IT HAS BEEN quite interesting to observe the raging debate even criticism of the compartmentalising of calypso. This has been played out in the newspaper, on the radio and in many social gatherings throughout the island. This is the season, I guess.
Why, the question is often asked, must there be social commentary, party, sweet and now bashment soca? Is there any merit in such a separation of the art form? Is there a need for all these names when it is all one calypso thrust?
Or, as some have argued, is this not just a bastardisation that should not be allowed to evolve any further? Why would our cultural leaders sit back and allow this or, as is now the apparent position, openly encourage the changes? They are even rewarding them.
As one assesses the merits of the different arguments, it is important to question how and why did we get to this point. Is it simply a natural result of the need for creativity and the creative juices to flow and explore? Or does the need to respond to the popular requests of the masses draw the positive reaction that is also driven by financial implications?
Most of us understand the natural reaction to change. Resist and complain. This is nothing new to calypso. I well remember the name change and the obvious technical adjustments that accompanied when calypso as we knew became kaiso, then soca. Oh the outcry.
In many ways, this is similar to what has happened with the game of cricket. There was never a complaint when we had two and three days domestic cricket that supported the four-day first class game and the five-day tests. It was all four innings cricket, they said, and all was good.
Then the One-Day Internationals came on to the cricketing calendar and some quiet whispers of objection were heard. Initially they were not very loud, because Barbados and the West Indies were winning. As defeats started being experienced, this format started being referred to as “not cricket”.
And then the tsunami struck. The Twenty20 format of cricket was unveiled. The words from the purists were and continue to be loud. This is only about swiping and is not cricket. This will destroy the game and prevent youngsters from developing proper techniques and skills.
In both cricket and calypso, the criticisms flow and the spectator support grows stronger and stronger. No decision in either area can ignore the need not only for spectator support but also for the accompanying financial strengthening that comes with it.
Why is it so difficult to appreciate the absolute truth that calypsonians and cricketers like everyone else have a family to feed and a lifestyle to achieve and maintain? They have both a right and a duty to structure and focus their talents in the area of choice to ensure this.
Complain as the critics may, these are different times and we cannot expect to go hat in hand unabatedly to businesses for their sponsorship. Yes they are needed and will continue to give, but the needs are so much greater and the competition fiercer that we must help ourselves.
The people, the attractiveness to television and the resultant rewards must be appreciated. People are driven to what excites and motivates them. Let’s take our heads out of the proverbial sand and boldly come face to face with the twenty-first century.
As a calypso and cricket supporter, I may not remember the names but I will always know the faces. We may not like every calypso or every form, but we must be sensitive to the needs and the creative thrusts and be respectful of such.
As changes come, let us open our appreciation channels and let our education guide us. Do not criticise calypso diversity; embrace it.
Jeff Broomes is an experienced educator, principal and community organiser who also served as vice president of the BCA and director of the WICB. Email: unclejeff2@hotmail.com