore (or didn't wear) to a private beach, who they are surrounding themselves with during an evening of merriment, or if their marriages are in trouble. If Joe average were to have such photos or stories made public there would be an outcry of enourmous levels.

The public does not deserve to know intimate details about any entertainer. They are people and deserve respect for that reason alone. If they choose to divulge information, like Mr. Tom Cruise did about his lady love, then that is different but unsolicited intrusions should not be allowed. The right to freedom of speech and therefore the Press does not exceed or supplant a persons right to privacy nor does any right extend where it causes, directly or indirectly, harm to someone else. Not being able to shout fire in a movie theater, when there is none, is the same line of thought. Intrusive actions on children need to be verbotten.

Thus the year ended, with cries of pain and cries of anger for income streams that have been threatened. [No I am not, nor do I believe I will ever be, sorry or upset that some rapper has been shot/injured/killed especially if it is in any way related to the lifestyle they promote.] The new year has started with less of a roar, but with a statement of its own. Increasingly it seems that entertainment is becoming something not shared but experienced alone. That trend is both alarming and deeply saddening.

The proliference of portable devices that provide entertainment media directly to one individual has taken another step forward. Starz now provides a movie download service. I can not say that having music available is a bad thing; nor that I can't appreciate the ability to view movies as I travel. The technology is not the issue, its how we use that technology that troubles me.

Entertainment has always been about the shared experience of whatever medium. Movies (as an example) are meant to be seen with the masses, and I feel lose something when viewed individually. The spark of creativity ignited by the medium dies quickly when there is no one around to express the compelling and/or divergent thoughts with. Movies, music or whatever becomes that much more when a group of social beings are there for the experience at the same time.

As it becomes more available to individualize the experience, more is lost. The appreciation and impact is lessened each step we take from the masses. How this might affect us as a collective whole I cannot say, that is not my area of expertise. But I am aware enough to know that there was a reason why singers and painters and actors and entertainers have always existed in some form in every society and culture, on every part of the globe, since there have been humans. What happens when social being stop being social? What is the impact of the loss of a shared experience? Perhaps one of you, my readers, knows but I do not.

Thus ended 2005 and begins the year 2006. I like to be a bit philisophical from time to time.

This is what I think, what about you?