Actually this one was first intended to be about Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land" and it's relationship to Irving Berlin's "God Bless America" but it has turned into the early history of the Berlin song with only some short remarks about Guthrie, so I hope it's of interest and please feel free to criticize and to comment.
I must admit that I had never problems understanding "God Bless America" and what it's all about. One need only to know of Berlin's personal background and the historical context. And I always wondered why nearly always there is this note attached to "This Land..." that it was written as a response to Berlin's song as if it was some heroic deed. But what bothers me more and more is the way Guthrie biographers treat Berlin. There is no appropriate research into the background of that song and the usually short comments about "God Bless America" are nearly libelous and more or less absurd.
There is for example this short text from Ed Cray's biography:
“Guthrie had written [the song] while hitchhiking in the wintry February of 1940. For weeks the sometime dust bowl refugee and ever restless Okie had listened to the jukeboxes and Kate Smith booming the saccharine ‘God Bless America’. Maybe the almighty had or would sometime in the future, but He had missed the America Guthrie knew, the sharecroppers, the boomers, the kids living in ditches alongside California’s rural roads. There was something too pat, too smug about Irving Berlin’s patriotic plea”
This - especially the note about the "poor kids" - is of course pure propaganda and Cray tries to put it on a moral plane: Berlin, the millionaire is not interested in the poor and what's happening in America while heroic Woody really cares. But then there are facts. Some people of course know the story that Berlin has given all the royalties of "God Bless America" to the Scouts. But it is rarely mentioned that he gave them especially to take care of kids in poor parts of the town and for non-sectarian and "non-racial" activities. So may I assume that it was actually Berlin who thought about the poor kids while Guthrie - as I have learned from reading the biographies - was often enough not even willing to support his own kids and he wrote his "answer" in New York in 1940 when he again had left his wife & kids sitting in some shack in the wilderness to travel through the country? Or do I get something wrong?
Another point that I don't understand is: why is Berlin's song singled out for being "uncritical"? A patriotic song is per definitionem “uncritical” and celebratory. It is no sociological thesis. It’s aim is to get the people together, to invoke a feeling of community. This is usually achieved by stressing and celebrating the positive traditions and this is exactly what Berlin had done. And Berlin was smart enough to know that it is better to say what he's for instead of saying what he's criticizing and to make it short and concise. How many people do know the critical verses of "This Land Is Your Land"? And some may remember what happened to Bruce Springsteen's "Born In The USA" when it was hijacked by - if I remember correctly - Reagan and misunderstood as a simple-minded patriotic statement.
Nora Guthrie once claimed that “because her father was born in America, in Oklahoma, he developed a more critical view of the country than an immigrant like Irving Berlin: ‘He [i.e. Guthrie] was born to question and critique; to look at and explore the whole concept of citizenship whereas the immigrant generation is so grateful to be here, to make it better and to celebrate their lifes here. It’s just a different perspective [...]’”. Are songwriters really more "critical" because they were born in the USA? Is a songwriter "uncritical" because he was not born in the USA. Does a songwriter's quality depend on how many "critical" songs he writes.
I happen to know so much of European history to understand that many immigrants - especially those from Eastern Europe like Berlin - did not come to the USA "to make it better" but first and foremost to escape oppression, persecution and anti-Semitism, very simply to save their existence. It’s not possible to understand "God Bless America" without being aware of the fact the Berlin himself came to America from pogrom-ridden Russia and that he had revised and published it in face of massive anti-Semitism in Germany in the 1930s. Berlin’s vision of America - and “God Bless America” was a very personal and very political song - as the last harbor of freedom, as a land “fair” and “free” was true in a very elementary way, especially for those who had escaped oppression and persecution in Europe - both in the 19th century and then again in the 1930s - and for whom America was the last resort.
Anybody who is doing some research into Berlin's background and the song's history (for example simply by checking contemporary newspapers) should be able to find out that Berlin in the 30s and 40s was among the politically most active and most courageous popular songwriters. He was member of anti-Nazi organizations, he was busy working for religious and ethnic tolerance etc. And “God Bless America” was at that time a very political and progressive song. It was the song of anti-totalitarian, internationalist and democratic America, the song of those who were calling for stronger measures against Hitler and more support for Britain (and it's interesting to see that for example Berlin managed to put pro-England and anti-Hitler songs on prime-time radio at a time when Woody, Pete Seeger and friends were actually demonstrating and fighting against Roosevelt's pro-England and anti-Hitler policy), of those who stood for ethnic and religious tolerance and against racism. criticism against Berlin mostly came from the right side of the political spectrum.
Most people are not aware today that Berlin's work had a political and social dimension. He of course received tons of awards etc but some were very specifically "because his songs have been ‘an expression of better understanding for all races, creeds and religions for over a quarter of a century’” or for his “contributions [...] in the theater world that have advanced the aim of the conference [i.e. the "National Conference Of Jews And Christians", an organization Berlin was associated with] to eliminate religious and racial frictions”. And obviously he managed to do this without writing a boring protest song every other day.
It is not my point to criticize Guthrie, although I must admit that my respect for today's "Guthrie camp" has sunk to an all-time low and my admiration for Berlin has grown more and more. But why is Berlin today widely treated as some simple-minded flag-waving Grandpa - something that he never was - and why doesn't he receive the respect he deserves?
Speaking as a non-American, I think they are both great songs. However, I think Irving Berlin's song came to be used in a propagandistic manner to glorify a romanticized idea of 'America' that completely ignored issues of race, class and other social divisions. Also, by the time 'God Bless America' was written, powerful corporate interests had already hijacked the organs of American power and, in a hideous betrayal of true American values, were causing havoc in other parts of the world (a process that had already begun in the early 19th century with the projection of corporate power southwards into Latin America).
Woody's song was a sobering reminder of a deep social divisions within America itself, but it too appealed to the great ideals on which America was founded. I think Woody's song is more authentically patriotic, more profoundly 'American' than 'God Bless America'. As Springsteen says in the clip below, the song gets to the very heart of what America was supposed to be.
Re:Roots of Bob Special Edition: Berlin & Guth 1 Year, 3 Months ago
Lostchords wrote: “So may I assume that it was actually Berlin who thought about the poor kids while Guthrie - as I have learned from reading the biographies - was often enough not even willing to support his own kids and he wrote his "answer" in New York in 1940 when he again had left his wife & kids sitting in some shack in the wilderness to travel through the country? Or do I get something wrong?”
I find this comment to be fairly irrelevant, even unfair, to the discussion. Artists of all mediums have often found conflict between their “message” and their personal lives. That Guthrie had trouble being a family man in no way, imo, reduces the value of his songs which supported and tried to empower the lower classes and the disillusioned. That Berlin gave money to the poor does not add any relevancy to the lyrical content or meaning of his songs. Many of the greatest artists throughout history have found themselves abandoning their families in pursuit of the personal truths they sought (or seek) in their art. Decisions made by the individual in his personal life in no means reduces the message of the art he produces (with a few extreme exceptions, I suppose, but those are not present here.)
I pretty much agree with Cray’s comments regarding “God Bless America.” One of the essential differences between Guthrie (and Dylan) and a songwriter like Berlin is that Guthrie sought layers of meaning through irony, sarcasm, wit, anger, and a variety of other emotions. Being a writer of catchy show-type pop tunes, Berlin was more interested in a straight forward, appeal to the masses sound which to these ears was far more “pat” and “smug” than anything Guthrie (or Dylan) ever wrote, even in their most maudlin moods, (and I do find many of Berlin’s tunes irresistibly catchy, btw).
I do appreciate your speculations regarding the links between Dylan and various writers of “show tunes,” but I really can find little to no agreement with your hypotheses. Some of what I say here refers to my recollection of one of your earlier posts at the original pool. I have thought of this topic at times since reading your initial post exploring the possibility of Dylan’s influences and various writers of music for the stage. My gut reaction has always been that Dylan was so concerned with the his expanding awareness and his persona at the formative age during which these types of music might have had their most profound effect that he would have rejected them on that ground alone. These tunes were for the middle and upper class show goers, as well as the everyman, for the family, to enjoy as a whole. The music that appealed to Dylan was the rebel music of his day, that which the generation that had embraced Berlin and his ilk were now rejecting vehemently as anti-social and dangerous. My belief is that Dylan’s embracing of more anti-social music (i.e. rock and roll, and later the music of folk artists like Guthrie) would have significantly interfered with his appreciation, even his ability to appreciate, music from Broadway and other pop music of an earlier era. This type of music was, indeed is, simply too “square,” to use a popular word of the day which helped define this sort of generational distinction.<br><br>Post edited by: alexl, at: 2007/08/23 21:05
Re:Roots of Bob Special Edition: Berlin & Guth 1 Year, 3 Months ago
Thanks a lot for the comments!
QUOTE: Many of the greatest artists throughout history have found themselves abandoning their families in pursuit of the personal truths they sought (or seek) in their art. Decisions made by the individual in his personal life in no means reduces the message of the art he produces
Yes I know, a lot of artists had serious problems with real life, although I have some doubts if my wife and kids would appreciate if I leave them and sing about the poor kids. But what about artists who have no problems in this respect? Berlin had a song & a message and he backed it personally by donating the money ("cold, hard cash", as LBJ would have said & Berlin actually had to kick out his business associate who was utterly shocked that he wanted to give so much money away) to grass-roots work for democracy & tolerance and against racism; by supporting organisations that fought against homegrown & foreign intolerance; by supporting his president & then by touring without pay nearly 3 years all through the world with his "This Is The Army" troupe.
QUOTE: One of the essential differences between Guthrie (and Dylan) and a songwriter like Berlin is that Guthrie sought layers of meaning through irony, sarcasm, wit, anger, and a variety of other emotions.
This seems to be a somehow outrageous claim. Do you seriously think that Berlin did not seek or achieve these layers of meaning? He wouldn't have been in business for so long. This seems to me a very, very simplified view of pre-Dylan or pre-Guthrie popular music. This is not even true in the case of "God Bless America". Didn't this song have "layers of meaning" although it were only a couple of words?
- for example for he people who sang it at a meeting of the "National Conference Of Jews And Christians" in 1938, a meeting where this organization demanded a "repudiation of the doctrines of race and hate” and strictly spoke against homegrown and foreign racism & intolerance
- the people at anti-Nazi and anti-isolationist rallies in 40/41
- for Americans like the Roosevelts, Fiorello La Guardia, Dorothy Thompson etc etc
(this was the original performance context of that song: progressive & internationalist America)
etc etc
QUOTE: appeal to the masses
Yes, that's exactly what he sought and found, esp. with GBA: he had a message & he brought it to the people! What's wrong with that?
QUOTE: “pat” and “smug”
Let's say: a lot of people would disagree, even Bob himself: "Hoagy Carmichael songs are much better than mine, so are George Gershwin's and Irving Berlin's, too" (Elliott Mintz Interview for Westwood Radio, 1991)
And why please - to quote it again - was Berlin honoured "because his songs have been ‘an expression of better understanding for all races, creeds and religions for over a quarter of a century’” or for his “contributions [...] in the theater world that have advanced the aim of the conference [i.e. the "National Conference Of Jews And Christians", an organization Berlin was associated with] to eliminate religious and racial frictions”. Obviously those people didn't think his songs were "smug" and "pat". Any help in understanding this would be fine.
QUOTE: These tunes were for the middle and upper class show goers, as well as the everyman, for the family, to enjoy as a whole. The music that appealed to Dylan was the rebel music of his day, that which the generation that had embraced Berlin and his ilk were now rejecting vehemently as anti-social and dangerous. My belief is that Dylan’s embracing of more anti-social music (i.e. rock and roll, and later the music of folk artists like Guthrie) would have significantly interfered with his appreciation, even his ability to appreciate, music from Broadway and other pop music of an earlier era. This type of music was, indeed is, simply too “square,” to use a popular word of the day which helped define this sort of generational distinction.
This is simply a generational problem. Irving Berlin's ragtime songs in the 1910s did sound as "rebellious" and "anti-social" to more conservative contemporaries as later Rock'n Roll. Cole Porter's songs surely weren't "square" or some of them wouldn't have been banned from the radio. Then please check "Chronicles" , f.ex. p 49, 81 etc for Dylan's musical taste at that time. He wasn't as reactionary as some of the other folkies. And I presume that the typical Dylan listener since the 60s (middle class with high brow aspirations) is not that different sociologically from theatre goers in the 30s (middle class with high brow aspirations).
Re:Roots of Bob Special Edition: Berlin & Guth 1 Year, 3 Months ago
What is the point of this discussion?
First of all, Bob Dylan's writing is clearly influenced a thousand sources, but no one formed his musical persona more than Woody.
As for Irving Berlin; what you may know about European history is to the point, what you may or may not know is what went on in the United States. Anti-Semitism played into Berlin's life here, and deeply.
His first wife died very young of typhoid. Berlin later fell in love with a Catholic woman, whose father was a prominent lay Catholic figure. He disowned his daughter, oh, by the way, they were millionaires. There's lots more to this.
There's a lot more about Berlin. How he relates to Bobby's writing seems very tangential to me. There are threads that connect. Irony of ironies Kate Smith was often referred to as being an anti-Semite (I heard that since I was a kid). Berlin got a lot of crap for things he didn't deserve. He wrote God Bless America more in the context of the "Great War" times, when he was drafted into the United States Army, than during the Nazi-World War II era. In the sixties both the "Old Left" and the "New Left" thought of him as a conservative, as a Jew who had bought into the mainstream of America. Many Jews had criticized him for his marriage to an Irish Catholic,and moreso for his writing White Christmas. As already mentioned he drew shit from the Catholics too.
He was prolific, writing over 900 songs. According to Nora, from what shes now found, Woody wrote over 3,000. Berlin wrote some world-class tunes -- starting with Alexander's Rag Time Band, wonderful songs.
Woody wrote a wide range. Woody wrote every day. He picked up a newspaper read something and wrote a poem, a song, a ditty. He sketched, he painted. Berlin would not let anyone have even a couplet from his song to reprint. Woody was, well communistic in spirit. I don't mean that in the political sense, but in the sense of community and sharing.
It's beyond me why you talk of people's personal lives. I don't know anyone from Irving Berlin's family. His daughter wrote a biography and I should check that out. Woody, on the other hand, is someone who I've heard about from a couple of his children, from Jack, from others who knew him. I look out of the window in the direction of their one-time home. I see the water where his ashes were strewn. I hear the voices still, the twangy Americans, the Russian-Jewish cutting-edge humour, the Puerto Rican rhythm, the Italian passion, the Irish wryness (no, not ryeness), the southern-tinged sharpness of the urban blacks. All those Woody took in. All those he put back out. Much as Bobby did, and does.
Re:Roots of Bob Special Edition: Berlin & Guth 1 Year, 3 Months ago
I am intrigued by this "clairdelalune". What sort of woman asks, what is the point of this discussion? and then proceeds to add several hundred words to it?
Surely the magic she wields is powerful and strange.
Re:Roots of Bob Special Edition: Berlin & Guth 1 Year, 3 Months ago
I make it a point never to argue with a lady. Though my reasoning may prove superior, only a cad and a bully would exult in such a victory. And should the obverse be the case, it would be better that the world not find that out! So I will only say, Miss De la Lune, that your points are very delicately expressed, whatever may be the truth of them, and that if you dance as trippingly as you write, I should be delighted to take your hand at the next cotillion.<br><br>Post edited by: General Winfield Scott, at: 2007/08/24 05:34
Re:Roots of Bob Special Edition: Berlin & Guth 1 Year, 3 Months ago
Lostchords, you make some strong and interesting points; certainly the work of some of the writers for the stage was more risqué than I allowed in my early morning response. I do think Clair’s choice of the word “tangential” is accurate, in that while I find it hard to accept a direct connection between Berlin and Dylan, Berlin’s work was so ubiquitous that Dylan could not help but have heard his songs, as well as those of people like Porter and others of the era.
I suppose on one level Berlin’s work simply hasn’t aged as well as Dylan’s has thus far, leading to my agreement that the work is “smug.” I do think the lyrical content of Berlin’s songs (I’m dreaming of a white Christmas, etc.) is far more simplistic and straightforward than lyrics created by Dylan; of course, Dylan’s influence on pop lyrics is arguably one of his most profound contributions to the art of song writing.
As for Dylan expressing appreciation of these writers in his middle ages, this is a far different reality than his appreciating the music in his youth, when one forms musical foundations and influences.<br><br>Post edited by: alexl, at: 2007/08/24 07:51
Re:Roots of Bob Special Edition: Berlin & Guth 1 Year, 3 Months ago
General Winfield Scott wrote:
QUOTE: So I will only say, Miss De la Lune, that your points are very delicately expressed, whatever may be the truth of them, and that if you dance as trippingly as you write, I should be delighted to take your hand at the next cotillion.
Message Board 
