I had this brilliant plan. It is now foiled, thanks to ebullient fascists. (See the first paragraph of my previous post if you don't get the reference.)
For the past few elections, I have voted for Democrats, even though I didn't so much actively choose them as much as choosing not to vote for Bush.
Instead of choosing to register as a Democrat, though, I am registered as unaffiliated, so that I can pick which primary to vote in. I was all ready to vote in the Republican primary and either vote for McCain or vote for whoever has the least chance of winning in the California primary. However, much to my annoyance, I learned that whereas the Democratic primaries are open, meaning anyone who is undeclared like I am is welcome to vote in their primaries, the Republican primaries are closed. Only those registered as Republican can vote in their primaries. How undemocratic and counterproductive--and fascist and ebullient.
I admit I'm biased and the well-being of the Republican party is not at the top of my list of concerns, but don't the Republicans realize that by closing off the primaries like that, they are putting their candidates at a disadvantage? In particular, it hurts McCain, who is likely to attract votes of Independents.
Conversely, this setup helps Obama, who among the Democratic candidates is most likely to garner the support of Independents.
I hope all of them flock to the Democratic primaries and vote for Obama. I don't want him out of the race yet, and a California victory would be huge.
26 January 2008
Anguished Shostakovich
Shostakovich has a subversive sense of humor that I can relate to. I find myself being very subversive at my workplace. "Ebullient" is code for "Republican" or "right wing". VIP dignitaries are given various epithets, like Senegalese lepidopterists. Thus, if I say "this damn Senegalese lepidopterist is being quite ebullient", many people think I'm talking nonsense.
Last night, I went to go hear the Stanford Symphony Orchestra play an all-Shostakovich program. Despite all of the discussions flying back and forth about whether Shostakovich's music is shallow, boring, etc. and all of the Shostakovich-bashing that is taking place on one of my discussion boards, I found his works quite moving and definitely full of emotion/angst.
The program consisted of Prelude for Strings, and an arrangement of the String Quartet #8, (the program called it Chamber Symphony), and the Cello Concerto #1. The first one, I didn't have much of an impression of.
The second one was quite moving. I was a bit distracted by what seemed like a lack of practice; in some passages, there were not-quite unisons, uncoordinated bows, and perfunctory playing, despite the angst that this piece attempts to convey. It is a song dedicated to "victims of fascism and war", but as the program notes indicate, I found the piece much more introspective and sinister. Shostakovich's conflicted feelings really came out in the music.
However, the real highlight of the evening was the Cello Concerto. What a stunning performance. The cellist from the St. Lawrence String Quartet played the solo parts. I thought that between the excellent program notes, the pre-concert lecture that gave us lots of background on this piece, and the interpretations of this piece by the conductor, the soloist and the orchestra, all of that combined made for an excellent concert-going experience. I have to admit, I've only heard limited amounts of Shostakovich (mostly piano) live, as well as hearing recordings of his symphonies, but I was never really into his music much. It certainly never had me hanging off the edge of my seat as this cello concerto performance did. I guess there is nothing quite like experiencing it live.
The contrast between the beautiful lyrical sections and the jarring ones full of angst were striking.
The cellist played with such passion. Ah, such passion and skill! I could see the angst in his face. In several sections, the cellist played with his fingers practically at the edge of the fingerboard. The best way I can describe the sound of such high registers is that it sounded like a more ominous, deeper version of a violin. It's the kind of sound that (literally) seeps into the marrow of your bones and makes you shudder.
The program notes mentioned that for both the Chamber Symphony and the Cello Concerto, Shostakovich inserted excerpts from pieces that Stalin either hated (the Symphony) or loved (Cello Concerto). He also salutes Prokofiev in the cello concerto, and uses a variation of his signature (DSCH turns into D-E flat-C-B natural) as a recurring motif in his pieces.
As I listened, I imagined what it was like to have to write music under a repressive regime and necessitate this sort of subversive political referencing in music. I mean, how would these pieces have sounded different if he weren't making some sort of anti-Stalin statement? Would the pieces have sounded less anguished?
The concert made me appreciate Shostakovich's wry sense of humor.
Last night, I went to go hear the Stanford Symphony Orchestra play an all-Shostakovich program. Despite all of the discussions flying back and forth about whether Shostakovich's music is shallow, boring, etc. and all of the Shostakovich-bashing that is taking place on one of my discussion boards, I found his works quite moving and definitely full of emotion/angst.
The program consisted of Prelude for Strings, and an arrangement of the String Quartet #8, (the program called it Chamber Symphony), and the Cello Concerto #1. The first one, I didn't have much of an impression of.
The second one was quite moving. I was a bit distracted by what seemed like a lack of practice; in some passages, there were not-quite unisons, uncoordinated bows, and perfunctory playing, despite the angst that this piece attempts to convey. It is a song dedicated to "victims of fascism and war", but as the program notes indicate, I found the piece much more introspective and sinister. Shostakovich's conflicted feelings really came out in the music.
However, the real highlight of the evening was the Cello Concerto. What a stunning performance. The cellist from the St. Lawrence String Quartet played the solo parts. I thought that between the excellent program notes, the pre-concert lecture that gave us lots of background on this piece, and the interpretations of this piece by the conductor, the soloist and the orchestra, all of that combined made for an excellent concert-going experience. I have to admit, I've only heard limited amounts of Shostakovich (mostly piano) live, as well as hearing recordings of his symphonies, but I was never really into his music much. It certainly never had me hanging off the edge of my seat as this cello concerto performance did. I guess there is nothing quite like experiencing it live.
The contrast between the beautiful lyrical sections and the jarring ones full of angst were striking.
The cellist played with such passion. Ah, such passion and skill! I could see the angst in his face. In several sections, the cellist played with his fingers practically at the edge of the fingerboard. The best way I can describe the sound of such high registers is that it sounded like a more ominous, deeper version of a violin. It's the kind of sound that (literally) seeps into the marrow of your bones and makes you shudder.
The program notes mentioned that for both the Chamber Symphony and the Cello Concerto, Shostakovich inserted excerpts from pieces that Stalin either hated (the Symphony) or loved (Cello Concerto). He also salutes Prokofiev in the cello concerto, and uses a variation of his signature (DSCH turns into D-E flat-C-B natural) as a recurring motif in his pieces.
As I listened, I imagined what it was like to have to write music under a repressive regime and necessitate this sort of subversive political referencing in music. I mean, how would these pieces have sounded different if he weren't making some sort of anti-Stalin statement? Would the pieces have sounded less anguished?
The concert made me appreciate Shostakovich's wry sense of humor.
21 January 2008
Hoity toity tastes in music but can't write basic English?
Dear Regular Poster in Pretentious Classical Music Elitists,
First, let me issue a disclaimer and say that perhaps I shouldn't be one to cast stones. . . but if you have very sophisticated tastes in music, far beyond my plebeian levels of appreciation, and make very good recommendations about recordings, etc., it would be far more impressive if you could convey this using proper grammar.
It is quite disappointing to listen to (er, read) you carry on intelligently about such-and-such a piece or about 12-tone-serialism, and notice that you just explained a difficult concept using run-on sentences and the wrong form of "its" and you're not British. (The Brits also have the same usage rules for its and it's as we do, but I believe run-on sentences are legit in their culture? If not, the Harry Potter books need some serious editing.)
I am usually opposed to cutting out music/art education to beef up on basic skills education, but when you extol the virtues of Louis Andriessen and Brian Ferneyhough, but cannot properly distinguish between than and then, or are averse to using a period between two independent clauses, I start to second guess my opinions about the tantamount importance of music education. Maybe we do need to confiscate that oboe until you can spell basic words. . ..
Cut you some slack, b/c you are a musician, engineer who plays music on the side, etc. and writing is not your forté? Well, I would, except that my musician friends (amateur, professional, etc.) can all write quite well--in fact, many of them better than people who write for a living. So I now have this unfortunate expectation and equate high music literacy with high literacy.
Besides, if you are going to talk about pretentious elitist subjects, you need to be pretentious and elitist about your writing, too, or else people (yours truly included) may not take you as seriously.
First, let me issue a disclaimer and say that perhaps I shouldn't be one to cast stones. . . but if you have very sophisticated tastes in music, far beyond my plebeian levels of appreciation, and make very good recommendations about recordings, etc., it would be far more impressive if you could convey this using proper grammar.
It is quite disappointing to listen to (er, read) you carry on intelligently about such-and-such a piece or about 12-tone-serialism, and notice that you just explained a difficult concept using run-on sentences and the wrong form of "its" and you're not British. (The Brits also have the same usage rules for its and it's as we do, but I believe run-on sentences are legit in their culture? If not, the Harry Potter books need some serious editing.)
I am usually opposed to cutting out music/art education to beef up on basic skills education, but when you extol the virtues of Louis Andriessen and Brian Ferneyhough, but cannot properly distinguish between than and then, or are averse to using a period between two independent clauses, I start to second guess my opinions about the tantamount importance of music education. Maybe we do need to confiscate that oboe until you can spell basic words. . ..
Cut you some slack, b/c you are a musician, engineer who plays music on the side, etc. and writing is not your forté? Well, I would, except that my musician friends (amateur, professional, etc.) can all write quite well--in fact, many of them better than people who write for a living. So I now have this unfortunate expectation and equate high music literacy with high literacy.
Besides, if you are going to talk about pretentious elitist subjects, you need to be pretentious and elitist about your writing, too, or else people (yours truly included) may not take you as seriously.
19 January 2008
Body Worlds
Those of you in the Bay Area: cancel all of your upcoming plans and run, don't walk, to the exhibit of Body Worlds showing at the Tech Museum in San Jose till January 26. Seriously.
And those of you not in the Bay Area, if this exhibit ever comes to your area, GO SEE IT.
It is utterly fascinating. For two-plus hours, I walked around in rapt attention to every detail of this exhibit and marveled over just about everything. Your brain will make 100 new neuron connections from having gone to the exhibit.
These were actual human bodies on exhibit, preserved via plastination. They removed the skin layer, so viewers could see the various inner workings of the human body. There were organs, muscles, nerves, brains, tendons, and all sorts of wonderful things on display. (And I noticed only one glaring grammatical error in one of their displays, whereas the Chagall exhibit at the MoMA a few years back had more than a handful.)
Here are some displays that were especially memorable from the exhibit:
-The contrast between a normal healthy lung and that of a smoker or coal miner- the normal lung was white, whereas the lungs of the smoker and coal miner were black. This should be enough to convince anyone to quit smoking.
-The shrunken brain of someone with Alzheimer's-The brain was about 3/4 the size of a regular brain and looked like a raisin. Unlike the black lung, which is preventable by quitting smoking, there are no proven preventative measures for Alzheimer's.
-The brain of someone who had just suffered a stroke-In this particular cross section of the brain, the area where the blood entered the brain when one of the vessels burst was a black blob.
-The liver of someone who has cirrhosis-It looks like acid has corroded parts of the liver away.
-The dancer figure balanced on one foot-a lot of these statues were in very complex positions, which made me wonder about the process of how they got these bodies plastinated, and moreover, how they got these rigid bodies to balance so perfectly. I mean, they had to move the bodies into their pose (stretching, balancing on one toe, figure skating, back arched, etc.) before they got rigid. Did they get these bodies into their poses and then do the cutting and chiseling away at extraneous parts?
-the "blown apart" man- in this display, every single part of the human body--nerves, blood vessels, organs, bones, tissue--except the skin is separated out so you can see what the human body comprises. It is utterly fascinating. I wish that they had clearer labels so I could identify the mysterious red floating thing that was located roughly in the middle and front part of the body.
-a figure with all blood vessels completely intact
And factoids:
-The brain weighs about 3 pounds.
-The average spleen weighs about 4 ounces, but in a person with leukemia, it is often 2 or 3 times larger from being overworked. (The spleen regulates the amount of blood cells.) In extreme cases, it can weight up to 20 pounds. Can you imagine a spleen that is one-sixth your body weight???
-Children have an extra organ that adults don't have. The organ starts dissolving into surrounding tissue matter around the time of puberty.
-The brain starts to shrink ever-so-gradually around 28 or so.
-When you learn something new, the brain makes a new neuron connection. This information is then stored in the hippocampus.
-The left lung is slightly smaller than the right lung (to make room for the heart).
-This was not mentioned in the exhibit (why not????), but some internet surfing revealed that it can take up to 1500 hours to plastinate one body. Wow. . ..
I'm still processing all of the components of this exhibit almost 12 hours later.
If you go, I strongly recommend bringing along a doctor or a medical student.
And those of you not in the Bay Area, if this exhibit ever comes to your area, GO SEE IT.
It is utterly fascinating. For two-plus hours, I walked around in rapt attention to every detail of this exhibit and marveled over just about everything. Your brain will make 100 new neuron connections from having gone to the exhibit.
These were actual human bodies on exhibit, preserved via plastination. They removed the skin layer, so viewers could see the various inner workings of the human body. There were organs, muscles, nerves, brains, tendons, and all sorts of wonderful things on display. (And I noticed only one glaring grammatical error in one of their displays, whereas the Chagall exhibit at the MoMA a few years back had more than a handful.)
Here are some displays that were especially memorable from the exhibit:
-The contrast between a normal healthy lung and that of a smoker or coal miner- the normal lung was white, whereas the lungs of the smoker and coal miner were black. This should be enough to convince anyone to quit smoking.
-The shrunken brain of someone with Alzheimer's-The brain was about 3/4 the size of a regular brain and looked like a raisin. Unlike the black lung, which is preventable by quitting smoking, there are no proven preventative measures for Alzheimer's.
-The brain of someone who had just suffered a stroke-In this particular cross section of the brain, the area where the blood entered the brain when one of the vessels burst was a black blob.
-The liver of someone who has cirrhosis-It looks like acid has corroded parts of the liver away.
-The dancer figure balanced on one foot-a lot of these statues were in very complex positions, which made me wonder about the process of how they got these bodies plastinated, and moreover, how they got these rigid bodies to balance so perfectly. I mean, they had to move the bodies into their pose (stretching, balancing on one toe, figure skating, back arched, etc.) before they got rigid. Did they get these bodies into their poses and then do the cutting and chiseling away at extraneous parts?
-the "blown apart" man- in this display, every single part of the human body--nerves, blood vessels, organs, bones, tissue--except the skin is separated out so you can see what the human body comprises. It is utterly fascinating. I wish that they had clearer labels so I could identify the mysterious red floating thing that was located roughly in the middle and front part of the body.
-a figure with all blood vessels completely intact
And factoids:
-The brain weighs about 3 pounds.
-The average spleen weighs about 4 ounces, but in a person with leukemia, it is often 2 or 3 times larger from being overworked. (The spleen regulates the amount of blood cells.) In extreme cases, it can weight up to 20 pounds. Can you imagine a spleen that is one-sixth your body weight???
-Children have an extra organ that adults don't have. The organ starts dissolving into surrounding tissue matter around the time of puberty.
-The brain starts to shrink ever-so-gradually around 28 or so.
-When you learn something new, the brain makes a new neuron connection. This information is then stored in the hippocampus.
-The left lung is slightly smaller than the right lung (to make room for the heart).
-This was not mentioned in the exhibit (why not????), but some internet surfing revealed that it can take up to 1500 hours to plastinate one body. Wow. . ..
I'm still processing all of the components of this exhibit almost 12 hours later.
If you go, I strongly recommend bringing along a doctor or a medical student.
Pretentious vs. Ordinary
A few posts back, I posted about wanting a Chowhound version of classical music. Well, it's not quite Chowhound, but after looking through the myriad of classical music groups on Facebook (yes, I'm probably too old to be on Facebook. But then, I'm probably too old to be blogging too? Except that now everyone of all ages seems to be blogging. Even at the old, stodgy place where I work, where the average age is probably more than twice my age, people are blogging away like a bunch of gen-y-ers.) , I think I found a discussion group that I like.
Many of the discussion threads for this group seem to be over my head (as in, I don't recognize half of the people they are talking about), but the discussions seem to be lively, mostly interesting, and quite ane (yes, I know that's not a word, but it should be.) compared to some of the discussions on other more popular classical music groups. Even if I have no opinion on the "Kurtag vs. Ligeti" debate, I have already gotten a lot of good recommendations to add to my CD collection from trolling around on their discussion boards.
The only problem is that the group is called "Pretentious Classical Music Elitists", which brings up a question/issue.
I agree with the basic premise of the group, which eschews the notion of classical music as "soothing, relaxing" (mind-numbing, valium. . .), etc. and is against anything that dumbs down classical music. We are also on the same page with regard to radio stations that dumb down classical music to the masses.
However, their response to these problems is kind of lame.
I mean, does one have to be "pretentious" or "elitist" to properly appreciate classical music? What about those of us who don't know enough about classical music to be pretentious or elitist, but still demand a decent radio station that doesn't butcher great orchestral symphonies or dumb down this genre in general?
This is such a Manichean, either/or world-view of classical music. Either you like Pachelbel's Canon and listen to classical music to relax, or you are elitist and pretentious?
Maybe it's because of such attitudes that people are scared off from the likes of Elliott Carter or a Bruchner symphony (this is a reference to a specific blog entry, which I won't bother linking to, b/c it has restricted access, but I didn't want people to think I just pull my references out of thin air. . .:-P)
Such dichotomies don't quite help make classical music (and I mean stuff beyond just one movement of the ubiquitous Four Seasons, Pachelbel's Canon, etc.) more accessible to a wider audience.
It doesn't fill seats of concert halls or bring much-needed $ to performing arts groups that are attempting to do their part in introducing audiences to a wider and more interesting repertoire of classical music.
We have enough Manicheanism in the current administration; please don't bring such reductionistic thinking into the world of classical music, too.
Many of the discussion threads for this group seem to be over my head (as in, I don't recognize half of the people they are talking about), but the discussions seem to be lively, mostly interesting, and quite ane (yes, I know that's not a word, but it should be.) compared to some of the discussions on other more popular classical music groups. Even if I have no opinion on the "Kurtag vs. Ligeti" debate, I have already gotten a lot of good recommendations to add to my CD collection from trolling around on their discussion boards.
The only problem is that the group is called "Pretentious Classical Music Elitists", which brings up a question/issue.
I agree with the basic premise of the group, which eschews the notion of classical music as "soothing, relaxing" (mind-numbing, valium. . .), etc. and is against anything that dumbs down classical music. We are also on the same page with regard to radio stations that dumb down classical music to the masses.
However, their response to these problems is kind of lame.
I mean, does one have to be "pretentious" or "elitist" to properly appreciate classical music? What about those of us who don't know enough about classical music to be pretentious or elitist, but still demand a decent radio station that doesn't butcher great orchestral symphonies or dumb down this genre in general?
This is such a Manichean, either/or world-view of classical music. Either you like Pachelbel's Canon and listen to classical music to relax, or you are elitist and pretentious?
Maybe it's because of such attitudes that people are scared off from the likes of Elliott Carter or a Bruchner symphony (this is a reference to a specific blog entry, which I won't bother linking to, b/c it has restricted access, but I didn't want people to think I just pull my references out of thin air. . .:-P)
Such dichotomies don't quite help make classical music (and I mean stuff beyond just one movement of the ubiquitous Four Seasons, Pachelbel's Canon, etc.) more accessible to a wider audience.
It doesn't fill seats of concert halls or bring much-needed $ to performing arts groups that are attempting to do their part in introducing audiences to a wider and more interesting repertoire of classical music.
We have enough Manicheanism in the current administration; please don't bring such reductionistic thinking into the world of classical music, too.
18 January 2008
Rainbow explosion
What happens when you dump 500,000 different colored balls down the steps of the Piazza de Spagna? This is worth 2 minutes of your time.
Happy Friday.
Happy Friday.
People who should or shouldn't be editors
Without giving my ultra-secret real name away. . . my complaint for the day is that people who cannot discern the difference between my name (which means almond child) and the ancient capital of Japan really should not have the job title "editor". (On the other hand, people whose job title is also "editor" might put punctuation outside the quotation marks not b/c they are ignorant, but b/c they feel that the American rule of putting commas and periods inside quotation marks makes no logical grammatical sense whatsoever.)
15 January 2008
Conversation with one of "those types" of people
This would have sounded obnoxious if anyone else had said it, but since he is the most unpretentious person in the world, we were just in stitches.
In rehearsal one day, M was extolling the virtues of Mahler/Brahms, and he said somewhat sheepishly, as if he were a member of Brahmsaholics anonymous, something to the effect of, "I've become one of those people who can't relate to people who can't appreciate Mahler/Brahms."
"It really separates me from some people, you know? B/c I can't talk about (name of some piece that I can't remember, which proves that I'm one of those people he "separates" himself from!) with them."
Well, I recently asked mr. separate-myself-from-others for Mahler recommendations.
me: Do you have a favorite recording of Mahler 3? Also, which of his symphonies do you recommend as a starter? I have his 9th and now his 3rd, and I have not been able to listen to them to completion. I mean, I've listened to both a few times, but they doesn't sink into my brain. It probably doesn't help that I am usually kneading bread or trying to listen to them while multitasking (Mahler SO doesn't work as background music), but I'm finding them both sort of difficult to comprehend. Thus I'm one of those types that you mentioned you separate yourself from, b/c I have no appreciation of Mahler.
So please recommend away.
he-who-separates-himself-from-those-who-don't "comprehend"-Mahler: I would not separate myself from you.....:) (Well, gee, thanks, I think. . ..)
Go for Bernstein. In general (and this is my personal preference)go for older recordings if it is orchestra only. If it is a symphony that involves chorus go for a more modern one (choir probably better) (Gosh, from a virgo, I demand more specificity. Please define "older" versus "more modern".)
I'm not Mahlerite, (yes, he who "separates" himself from others b/c they don't understand Mahler is not a Mahlerite. Whatever. :)) but perhaps listening to Symphony 1 and 2 in that order is the way to begin.
Or if not, listen to some songs first. Ich bin der Welt abhanden is a GREAT song, if you find a Christa Ludwig or Anne Sofie von Otter recording, you'll be in heaven......and no longer separated from me.....:)
In rehearsal one day, M was extolling the virtues of Mahler/Brahms, and he said somewhat sheepishly, as if he were a member of Brahmsaholics anonymous, something to the effect of, "I've become one of those people who can't relate to people who can't appreciate Mahler/Brahms."
"It really separates me from some people, you know? B/c I can't talk about (name of some piece that I can't remember, which proves that I'm one of those people he "separates" himself from!) with them."
Well, I recently asked mr. separate-myself-from-others for Mahler recommendations.
me: Do you have a favorite recording of Mahler 3? Also, which of his symphonies do you recommend as a starter? I have his 9th and now his 3rd, and I have not been able to listen to them to completion. I mean, I've listened to both a few times, but they doesn't sink into my brain. It probably doesn't help that I am usually kneading bread or trying to listen to them while multitasking (Mahler SO doesn't work as background music), but I'm finding them both sort of difficult to comprehend. Thus I'm one of those types that you mentioned you separate yourself from, b/c I have no appreciation of Mahler.
So please recommend away.
he-who-separates-himself-from-those-who-don't "comprehend"-Mahler: I would not separate myself from you.....:) (Well, gee, thanks, I think. . ..)
Go for Bernstein. In general (and this is my personal preference)go for older recordings if it is orchestra only. If it is a symphony that involves chorus go for a more modern one (choir probably better) (Gosh, from a virgo, I demand more specificity. Please define "older" versus "more modern".)
I'm not Mahlerite, (yes, he who "separates" himself from others b/c they don't understand Mahler is not a Mahlerite. Whatever. :)) but perhaps listening to Symphony 1 and 2 in that order is the way to begin.
Or if not, listen to some songs first. Ich bin der Welt abhanden is a GREAT song, if you find a Christa Ludwig or Anne Sofie von Otter recording, you'll be in heaven......and no longer separated from me.....:)
11 January 2008
Music 2.0 Lite
In this area--a mecca of all forms of culture, it's bad enough that we don't have a high-caliber newspaper that rivals the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. But in an area where people are pretty knowledgeable about classical music and the level of music appreciation is high (though not high enough to appreciate the edgy-modern kind of music that our choir performs), we have one classical music station. It therefore has a monopoly on classical music broadcasting, which is a shame, because I wonder if some competition might enliven the repertoire choices a bit.
I have a love-hate relationship with my local classical music station, which prides itself on being "Casual, Comfortable, and Classical." UGH. Normally, my sentiments cancel out so that the end result is closer to indifference. In fact, I don't even classify myself as being knowledgeable enough about classical music to complain about the vapid tuneful do-re-mi dumbed-down version of classical music that this radio station offers to this area, but having to listen to just the last movement of the Dvorak 8th Symphony was my last straw.
I lost it, and hence this posting to get this out of my system.
• First of all, I don't listen to this station that often, because I usually only listen to it when I'm in my car, which is not that often. Maybe 30-60 minutes a week (depending on whether I bike into work, have other places to go to) tops? So at this infrequency of listening, I should not, in a 3 month period, hear Hilary Hahn and whoever else playing the Bach Double three times. Now I love the Bach Double. I have at least 5 or 6 different recordings of it. But a) classical music is not all about Hilary Hahn playing Bach. I'm sure she plays it beautifully, but there are dozens of other people who have played the Bach Double, and some better. In the very least, all different. And more importantly, b)there are tens upon thousands of other songs that constitute classical music. If I'm listening 30 minutes a week, and in a 3 month span, I've heard Hilary Hahn's rendition of the Bach Double 2 or 3 times, you are not playing enough interesting music. And gosh darnit, if you are going to broadcast the Bach Double multiple times, how about Nigel Kennedy or Yehudi Menhuin?
• Rant number two: call me curmudgeonly or contrarian, but this whole "comfortable, casual" "island of sanity" business really does the audience a disservice. It is dumbed down classical music, version 2.0 lite. This is precisely the sort of insipid, mind-numbing version of classical music that gives classical music its bad reputation. A lot of my twenty- and thirty- (and even forty-) something friends don't like classical music. They think it's dull and unhip. It's for winding down at the end of the day, but not for challenging you.
Now again, let me reiterate that I'm no classical music cognescenti. Far from it. I'm still trying to learn to appreciate Mahler and I'm just getting into opera and there are hundreds of symphonies that I haven't heard in their entirety. But it is precisely people of my ilk (not much better than total ignoramus, but interested in learning more and unsatisfied with the offerings of our current radio station) who need to be challenged to listen to things beyond Vivaldi's 4 Seasons or Mozart's Requiem, or other things on the classical music top- 100 list that I have already either sung or played or know of.
Not that there's anything wrong with Mozart's Requiem or Vivaldi's 4 Seasons. There is a reason they are "classics". There's certainly a time and place for appreciating that.
But as Aaron Copland put it so eloquently, why is it that we expect all other art forms to challenge us, and yet, when it comes to classical music, people think we just want to hear the comfortable stuff?
• Rant number three: I love instruments and all, but their programming for the most intimate instrument of all is virtually nil or I keep missing it, because based on my infrequent listening, I'd say that their ratio of instrumental to choral pieces programmed is 20:1, to pick an arbitrary number out of a hat. (Well not really. I really rarely hear choral works or opera presented, though in their defense, I did hear that they will start or have started broadcasting opera.) They used to do some choral music on Sunday mornings and I used to listen to that, but at some point, they got rid of that or moved the time.
But again, even with the choral music, there's more to choral music than Wachet Auf. How about some Veljo Tormis? Alberto Grau? Or something that was written after we were born?
• My final point, and the whole impetus for this long, hopefully not-too-vituperative rant-- Please. Do. Not. Truncate. Great symphonies. It's bad enough that much is lost when you hear it on the radio vs. hearing it live, but when you just present one movement from a larger work, you rob it of all of its context and nuance.
This morning, on my way to work, KDFC played just the last movement of the Dvorak 8th, which granted, is showy and grandiose, and perhaps a crowd-pleaser, but imo, not the most interesting part of the piece. It's unfortunate that I've (sort of) played this piece before, because otherwise, I probably wouldn't have cared so much about KDFC just presenting the last movement.
But this is probably one of these symphonies that to fully appreciate the last movement, you need to listen to the earlier movements. Motifs repeat and come back. He ties three entirely different-sounding movements and brings closure in the last movement. How can you fully appreciate the loud buildup and release of tension in the last movement, when you haven't heard movements 1,2, and 3?
The first movement starts with a cello line that seems to indicate a sense of urgency, but then the tension is cut by a flute section that sounds somewhat naive and meandering. Actually, the first part of the first movement sounds like an exciting trek in the woods to me--with each switchback offering some kind of surprise adventure or excitement. It's got that kind of playful feel. The string part towards the end of this movement is exhilarating. (So exhilarating that I ultimately had to drop out of performing this piece. The first violin part has notes that are 7 and 8 lines above the staff!) Then you've got a(n initially) more pensive-sounding second movement with clarinet the brass in the second movement, whose tone gets more ominous? (urgent? sinister?) sounding towards the last third, before returning to an earlier motif, and ultimately, coming back to its original opening theme, albeit in a different key. However, by now, the theme seems to have taken on an entirely new meaning. After the descending scales, the opening motif sounds more majestic/triumphant to me. Which takes us to the third movement, which sounds entirely different. It sounds waltz-like with its 3/8 tempo and prominently features the strings.
But I'm digressing from my original rant and I don't really know sufficient background about this piece to be writing "program notes" for it. These are just my personal impressions. . ..
To return to my original rant of how this symphony should not be truncated thus-- the point I was trying to make here with my digression was that the final movement of the Dvorak 8th should not be played on its own. Period. I am less irritated when they do this with other pieces, but the more a radio station does this, the more it dumbs down and cheapens the value of classical music. I mean, how do you expect me to learn to appreciate an edgy, modern symphony, if I'm used to hearing only truncated versions of top 100 hits?
Would you read just the last few chapters of a book, no matter how exhilarating the content may be? Part of the exhilaration is the culmination and the journey through the earlier chapters or movements, in the case of music.
Granted, it takes time and concentration, and roughly 38 minutes of your time to appreciate the entire symphony. But wouldn't most people rather hear the full thing rather than the dumbed down "abridged" version?
I have a love-hate relationship with my local classical music station, which prides itself on being "Casual, Comfortable, and Classical." UGH. Normally, my sentiments cancel out so that the end result is closer to indifference. In fact, I don't even classify myself as being knowledgeable enough about classical music to complain about the vapid tuneful do-re-mi dumbed-down version of classical music that this radio station offers to this area, but having to listen to just the last movement of the Dvorak 8th Symphony was my last straw.
I lost it, and hence this posting to get this out of my system.
• First of all, I don't listen to this station that often, because I usually only listen to it when I'm in my car, which is not that often. Maybe 30-60 minutes a week (depending on whether I bike into work, have other places to go to) tops? So at this infrequency of listening, I should not, in a 3 month period, hear Hilary Hahn and whoever else playing the Bach Double three times. Now I love the Bach Double. I have at least 5 or 6 different recordings of it. But a) classical music is not all about Hilary Hahn playing Bach. I'm sure she plays it beautifully, but there are dozens of other people who have played the Bach Double, and some better. In the very least, all different. And more importantly, b)there are tens upon thousands of other songs that constitute classical music. If I'm listening 30 minutes a week, and in a 3 month span, I've heard Hilary Hahn's rendition of the Bach Double 2 or 3 times, you are not playing enough interesting music. And gosh darnit, if you are going to broadcast the Bach Double multiple times, how about Nigel Kennedy or Yehudi Menhuin?
• Rant number two: call me curmudgeonly or contrarian, but this whole "comfortable, casual" "island of sanity" business really does the audience a disservice. It is dumbed down classical music, version 2.0 lite. This is precisely the sort of insipid, mind-numbing version of classical music that gives classical music its bad reputation. A lot of my twenty- and thirty- (and even forty-) something friends don't like classical music. They think it's dull and unhip. It's for winding down at the end of the day, but not for challenging you.
Now again, let me reiterate that I'm no classical music cognescenti. Far from it. I'm still trying to learn to appreciate Mahler and I'm just getting into opera and there are hundreds of symphonies that I haven't heard in their entirety. But it is precisely people of my ilk (not much better than total ignoramus, but interested in learning more and unsatisfied with the offerings of our current radio station) who need to be challenged to listen to things beyond Vivaldi's 4 Seasons or Mozart's Requiem, or other things on the classical music top- 100 list that I have already either sung or played or know of.
Not that there's anything wrong with Mozart's Requiem or Vivaldi's 4 Seasons. There is a reason they are "classics". There's certainly a time and place for appreciating that.
But as Aaron Copland put it so eloquently, why is it that we expect all other art forms to challenge us, and yet, when it comes to classical music, people think we just want to hear the comfortable stuff?
The literary world does not expect Gide or Mann or T.S. Eliot to emote with the accents of Victor Hugo or Walter Scott. Why, then, should Bartok or Milhaud be expected to sing with the voice of Schumann or Tchaikovsky? When a contemporary piece seems dry and cerebral to you, when it seems to be giving off little feeling or sentiment, there is a good chance that you are not willing to live in your own epoch, musically speaking.So KDFC is another one of these stations that serves as a couch or pillow, which I guess fits with their whole "islands of sanity" marketing scheme.Before concluding, I should like to ask a question of my own. Why is it that the musical public is seemingly so reluctant to consider a musical composition as, possibly, a challenging experience? When I hear a new piece of music that I do not understand I am intrigued -- I want to make contact with it again at the first opportunity. It's a challenge -- it keeps my interest in the art of music thoroughly alive.
But sadly I've observed that my own reaction is not typical. Most people use music as a couch; they want top be pillowed on it, relaxed and consoled for the stress of daily living. But serious music was never meant to be used as a soporific. Contemporary music, especially, is created to wake you up, not put you to sleep. It is meant to stir and excite you -- it may even exhaust you. But isn't that the kind of stimulation you go to the theatre for or read a book for? Why make an exception of music?
• Rant number three: I love instruments and all, but their programming for the most intimate instrument of all is virtually nil or I keep missing it, because based on my infrequent listening, I'd say that their ratio of instrumental to choral pieces programmed is 20:1, to pick an arbitrary number out of a hat. (Well not really. I really rarely hear choral works or opera presented, though in their defense, I did hear that they will start or have started broadcasting opera.) They used to do some choral music on Sunday mornings and I used to listen to that, but at some point, they got rid of that or moved the time.
But again, even with the choral music, there's more to choral music than Wachet Auf. How about some Veljo Tormis? Alberto Grau? Or something that was written after we were born?
• My final point, and the whole impetus for this long, hopefully not-too-vituperative rant-- Please. Do. Not. Truncate. Great symphonies. It's bad enough that much is lost when you hear it on the radio vs. hearing it live, but when you just present one movement from a larger work, you rob it of all of its context and nuance.
This morning, on my way to work, KDFC played just the last movement of the Dvorak 8th, which granted, is showy and grandiose, and perhaps a crowd-pleaser, but imo, not the most interesting part of the piece. It's unfortunate that I've (sort of) played this piece before, because otherwise, I probably wouldn't have cared so much about KDFC just presenting the last movement.
But this is probably one of these symphonies that to fully appreciate the last movement, you need to listen to the earlier movements. Motifs repeat and come back. He ties three entirely different-sounding movements and brings closure in the last movement. How can you fully appreciate the loud buildup and release of tension in the last movement, when you haven't heard movements 1,2, and 3?
The first movement starts with a cello line that seems to indicate a sense of urgency, but then the tension is cut by a flute section that sounds somewhat naive and meandering. Actually, the first part of the first movement sounds like an exciting trek in the woods to me--with each switchback offering some kind of surprise adventure or excitement. It's got that kind of playful feel. The string part towards the end of this movement is exhilarating. (So exhilarating that I ultimately had to drop out of performing this piece. The first violin part has notes that are 7 and 8 lines above the staff!) Then you've got a(n initially) more pensive-sounding second movement with clarinet the brass in the second movement, whose tone gets more ominous? (urgent? sinister?) sounding towards the last third, before returning to an earlier motif, and ultimately, coming back to its original opening theme, albeit in a different key. However, by now, the theme seems to have taken on an entirely new meaning. After the descending scales, the opening motif sounds more majestic/triumphant to me. Which takes us to the third movement, which sounds entirely different. It sounds waltz-like with its 3/8 tempo and prominently features the strings.
But I'm digressing from my original rant and I don't really know sufficient background about this piece to be writing "program notes" for it. These are just my personal impressions. . ..
To return to my original rant of how this symphony should not be truncated thus-- the point I was trying to make here with my digression was that the final movement of the Dvorak 8th should not be played on its own. Period. I am less irritated when they do this with other pieces, but the more a radio station does this, the more it dumbs down and cheapens the value of classical music. I mean, how do you expect me to learn to appreciate an edgy, modern symphony, if I'm used to hearing only truncated versions of top 100 hits?
Would you read just the last few chapters of a book, no matter how exhilarating the content may be? Part of the exhilaration is the culmination and the journey through the earlier chapters or movements, in the case of music.
Granted, it takes time and concentration, and roughly 38 minutes of your time to appreciate the entire symphony. But wouldn't most people rather hear the full thing rather than the dumbed down "abridged" version?
10 January 2008
Audiences: Please talk all you want
For those of us who get irritated by people who unwrap candy wrappers at the most hushed moments during performances or glare at people who talk incessantly through an entire performance or movie, it turns out that having such audience disruptions is a more authentic way to experience concerts.
According to this NYT article, during Liszt or Beethoven's time, it was normal to clap between movements or even talk during performances. In fact, according to said article (which is actually quoting a book about 19th century audiences by Kenneth Hamilton. Note to self: add to ever-growing "to read" list.), the pianist Alexander Dreyshcock "was criticized for playing 'so loud that it made it difficult for the ladies to talk'".
Two centuries later, we have an entirely different sort of audience. One that has been "reduced to subversive acts in a fascistic society" according to the same article. Fascistic society?
While people who occasionally cough during performances do not bother me so much, as a performer, I don't think expecting silence from an audience during the most intimate ppp sections in music is necessarily "fascistic".
In my case, whether audience behavior bothers me or not depends on the circumstances. I admit I'm rather inconsistent.
If a 3-year old child of one of my fellow singers happens to yell "mommy mommy mommy" during a performance, this does not bother me in the least. In fact, the last time this happened, the mommy, who stood next to me, looked mortified, but the rest of us couldn't help but smile. I even saw a smile break out from our conductor's lips.
If a 4-year old child is squirming and moving around and whispering loudly during the entire first half of a Cantabile holiday concert, more strongly than my sentiment to want to tell the child to sit still is my urge to strangle the parents who don't do anything about this distracting squirmy child.
If an old-ish gentleman walks out with his walker with much fanfare during our quiet a capella recessional. . . I am momentarily annoyed at his bad timing and will probably wonder why he couldn't have waited another 1 minute and 24 seconds to make his grand exit, but sigh and don't think much of it.
If middle or high school-aged children whisper/talk loudly amongst themselves during a production of San Jose Opera's The Crucible or a performance of Faure's Cantique du Jean Racine, I get violent urges to strangle people. :)
Did reading this article change my attitude?
Well, I'd be willing to put up with more audience distractions, maybe, so long as it's not during really hushed sections of music. Also, no cellphones, whatsoever. There were no cellphones during Liszt's time.
According to this NYT article, during Liszt or Beethoven's time, it was normal to clap between movements or even talk during performances. In fact, according to said article (which is actually quoting a book about 19th century audiences by Kenneth Hamilton. Note to self: add to ever-growing "to read" list.), the pianist Alexander Dreyshcock "was criticized for playing 'so loud that it made it difficult for the ladies to talk'".
Two centuries later, we have an entirely different sort of audience. One that has been "reduced to subversive acts in a fascistic society" according to the same article. Fascistic society?
While people who occasionally cough during performances do not bother me so much, as a performer, I don't think expecting silence from an audience during the most intimate ppp sections in music is necessarily "fascistic".
In my case, whether audience behavior bothers me or not depends on the circumstances. I admit I'm rather inconsistent.
If a 3-year old child of one of my fellow singers happens to yell "mommy mommy mommy" during a performance, this does not bother me in the least. In fact, the last time this happened, the mommy, who stood next to me, looked mortified, but the rest of us couldn't help but smile. I even saw a smile break out from our conductor's lips.
If a 4-year old child is squirming and moving around and whispering loudly during the entire first half of a Cantabile holiday concert, more strongly than my sentiment to want to tell the child to sit still is my urge to strangle the parents who don't do anything about this distracting squirmy child.
If an old-ish gentleman walks out with his walker with much fanfare during our quiet a capella recessional. . . I am momentarily annoyed at his bad timing and will probably wonder why he couldn't have waited another 1 minute and 24 seconds to make his grand exit, but sigh and don't think much of it.
If middle or high school-aged children whisper/talk loudly amongst themselves during a production of San Jose Opera's The Crucible or a performance of Faure's Cantique du Jean Racine, I get violent urges to strangle people. :)
Did reading this article change my attitude?
Well, I'd be willing to put up with more audience distractions, maybe, so long as it's not during really hushed sections of music. Also, no cellphones, whatsoever. There were no cellphones during Liszt's time.
06 January 2008
Nannies with M.A.s--only in this area
I once joked to someone that I want to date someone who is math-literate enough to know that you can't double integrate e^(-x2). This used to be a sort of ongoing joke in undergrad.
It turns out that this isn't as unreasonable as I thought; nowadays in the over-achieving area that I live, they want nannies and babysitters who can speak French, with masters degrees, etc.
I mean, take this person who wants a tutor for their 10 and 11-year olds:
Does this person really think that it takes a master's degree to do 5th grade level school work? Back in the 90s, they used to accept high school students as tutors for grade-school students. In fact, I held several such jobs during my middle school and high school years. Come to think of it, I was helping people with 5th grade level school work back in, um, 5th grade.
Why stop at a mere M.A.? If I ever have kids who need tutoring, I'm going to demand the ultra-nanny-- someone with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering.
It turns out that this isn't as unreasonable as I thought; nowadays in the over-achieving area that I live, they want nannies and babysitters who can speak French, with masters degrees, etc.
I mean, take this person who wants a tutor for their 10 and 11-year olds:
I am looking for a homework helper. The individual needs to have teaching experience preferably a masters in education. I have 3 children. The ages are 10, 10 and 11 years of ages.Now will someone please tell me-- wth does someone need a masters for, simply to drive around 10 and 11- year olds and help them with their homework!?
The job would be afterschool which would include: picking the children up from school, taking them to their activities, bringing them home and helping them with their homework. Car will be provided.
Does this person really think that it takes a master's degree to do 5th grade level school work? Back in the 90s, they used to accept high school students as tutors for grade-school students. In fact, I held several such jobs during my middle school and high school years. Come to think of it, I was helping people with 5th grade level school work back in, um, 5th grade.
Why stop at a mere M.A.? If I ever have kids who need tutoring, I'm going to demand the ultra-nanny-- someone with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering.
02 January 2008
My top 5 movies of 2007
1. Pan's Labyrinth
2. and 3. a tie between Lives of Others and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
4. No End in Sight
5. Away from Her
I do not watch enough movies to compile a top-10 list. In fact, I probably don' t watch enough movies to warrant even a top-5 list, but since I am very discriminating about the movies I choose to watch, it's not surprising that I like a third to half of the movies I watch in a given year. All of the ones in my "top-5" are movies I'd give at least a 9 out of 10.
Some movies I wished I had seen include:
-the Harry Potter movie, which I'm sure I wouldn't have given a 9 out of 10, but I very much wanted to catch on the big screen.
-12:08 East of Bucharest, which got pretty good reviews on metacritic, but didn't show in this area.
-Persepolis, which I'm dying to see, but is not showing in this area yet.
-Rattatouille
2. and 3. a tie between Lives of Others and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
4. No End in Sight
5. Away from Her
I do not watch enough movies to compile a top-10 list. In fact, I probably don' t watch enough movies to warrant even a top-5 list, but since I am very discriminating about the movies I choose to watch, it's not surprising that I like a third to half of the movies I watch in a given year. All of the ones in my "top-5" are movies I'd give at least a 9 out of 10.
Some movies I wished I had seen include:
-the Harry Potter movie, which I'm sure I wouldn't have given a 9 out of 10, but I very much wanted to catch on the big screen.
-12:08 East of Bucharest, which got pretty good reviews on metacritic, but didn't show in this area.
-Persepolis, which I'm dying to see, but is not showing in this area yet.
-Rattatouille
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)