Dr Gordon Rohlehr-who needs no introduction where serious and searching comments on calypsonians and calypsoes are concerned-is reported to have chided those who are too hasty to invoke banning and censorship of calypsoes by reminding them that "the calypso keeps open one area of freedom, freedom of expression." According to Rohlehr, "By the vigorous exercise of this freedom and its consistent theme in the calypso, the indivisibility of the various freedoms has been recognised."
Just as the calypsonians are expected to keep us on our toes and blow the whistle on "runaway horses and rogue elephants" occupying positions of power and authority, we're also entitled to let them know when they've crossed the line. They ought to be told that such latitude allowed ought not to degenerate into licence. Besides this, defamation and blatant indecency are poor substitutes for biting social commentary and good old Trini picong. A calypso monarch once lamented that when he sought to have some fellow calypsonians "tone down" the personal invective, what he got for his pains was a torrent of personal abuse.
Chalkdust is on record as suggesting that calypsonians should be allowed to censor themselves. Some hope! When the question of censorship arose in respect of lyrics that were libellous, indecent, obscene and profane in 1940, one of our earlier calypso greats, Atilla the Hun, responded thus: "To say these songs were sacrilegious, obscene or profane is only a lie and a dirty shame. If the calypso is indecent, then I must insist so is Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, Boccacio's Tales, Voltaire's Candide, The Martyrdom of Man by Winwood Reid. Yet over these authors they make no fuss. But they want to take advantage of us."
The late actor/playwright Errol Hill took the position that "public taste" was a surer arbiter of what was acceptable in calypso than any uninformed dictates of officialdom. I seem to recall a more qualified (in the sense of being circumspect) editorial view which went like this: "Once upon a time, in this land, the calypsonian was an artist with words, when he/she created humour and social commentary...Today, however, the rapier has been replaced with a broad cutlass, and sometimes even a tractor blade...No attempt is made at all to avoid defaming persons who cannot defend themselves. No attempts are being made to stay within the limits of the law and the limits of decency. Calypsonians," the editorial stated, "seem to forget that they are subject to the laws of libel and obscenity."
In any case, gone are the days when most calypsonians "had nothing to lose but their souls," so pursuing a libel suit would be a waste of time and legal fees. Today, if you haven't yet noticed, some or those dudes are sporting more gold than Fort Knox and, with their million-dollar prize money, it might well be worth your while to pursue a libel or defamation suit where the money is flowing like an open faucet. On the other hand, supposing, and I'm only supposing, that I put on my vindictive political cap and I'm of a mind to defame or libel someone I took a dislike to, do you mean to say that all I have to do is to compose some poison-pen drivel, get it set to some infectious music and allow some "attack dog" singer to palm it off on a gullible public as calypso? That's not as far-fetched as one might think.
Interestingly, at a much earlier period when composing and/or singing calypso was seen as being left to the "lesser mortals," one of our more distinguished legal luminaries was said to be composing calypsoes and passing them on to calypsonians for the mere heck of it. Today, for a talented composer, that could be big business. But I've strayed. Back to the editorial. It cautioned, "Even political commentary should properly be kept to political matters and not descend to personal attacks and character assassination."
The late Albert Gomes, at one time virtual Chief Minister of T&T and one who had identified with and supported calypso and calypsonian, once wrote: "Long after most of us are forgotten, certain calypsoes will survive as the only reminders to some later generation of how we lived, loved, laboured and sinned."
While we're at it we may well wish to consider public outcry re: the diet of smut, sleaze, and violence "in song" that's dumped on our unsuspecting youth. Sometimes I wonder whether all this claptrap does not have a deleterious subliminal effect. But that's just how I figure that the cookie crumbles.
Finally, what is calypso? Calypsonian Duke characterises it as, "An editorial in song." Merchant says that " ...it's about rhyme and a story line." The conventional and popular forms seem to me to be the stringing of beads of scandal, gossip, current happenings and/or the idiosyncrasies of prominent figures in the public eye on some metaphorical thread. The better calypsonian creates imagery that sticks in the audience's mind. For example, the Messianic cum dependency syndrome is encapsulated in: "Anabela stocking want stitching/ She want de Doctor help she wid dat/ Jonson trousers falling/ He want de Doctor help him wid dat/ Now Dorothy loss she man, she gone to complain to Doctor William." Can you beat that?