Blog Us A Blog

1.

Call me what you like, but my stomach hurts the same
‘twas eight years ago I folded that little paper so carefully and neat
its ripple then (now a tidal wave) of men dead now strikes a new pain.
My mind, I can’t say is tormented by that one vote, such a small feat
to vote, but steeps in ambivalence, confusion maybe,
doubt that there wasn’t a better way for us to follow
than this path we’ve blazed—this path of tears and sorrow
and learned our history, the one few choose to see.
now in greater degree, that pane has grown opaque
like a window after too much winter it hides our fate.

2.

Can’t we clear it still and polish away the filth to see?
that’s what my heart, swallowing pride, wishes and whispers
on that chance to come, one in millions, the chance never free
the chance that cost blood (blood well spent?) that says freedom sores!
and freedom isn’t dead, nor lost in one man: God burned This to speak
to Moses—remember?—to free a nation and cross the red sea
on dry ground. This all—now in our little window of time—for me
for you to use, to know, that in life no prize or glory finds the meek.
should you find yourself tormented by that one vote,
remember the greatest loss is that of Hope.

I had some qualms with certain parts of the Hudson Review article on Bach; while I believe other parts deserve being repeated. All in all, I enjoyed the read, despite the author’s tendency to ramble and shoot off topic. Maybe the thematic development just lacked forethought. In any case, here goes.

First, I loved this:

Bach is sometimes referred to as the father of Western music … Who else could be the father of Western music? Bach is in the very chemistry of Western musical blood, like red cells, white cells, and platelets in our material plasma.

This reminded me of the analogy the great pedagogue von Bülow concocted. He said that Bach’s WTC is the OT of music, and the 32 Beethoven sonatas are the NT. I like to extend the metaphor and ascribe the Mozart piano works to some apocryphal book in the Bible.

Now, an excerpt from the second paragraph:

For Beethoven, again, many autograph materials providing insights into his “spiritual development” (to use the subtitle of an early biography) and his medical problems, his patrons, his financial independence, his nephew, his deafness, his “immortal beloved.” But what is the feel we get from Bach? In fact, who is this seemingly generic father and why has he failed to solidify as part of our cultural ethos? When we hear “Mozart” or “Beethoven,” we think of a person behind the music. When we hear “Bach,” we think of music only.

Speak for yourself! If you imbibe the music of Bach, and utilize what biographical information is available, you will produce a very real and human mental image of the great maestro.

Then, commenting on changes in musical interpretive style and Bach’s music, the author had this to say:

To make matters worse, today’s pianists, having turned the Mozart concertos into Romantic vehicles, are apt to render them in a melting, exquisite, and precious Chopinesque manner irrelevant to the still fairly linear style even of Classical period music.

You can’t say this enough! If I had a penny for every time I heard a “reputable” pianist contort an idyllic Mozart sonata into some grotesque pseudo-Romantic monster, I’d be a wealthy man.

But then the author missed the mark with this, referring to the twentieth century harpsichordist Wanda Landowska (if you don’t know about her, listen to her recording of the Goldberg variations):

Today, Landowska’s revolution has been largely won, and most performances of Bach’s clavier works are on modern harpsichords.

This is ridiculous. While, the “Landowska revolution” did much to inspire new interest in the Harpsichord—hitherto largely extinct—piano-forte recordings and performances are still by far in the majority. And rightly so. Bach’s music transcends the instrument. The piano provides the most faculty for interpretation at this time. Who knows, it might be different in 100 years. Compare Gould to Perriah for an example of the musical and dynamical extremes allowed by the modern PF.

I have to go. Thanks.

The Bulow-Lebert edition of the Beethoven Sonatas of 1894 is richly annotated. While most of the editors notes are applicable only to the particular sonata, or musical phrase in question, to my great delight not a few of the comments readily lend themselves to general anecdotal adaptation. Consider these remarks pearls of wisdom gathered from a literary sea rendered largely obsolete by time. Compiled here is a list from Book II—adapted for the general use and enjoyment of the pianist.

Playing descending and ascending third motives in the left and right hands respectively:

“Even a player with the most deeply rooted antipathy to programs [‘musical gesticulation’] cannot help seeing, that in the falling pairs of thirds for the left hand the gesture of beckoning with a handkerchief—the tone picture of a sign—is illustrated, a sign apprising the coming one of the waiting one’s presence.”

Playing with haste:

“We caution the player equally against external haste and internal barrenness.”

Playing triplets with exactitude:

“A pedantically exact proportionment of the triplets as the composer directs is inculcated for those who meditate no mutilation. Its necessity will be evident to any well-trained ear…”

Rhythmic freedom:

“Only by dint of continually renewed study can the conscientious player learn the just limit.”

“Grace is not compatible with haste.”

“[Frequently] all fluctuations of the tempo demanded by the psychic expression are incorporated in [a musical expression] itself, its rhythmical notation being perfectly lucid. All that is needful is to play “in time.”

“Non presto” at the same time implies “non lento.”

Emotional effusion in music:

“Joy attains to consistency.”

“[Sometimes] neither “word” nor “gesture” is illustrated, but only the “gaze.”

”...the psychic subjectivity of the player is, after all, the factor which lends the peculiar charm for the hearer to the performance of even a classical work—” Think: Cage 4’33”

“The ethereal delicacy which the performance of [certain passages], can be taught only by living example.”

“The requisite of wellnigh exuberant grace … cannot be taught theoretically.”

“Reverent self-abandonment is required in order to do justice [to a passage] of sorrowful sublimity. Here “piano – playing” ceases; whoever is unable to lend soulful ‘speech’ to his instrument, should content himself with ‘reading.’”

“As the language of tones possesses a syntax quite analogous to that of words—though unhappily not yet formulated in any text-book—[certain musical analogies] may conformably be defined as an “anacoluthon” (literally, a lack of grammatical sequence…) Or may be termed an “aposiopesis.”

Repetition of the Musical Phrase

“The striving after different effects of shading each time the principal theme returns [is] a demand which is justifiable only in the case of ingenious plays on tone.”

Arpeggios:

“Even in the performance of classical works an arpeggio of isolated and consequently empty-sounding intervals (e.g.: the fourth and fifth) is necessary in exceptional cases.”

Running Passages:

The exaggeration [of shading in a running passage] ... so readily inclines to sentimentality or unrest.

Polyphonic Repetition:

”...quid pro quo’s in phrasing are capable, as experience teaches, of spoiling the effect of an entire piece; and it is incredible how little conscientious care pianists…bestow on such refinements of a correct execution. Members of the string – and wind – bands, not being required to think and feel polyphonically, are seldomer guilty of such lapses.”

General Articulation:

“The words ‘sopra’ and ‘sotto’ are meant to indicate, that in crossing hands the player should pass his right hand “over” or “under” the left.”

“On very sonorous pianos, the tempo may be taken slower.”

“The staccato in the accompaniment must not be exaggerated, nor should the hand playing it be lifted too high.”

A potentially debilitating voice maintained by a small percentage of the electorate decries the “anti-immigration” movement as nothing less than racial intolerance, the result of an irrational and illogical fear—in short, an unfounded Xenophobia perpetuated by the Right. On January 13, 2008 the Green Party held its first debate of the 2008 election cycle. Kent Mesplay, a candidate vying for the Green Party nomination, and arguably the most articulate of the potentials responded to a press-question on immigration with the following.

International trade agreements that are not fair like NAFTA and CAFTA have driven people away from their homelands, they’ve taken away farms from farmers and have basically forced people into trying to find a better way of life. But I want to touch on something else. The real reason immigration is discussed these days doesn’t have to do so much with immigration. It has to do with fear—the fear that is being promulgated by the right, the distrust of strangers. This is symptomatic of a society that is sliding toward totalitarianism. [applause] ... 9 million dollars per mile for a triple fence is a lot of money. The money would be better spent in Grameen-type micro loans to help out everyone.

The same Left-wing makes the claim that similar fears existed during the mass immigration of Italians, Germans and Asians in 19th and early 20th century; and it is rightly pointed out, that despite the reservations of the time, these immigrants have integrated fully into American society, and have provided a rich resource of creativity, labor, and intellectuality from which America has frequently been blessed. In fact, the argument continues, it is impossible to point out a time in American history where immigrants have not ultimately integrated into American society. Why should the mass immigration of South Americans today be any different?

The answer is simple and lies in the current socio-economic state of the Nation. During the early 19th and 20th centuries and earlier, America was strongly capitalistic, government involvement in private affairs was limited and social programs were practically non-existent. The trend of the second half of the 20th century (FDR on) has been one of socialism and big-brother government. It is a matter of simple economic math that socialism and unbounded immigration is a silver bullet for any government. I want to emphasize that no right-minded Right-wing proponent is calling for an end to all immigration. A need for controlled immigration, or at the very least, documented immigration, however, is being promulgated. The issue must be carefully delineated as immigration control—a matter of citizen rights and value—illegal immigration, and unrestrained immigration.

I had the exhilarating opportunity of visiting Florida over the New Year. As I live in Utah, this meant that I also had the exhilarating opportunity of flying on a Boeing aircraft, which also meant that I had the exhilarating opportunity of going through the mandatory security check at the Salt Lake City airport. The scene was a monument to the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy. Read the rest of this entry