In my idealistic way, I thought “what a great idea to transcribe his piano and voice songs so that ‘everyone’ can sing them.” I met with soprano Juliana Gondek the other day to find three songs for our upcoming March 9 concert at UCLA, and we were both surprised at how so few of them work for soprano. Let me be more specific: many of his songs are really to be sung by a gay man. The way that a gay man writes lyrically about his love for another is not the way a woman would speak about her (male) lover. For a straight man to sing a Wainwright song, he would have to be quite secure in his sexuality. My guess is that most would be uncomfortable singing the gay oriented songs. And to have a lesbian sing the gay songs would be, well, peculiar. Changing the words is a traditional solution, illegal, but a possibility.
So should Rufus Wainwright’s gay-specific songs only be covered by gay men?
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t see any barriers to musicians of either sex singing Rufus’s songs. When I listen to his music, sometimes I am reminded of gay love and at other times I register the song as totally heterosexual.
One example is “The Art Teacher”. In my perspective, the song represents a young girl singing about the teacher she once mooned over and still carries a torch for. Possibly, I translate that song from my own experiences.
On the other hand, “Poses” is blatantly about gayness and I couldn’t imagine it any other way.
There’s a long history of songs being covered and one or two words being changed to make it fit to the perspective of the individual singer, or to make it fit to society’s expectations of a “proper” sexual attraction.
I want everyone to cover Rufus’s songs. Man, woman, undecided . . . . different perspectives would only make them more interesting.
I find that I do not tend to think about the sexuality of a songwriter or singer when I listen to music. Knowing that Rufus is gay can communicate a deeper meaning of the lyrics, perhaps, on some level, but, generally, I would hope that sexuality is not a major factor in performing or listening to music.
I think that a different interpretation might be attached to a song like, “Danny Boy” if it were sung by a woman…but it would be different, not worse in a qualitative sense. The lyrics for “Sally Ann” seem to me to ring true as I would talk/think about a lover (as a straight woman). In fact, “Sally Ann” was covered by a female artist, who did a commendable job with the song. I can think of many of Rufus’ songs that would be how I would think of a lover. Other songs of his (”Baby,” to name one) I could identify with the sentiments he expressed rather than sharing the same words or expressions I would use to describe a tryst or relationship with a man, despite not having been in love with a junkie myself.
The vocal range of his songs might be the more strenuous barrier to hop for people wishing to cover his music. Having listened to his music over and over, and having seen him perform makes me less apt to enjoy covers,I suppose.
(Rambling…..sorry…..)
Besides the obvious point that Rufus’s songs simply wouldn’t suit 95% of the recording artists out there, there’s also the sheer complexity of his melodies and song structures. Just as Salif Keita was ill-advised to tackle “Begin the Beguine”, so you wouldn’t really want to hear Ashlee Simpson’s version of “I Don’t Know What It Is”. I am hard pressed to think of a current vocalist who could bring off “In My Arms” or “Poses”, whatever his or her sexuality.
Beyond that, there are some really stunning examples of talented singers riding happily roughshod over the warp and weft of gender and sexuality and making it work, presumably because they connect so well with the purely lyrical elements of the song. [url=http://www.jackieleven.com/]Jackie Leven[/url], a Scotsman who’s led a hard life but has a surprisingly sweet voice, does a knockout cover of Bacharach’s “I Say A Little Prayer”, changing none of the words. Oh, and it’s not “ironic”…
Rufus’s lyrics are very personal. The character he has built from them is so vivid that it’s hard, for a fan, to imagine other interpreters. In addition, I agree that many of those songs express a masculine point of view that could not be simply translated into a female character.
But the assumption that those songs could only be sung by gay men is backward. The wide diversity of Rufus’s audience is testimony to the universality of the themes he explores. His songs are appreciated, regardless of gender or sexuality, because everyone can picture oneself in them at some level, if not the most litteral one. There is, therefore, no good reason why an interpreter should find it difficult or awkward.
Popular songwriters very often impersonate wide arrays of characters, because it lets them better explore the complexity of life. The example I have in mind is of a french speaking songwriter, Richard Desjardins. In “Tu m’aimes-tu”, he is a fifty year old guy who sleeps with a young and beautiful woman and can’t believe is luck; in “Lomer” he is a medieval peasant about to be lynched for having slept with another man; in “Nataq”, he becomes a young woman about to give birth to her son. All those characters that he interprets are of his own making, the results are always stunning and heartfelt…
Besides, changing a song to better suit an interpreter is somewhat disrespectful of the audience’s intelligence. In short, I think it’s tacky.
My initial response to the idea that some of his songs should only be sung by a gay man is negative. I tend to dislike the idea that gender and sexuality define either creativity or a person’s response to creativity.
The concept of a song that can only be sung by a gay man disturbs me in much the same way as the idea that there is a “masculine novel” and a “feminine novel.” This concept hypothesizes that female novelists (Austen for example) can’t write a truly successful traditional novel because they lack the “masculine thrust.” At the same time, men shouldn’t be able to write a “feminine novel.” The best example of a “feminine novel” the theorists could come up with was Ulysses . . . written by a man, of course. What I mean to say with this comparison is that the idea of songs that can only be sung by a gay man isn’t sexist by any stretch of the imagination, and I wouldn’t want to imply that, but it does draw an overly sharp distinction between genders.
Clearly, however, it is rather difficult to imagine a song like Gay Messiah, for example, sung from a woman’s perspective. It doesn’t work. The song is clearly from a masculine point of view and explicitly identifies the singer as gay. I would argue that a woman could nevertheless sing this song. Just above me kae pointed out that a singer or songwriter can take on any number of personas in their songs. Many of the songs we love, by Rufus and other singers, touch us because they create a character or story that we connect with. They make us feel for another human being even if that person, on the surface, has very little in common with us. So could a woman or straight man not sing a song from the perspective of a gay man? I think that it would require imagination and empathy but it could be done. It would just take the right singer.
I think the view that Rufus’s songs are largely limited to being interpreted by gay males is a little too literal minded and unnecessarily restrictive.
So much of Rufus’s writing is either so incredibly literate or so aptly remarking on present culture (”Men reading fashion magazines… straight men!”) that it would only be restricted to gay male singers as much as any woman’s love song would seem to be restricted to a female singer because the narrator sounds too passive or feminine in the nature of their love.
As with any song, it’s mostly in the interpretation of the singer. Obviously with some songs like “Gay Messiah” the subject cannot be avoided, but even Rufus occasionally speaks in a voice other than his own (though we might love to picture Rufus in a uniformish pant-suit sortof thing, he’s not really the narrator in “Art Teacher”). Only when the song is too inspecific to suggest a separate narrator do the references to the singer as male become problematic.
(To specifically contradict a commenter above, i don’t feel “Poses” is blatantly about gayness so much as it’s about the facades we present, and how snapshots rarely represent how we really look. This is, in fact, my favorite Rufus song to cover as a straight male singer/songwriter, and i think it works for women as well.)
The more salient point, at least for your book, is the *way* in which Rufus discusses his loves – especially on the very frank tracks of his first albums – as opposed to more abstract love songs, such as “Natasha.” I’m not as fluent in the lyrics from the first disc, but i definitely think there is something about how he “writes lyrically about his love.”
As for Rufus songs for a soprano, i don’t know quite how he’ll translate if you stay in the same key – so many of his golden parts rely on his higher baritone chest/mixed range, but a soprano singing those notes in the next octave isn’t really going to sound the same as she’s already well past her break.
I would definitely nominate “This Love Affair,” possibly “Poses,” “Tower of Learning,” or “In a Graveyard.”
To state categorically that Rufus’s songs are largely restricted to gay male interpreters is analagous to saying that most songs originally performed by female singer-songwriters should not be sung by men because the lyrics would portray them as too passive or feminine. In either case, it’s all in the interpretation.
I would argue that many of Rufus’s songs have lyrics that are literate enough to connote meaning independent of the sex and gender of their narrator, even when the original narrator is ostensibly Rufus himself (”Foolish Love”). And, Rufus isn’t always the narrator (”Art Teacher”), so why should another singer have to be?
Really, very few of his songs fall into the “Gay Messiah” category where they are clearly about “gayness.” (By way of example: “Oh What a World” remains an amusing commentary on metrosexualism even when not sung by a gay singer). And, to contradict a poster above, “Poses” has always been my favorite Rufus song to cover as a straight male singer/songwriter – to me it is a song about facades, and how snapshots of yourself never quite look like the real you. I think it would work equally well for a female singer.
As for your soprano, i think the trouble of song selection is more dictated by range – so many of Rufus’s vocals (esp. in golden sections) are relatively high for a baritone to sing in chest. However, an octave higher a classically trained soprano is far past her break – using her voice quite differently compared to Rufus on the same note an octave below. From the top of my head i think “This Love Affair” and “Poses” would be suitable; possibly “Tower of Learning” or “In A Graveyard.”
This kind of debate is also conducted about ‘race’ and music. The responses are often rather similar, defending the generality of creativity, against histories of oppression that seem to give ‘ownership’ of some music and lyrics to particular social groups (Paul Gilroy’s writing provides good examples).
I think the ‘ownership’ argument is actually pretty strong on the grounds of lyrics, in this case. But it’d be interesting to hear on what musical grounds it can be claimed, beyond the lyrics. What, musically or vocally, constitutes a ‘gay oriented song’ if anything? None of the songs resonate much, musically, with popular gay music (or any popular club music), yet a very large number have wider connections with stereotypically gay-associated musical styles.
Within the lyrics, too, what ‘counts’ – pronouns? Specific references like cruising? the way relationships are described (if so, how?) A kind of lifestyle-zeitgeist thing? Also, to which gay men is such music ‘oriented’? ‘Poses’ for example seems to have a quite particular fin-de-(twentieth)-siecle western urban demographic in mind. ‘Dinner at Eight’ – which you mention somewhere as an essentially ‘Rufus Wainwright’ song, seems to strike a chord with lots of people now or previously engaged in Oedipal struggles with their fathers, men in particular. This song seems much more about masculinities to me than sexualities…but perhaps I’m missing something?
jan
As an almost-on-topic side note…Rufus has said on numerous occasions that the demographic segment of audience he feels least welcomed and appreciated by is gay men. I suppose it’s possible that all of the gay men who do appreciate his work are musicians/performers, but I don’t know how one would go about proving that fact.
Given the wide range of demographics of people appreciating Rufus’ music (especially at his concerts), one could conclude that there is a universality to his work that elevates it above petty stereotypes. I see no reason why that shouldn’t hold true for both listening to and performing Wainwright songs.
50-year-old, straight Irish male and I sing “Barcelona” as my party-piece because it’s a beautiful song and I want people to know about Rufus. This debate is a waste of space.
Angela Scollo got a “Pick of the Week” in the Village Voice:
“Here’s a gal with a clever way about her and a clever idea. She’s taken Rufus Wainwright’s very personal songs about love and what passes for it and made them her own. Look, no one else has thought to do it. “With Eyes of Love” is the program title, and it’s off the beaten path, to say the least.”
(FINKLE )
http://www.villagevoice.com/nycguide/ev84415,6.html
You must log in to post a comment.