Notes Introduction 1. This “tammurriata,” beyond its rhythm and its own melodic identity, pres- ents several distinctive traits. Above all the melodic line of the first singer continuously interchanges the traditional structure of major mode (with the fourth degree altered) to a minor mode in the cadences. The lyrics are also interesting, the first set referring to the famous “Fenesta ca lucive,” generally known through nineteenth century as Neapolitan song of melodic-romantic craftsmanship and the second set being the authentic version of “Spingole frangesi” from which Salvatore Di Giacomo drew upon for his well-known song of the same name. Needless to say, the two pieces appear in their truest light as emblematic texts, whose language is always related to the meaning of the magical-ritual tradition. One in fact notes, especially in the version of Fenesta ca lucive, the continual relationship between images associated with death, even the macabre, and the constant erotic allusions in the interpo- lations. Lastly, notable is also the considerable quantity of these interpola- tions in the songs where these, besides being present in the usual octosyllabic forms (nursery rhymes, “doggerels,” or o “barzellette” poetic compositions of seven or eight syllables set to music), are also present in the same hendeca- syllabic forms of the songs. This special form of “tammurriata” may be observed principally at the feast of St. Ann in the town of Lèttere. Here in fact on the Saturday night following the 26th of July, singers and musicians who converge in honor of St. Ann dance and sing from midnight on. De Simone (1979, 137). 2. De Mura (1969). 3. To this end Ugo Mollo, collector and great connoisseur of Neapolitan song, loved to recall his participation in Lascia o raddoppia, the Italian well-known television broadcast conducted by Mike Bongiorno, in the episodes of May 16 and 23, 1957, when the only bibliographical source, beyond periodicals and the publishing houses’ files, consisted of Rino Mannarini’s Storia della canzone Napoletana, which was little more than an annotated collection of songs. 4. De Mura (1966). 5. Sarno (1962). 6. Gargano and Cesarini (1984). 190 NOTES 7. De Simone (1983), 1st edition. 8. Palomba (2001); Pittari (2004). 9. Stazio (1991). 10. Pesce (1999). 11. Scialò (2002). 12. Daniele (2002). 13. Liguoro (2004). 14. Borgna (1996; Liperi (1999); Prato (2010). 15. Sciotti (2007). 16. Pine (2012, English text awaiting publication in Italy). 17. Abruzzese, preface in Stazio (1991, 10–12). 18. Ibid. 19. The most recent sociolinguistic studies prefer to speak of the opposition between sociolinguistic varieties in an attempt to neutralize the old and discriminating opposition of language versus dialect. See Klein and Baiano “Dialetto e fascismo a Napoli: questioni di politica linguistica” [Dialect and Fascism in Naples: Questions of linguistic policy] (2000). 20. Let us recall Giovanni Gentile’s 1923 school reform, even if it is useful to remember that the regime tolerated and indeed supported the use of dialects as an integral part of school programs until the beginning of the thirties. See Klein and Baiano, 365. 21. Portelli states that in the United States it is senseless to speak of folklore as intact and of separate oral cultures; American folklore has always circulated whether orally or in print or on theater stages and moved without particular setbacks to radio and records since the twenties. See introduction in Guthrie (1997, 12). 22. Rust (1954, 11). 23. Molinari, “Porti, trasporti, compagnie” [Harbors, transports, companies] in Bevilacqua, De Clementi, and Franzina eds (2001, 250). 24. Sorce Keller “American Influences in Italian Popular Music,” 124–36. 25. Mazzoletti (1983, 31). 26. From an interview conducted by the author, New York, May 2003. 27. From the word hyphen, which unites the two words Italian and American that define the double ethnic identity. On the term, see Tamburri (1991); Gabaccia “Razza, nazione, trattino” [Race, Nation, Hyphen: Italian-Americans and American Multiculturalism in Comparative Perspective] in Guglielmo and Salerno, eds (2003, 61–78); Muscio and Spagnoletti (2007, 9). 28. Rigler and Deutsch Index of Recorded Sound (RDI), a union catalog of 78-rpm disc holdings from several major research libraries. 29. Aleandri (1999). 30. Estavan (1991). 31. Greene (1992 and 2004). 32. Glasser (1995). 33. Troianelli (1989); Bruno (1995). 34. Muscio (2004); Bertellini, Italy in Early American Cinema, (2010). 35. Cinotto (2001). NOTES 191 36. Lived from April 6, 1934, to November 12, 2006—singer and actor, one of the leading exponents of the modern sceneggiata repertoire (1970–1990), a mixture of traditional folk singing and popular melodrama. Sceneggiata is mostly known in areas populated by Italian immigrants; besides Naples, the second homeland of sceneggiata is probably Little Italy in New York City. 37. Interview conducted by the author in New York, April 2003. 1 The Cultural Context of the Italian-American Community in New York at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century 1. Vecoli, “Negli Stati Uniti” in Bevilacqua, De Clementi and Franzina eds. (2002); Gabaccia (1994). 2. “This refers to the type of man under the age of forty because between 1887 and 1900, it was that same America that encouraged Italian immigration to promote the industrial and agricultural progress to which it was com- mitted. Sex, age, and strength were the criteria by which the ‘desirability’ of the immigrants to America was evaluated because it was the economic value of an individual that determined his or her permanence here” (D’Ambrosio 1924, 44). 3. Vecoli “Negli Stati Uniti,” 57; see also, Vecoli (1987). 4. The Italian scholars of emigration do not hesitate to use the word “exo- dus” to define the expatriation of Italians during the period under consid- eration. Golini and Amato state that the second phase of the emigration, which ranges from the first years of the twentieth century to the First World War, coincides with the beginning of the process of the industrialization in Italy. And yet, historically that phase is as important as that of the Great Emigration. In fact it was a true and real exodus that drew an average of 600,000 persons a year, for a total of nine million people. The peak, not only of that phase but also of the entire history of emigration, was reached in 1913, when the number was more than 870,000. The course of the phenom- enon reveals both great highs and great lows as a consequence of the major influence exerted upon the flow of immigrants by the international labor market, especially that of North America. As a matter of fact, immigration during this period was primarily from Europe and specifically about 45 per- cent of all immigration was absorbed by the United States: it is the people of southern Europe that fueled this transoceanic streaming (largely 70 percent of it). (“Uno sguardo ad un secolo e mezzo di emigrazione italiana” [Golino and Amato “A Look into a Century and a Half of Italian Emigration”] in Bevilacqua, De Clementi, and Franzina eds [2002], 49–51). 5. Muscio (2004, 25). 6. Greene (2004, 88). 7. San Francisco played a primary role in this migratory phase. In fact, the Italians gathered there initially because they were attracted by the presence 192 NOTES of gold mines and subsequently because California put in place policies to support agricultural activities that particularly touched the sensitivity of the Italian immigrants who were for the most part agriculturalists and farmers (Vecoli “Negli Stati Uniti,” 62). 8. Van Vechten “A Night with Farfariello,” 32; see also Romeyn, “Juggling Italian-American Identities,” 95–96. 9. The information appears in an article published in La follia di New York, October 9, 1927, as part of a series of articles published in signed installments by Giuseppe Cautela under the title The Italian Theater in New York. 10. “It is well known that Italian operatic arias as well as folk tunes were heard almost everywhere, even outside in the streets. In those settings pushcart peddlers accompanied the hawking of their wares with song, and there organ grinders added their tunes for whatever income passersby offered. Popular songs could also be heard in the Street, emanating from the several ethnic music stores in the Italian Lower East Side. In the neighborhood of Bayard, Mott, Mulberry, and Elizabeth Streets, as one visitor put it, one could lis- ten to ‘clever ditties about the eternal subject of mirth [and] mothers-in-law’ coming from those shops. While no direct reference is available as to what particular songs were heard in these outdoor performances, it is certain that these establishments provided musical entertainment that dealt with the plight of the new Italian arrival. Observers of these venues have referred to them generically as the ‘caffè concerto.’ Such restaurants, bars, and music halls playing Italian music arose in the 1890s and early 1900s to provide comfort and entertainment for the Italian working class seeking respite from their hard labor. These musical places were undoubtedly popular and cer- tainly accessible to the poorest of workers. Their admission charge was as little as five to ten cents” (Greene 2004, 88–89). 11. The material in this research was later merged into the Federal Writers’ Project (1938). 12. See also Mariano (1921). 13. For a more detailed analysis of the ethnic composition of East Harlem, see Orsi (1992). 14. Vecoli, “Negli Stati Uniti,” 55. 15. The construction of luxury buildings like the cooperatives in Chelsea or the Dakota Building are an example of this. The immigrants crowded into the tenements, and hygiene and sanitary conditions posed intermittent prob- lems until the 1930s. Davidson writes that affordability and unassuming dignity had always been a goal of apartment advocates. In 1867, 1879, and 1901, Progressives had pushed through laws requiring small increases in the standards of ventilation, light, and sanitation in tenements, which were often disease-ridden firetraps.