Could there have been a worse time for the worst president in our nation's history to be in power? Terrorism and disease at home and around the world, genocide and poverty worsening worldwide by the day, and climate change becoming more apparent with every passing season. Leave it to W. to deal completely ineffectively with these issues. I mean, could the world have picked a worse time to have this guy lead the charge for change? A man who is staunchly against anyone who is not a) white b) Christian c) American d) straight and e) all of the above. A man who still doesn't know that it's only 100 degrees year-round in Crawford, Texas because he has barely ever left the ranch. And, most depressingly, a man who has managed to take the the opportunity for American to become a world innovator and leader in the fight against the milieu of detriments wreaking havoc in "developing nations," and turn it into an embarrassment, make our country a feared laughingstock, and alienate us from virtually every one of our ostracized allies.
Well loyal readers and friends, after months of being an "undecided" voting citizen -- and even some consideration of abstention from voting -- I have come to a consensus with myself that is sure to stick for at least a week. But seriously, I've done my research this time, and since the Savior John Kerry isn't running this time for me to blindly throw my support behind (and what a shame), I had to pick a new champion for the Democratic party.
Could it be Hillary Clinton? Well, since it's the first name that I mentioned it's safe to say that it's not her, but let me tell you why. Not only has she spent her entire senate career in the pocket of major corporate contributors and lobbyist, but she defends this position and does not claim that she will cease her moneymongering. In fact, she says that these corporations represent her constituency (or at least her wealthiest and fewest constituents) so she will continue, even in the presidency, to act on their behalf. In 2003 when it was up to the senate to stop President Bush and Cockbag Cheney from invading Iraq, Clinton was part of the bloc of Democrats that voted in favor of allowing military action with few limits and no timetable for reevaluation. And, I hate to get personal, but I doubt the moral character of a woman who unequivocally stays with a husband (albeit the President) that cheats on her numerous times, gets caught numerous times, lies publicly about it numerous times, and then gets caught in his lies numerous times. (I love Bill Clinton as much as the next faithful Democrat, and he is an admirable humanitarian and activist, but he was (is?) a shitty and mean husband...doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see him back in that office, though). Oh, and...doesn't she just sound like she is constantly condescending you? If Bush represents the common idiot, she represents the elitist asshole that is addicted to the double-talk (a.k.a. Parsing) that is second in the ruination of this country's media only to the "I cannot recall"s of the Bush Administration. For example, from the debate on October 30, Senator Clinton says:
On Iraq:
1. "I stand for ending the war in Iraq, and bringing our troops home."
2. "We're going to have troops remaining there guarding our embassy, a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against Al Qaeda in Iraq."
On Social Security:
1. "With respect to social security, I do have a plan." (Note: she did not elaborate)
2. "I am not advocating any specific fix until I am approaching fiscal responsibility."
On Immigration (specifically the plan to give illegal immigrants in New York the right to drivers licenses):
1. "I would not say it should be done, but I recognize why Gov. Spitzer is trying to do it."
2. "It makes a lot of sense. What is the Governor supposed to do?"
3. "Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No."
So, as you can plainly see, it is virtually impossible to know enough about what Senator Clinton truly intends to do if she becomes president to have faith in her ability to lead.
Could it be Bill Richardson? Aside from the fact that the state he runs (sorry New Mexico) has been 49th in the nation in education for at least the past 3 years and was named the “dumbest” state for three years in a row (2002-2004) in one national ranking...wait there is no aside from that fact. It's enough to rule him out.
The golden boy...Barak Obama? Critics say he's inexperienced and undeserving of this nation's highest post, but many said the same about Kennedy. And between the Bay of Pigs and the nuclear standoff with Russia they may have been right about him. Obama is a compelling option. He is fiery, charismatic, Black, speaks eloquently, and has great policy ideas. He is pro civil union, pro-choice, and has a comprehensive universal healthcare plan. Did Obama vote to allow us into Iraq? No chance. Would I be satisfied with Obama? Absolutely. Would I be more satisfied with him having about...say...8 years more experience? Without a doubt. Also, any man who threatens military action in Pakistan at this point in America's history needs a serious psychological evaluation.
It seems to me that there is only one viable candidate left to talk about, and that would be Mr. John Edwards (www.johnedwards.com). Over the past few weeks I've been reading through the candidate's websites and have left each one completely disenfranchised. My hopes for this election were dwindling, and between the Corporate-Clinton and the naive Obama I was ready to tune out for good.
Of course, it is hard to know whom to trust. It seems like the last thing this country needs is another Southern-drawl, smiling, nodding, sweet-talking, pompous ass. A woman or African-American may just be the catalyst for the change we so desperately need. Does Edwards sound phony? Is he constantly blowing smoke up my ass? To be honest, it does sound like it at times. But his voting record speaks for itself (except for that little Iraq vote...oops). John Edwards has NEVER accepted money from a PAC (lobbyist) or corporation with a wish-list. He has a 100% record with Planned Parenthood, an original and effective universal healthcare plan (copied by Hillary Clinton months later), supports the separation of Church and State, believes in equal rights for people of all sexual orientations in civilian and military life, supports troop reduction and withdrawal within 1 year, and has plans to significantly reduce carbon emissions EVEN IN LARGE CORPORATIONS by 2010. Overall, his decades of legislative (unfortunately not executive) experience will be wisely used in guiding his effective governance of our country.
I have been searching for the perfect candidate, and I now realize that there is no such thing. However, John Edwards is the only candidate that makes me feel like I will not be voting for the lesser of two evils. He stands for something important, and is willing to work to mend America's broken image and repair our fracture place in the global community.
Still, though...I really wish Al Gore were running.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Christmas Music: More Like...ChristmASS Music
Let me set the scene:
2007 years ago, a little babyJesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem. Three Kings were guided by a star to visit him with gifts because, of course, they knew he was the savior of the human race. (Note: 2007 years later, the human race is still far from saved...but that is for another day.) This is the story of Christmas as we all know it. Then, although we take a 30 year break from his life, a 30-year-old babyJesus has undergone a spiritual transformation, and the rest is history.
But what happened in those 30 years? Did babyJesus have a psychotic break and start believing he was the son of God? (Happy Hanukkah, by the way.) Did he go into a cave in the desert and shroom or take peyote for 12 days straight, only to come out having heard the voice of the Lord, his father? More importantly, did that voice tell him that 2007 years later his peaceful teachings and claims of saviorhood would be twisted and contorted into the worst form of musical torture ever imagined?
Now, those of you who know me will remember this side of me from such episodes as "Jake Doubts His Faith" and "Jake Becomes an Athiest," or even more recent ones such as "Jake Searches for Spiritual Answers" and "Jake Learns to Meditate." If you've known me for more than 5 years, you may even remember a time in my life in which I may have been considered sarcastic, cynical, and even bitingly hilarious. For the remainder of this post, I will slip back (in fact, I already have) into that frame of mind. There will be little intellectual musical conversation, if any at all, and I will rant and rant about how bitter I am about how God/babyJesus-awful Christmas music is.
(Another note: I truly despise all holiday music, including but not limited to Adam Sandler's "Hanukkah Song," but this post is dedicated to the most popular of holiday musics: that which is composed and recorded for and about Christmas.)
There are some bands, namely the Trans Siberian Orchestra, one John Lennon song, and one Dave Matthews Band song that is never played on the radio, that lend credence to the feelings that Christmas music is at all worthwhile. However, I hardly think that two songs can overturn almost a century of tortuous whining about little drummer boys and holy and/or silent nights. This was all much more of a problem for me when I had to drive to school every morning without a CD player in my car or be a three-year-old running errands with a mother who doesn't mind Christmas music at all. Nowadays, I use the ole iPod or Pandora and am able to avoid the entire month of December on the radio. Sure, I go to Duane Reade and the bank and the grocery store and get immediately bombarded with holiday spirit. And for those 10 minutes, I want to hurt everyone in the store. Luckily the sound of jingling sleigh bells can hardly be heard at all over the full volume of my headphones.
I think the worst part about Christmas music is that it is neverchanging. I don't know how many times I have heard Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band cover "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," but I can tell you that on any given radio station that is owned by ClearChannel it is played at least twice an hour. I simply don't understand how people aren't sick of the same songs year in and year out. I heard a Josh Groban version of "Oh, Holy Night" the other day in the doctor's office and I nearly walked out. How many times does some oversinging, overhyped trendy artist have to cover Christmas songs before the act loses its novelty? For God's sake, even NSync had a Christmas album.
It's as if the state of the music industry weren't bad enough already...instead of giving a month over to talented new artists, radio stations dedicate 11 of 12 months to Beyonce, Chingy (sorry, bro), Fall Out Boy, etc. and 1/12 to the same Christmas music as last year, the year before that, and back and back until 1985 (probably before, but I can only attest to the past 22.5 years).
Maybe it's not Christmas music that bothers me...maybe it's just the dumbness with which everyone seems to fit right into the status quo that enjoys what Christmas and its subsequent style of generic, repetitive, mind-numbing music represent. As one wise sage (Douglas V. Bermingham) puts it, "You seem to be saying that Christmas bothers you because it's the apex of our cultural year. it is a time of the greatest consumption of everything (extended out as long as possible). As for the music end of it, it promotes idle drifting back to a time when everyone in the country was, for lack of a better word, brainwashed into associating happiness with presents, presents and presents...and i think we should get some peyote."
2007 years ago, a little babyJesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem. Three Kings were guided by a star to visit him with gifts because, of course, they knew he was the savior of the human race. (Note: 2007 years later, the human race is still far from saved...but that is for another day.) This is the story of Christmas as we all know it. Then, although we take a 30 year break from his life, a 30-year-old babyJesus has undergone a spiritual transformation, and the rest is history.
But what happened in those 30 years? Did babyJesus have a psychotic break and start believing he was the son of God? (Happy Hanukkah, by the way.) Did he go into a cave in the desert and shroom or take peyote for 12 days straight, only to come out having heard the voice of the Lord, his father? More importantly, did that voice tell him that 2007 years later his peaceful teachings and claims of saviorhood would be twisted and contorted into the worst form of musical torture ever imagined?
Now, those of you who know me will remember this side of me from such episodes as "Jake Doubts His Faith" and "Jake Becomes an Athiest," or even more recent ones such as "Jake Searches for Spiritual Answers" and "Jake Learns to Meditate." If you've known me for more than 5 years, you may even remember a time in my life in which I may have been considered sarcastic, cynical, and even bitingly hilarious. For the remainder of this post, I will slip back (in fact, I already have) into that frame of mind. There will be little intellectual musical conversation, if any at all, and I will rant and rant about how bitter I am about how God/babyJesus-awful Christmas music is.
(Another note: I truly despise all holiday music, including but not limited to Adam Sandler's "Hanukkah Song," but this post is dedicated to the most popular of holiday musics: that which is composed and recorded for and about Christmas.)
There are some bands, namely the Trans Siberian Orchestra, one John Lennon song, and one Dave Matthews Band song that is never played on the radio, that lend credence to the feelings that Christmas music is at all worthwhile. However, I hardly think that two songs can overturn almost a century of tortuous whining about little drummer boys and holy and/or silent nights. This was all much more of a problem for me when I had to drive to school every morning without a CD player in my car or be a three-year-old running errands with a mother who doesn't mind Christmas music at all. Nowadays, I use the ole iPod or Pandora and am able to avoid the entire month of December on the radio. Sure, I go to Duane Reade and the bank and the grocery store and get immediately bombarded with holiday spirit. And for those 10 minutes, I want to hurt everyone in the store. Luckily the sound of jingling sleigh bells can hardly be heard at all over the full volume of my headphones.
I think the worst part about Christmas music is that it is neverchanging. I don't know how many times I have heard Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band cover "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," but I can tell you that on any given radio station that is owned by ClearChannel it is played at least twice an hour. I simply don't understand how people aren't sick of the same songs year in and year out. I heard a Josh Groban version of "Oh, Holy Night" the other day in the doctor's office and I nearly walked out. How many times does some oversinging, overhyped trendy artist have to cover Christmas songs before the act loses its novelty? For God's sake, even NSync had a Christmas album.
It's as if the state of the music industry weren't bad enough already...instead of giving a month over to talented new artists, radio stations dedicate 11 of 12 months to Beyonce, Chingy (sorry, bro), Fall Out Boy, etc. and 1/12 to the same Christmas music as last year, the year before that, and back and back until 1985 (probably before, but I can only attest to the past 22.5 years).
Maybe it's not Christmas music that bothers me...maybe it's just the dumbness with which everyone seems to fit right into the status quo that enjoys what Christmas and its subsequent style of generic, repetitive, mind-numbing music represent. As one wise sage (Douglas V. Bermingham) puts it, "You seem to be saying that Christmas bothers you because it's the apex of our cultural year. it is a time of the greatest consumption of everything (extended out as long as possible). As for the music end of it, it promotes idle drifting back to a time when everyone in the country was, for lack of a better word, brainwashed into associating happiness with presents, presents and presents...and i think we should get some peyote."
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Now with Streaming Audio!
Along the right section of the blog, at the bottom, you'll now see a little mp3 player. I'll change the song frequently, and for now it is playing "Little Wing" by Jimi Hendrix, in honor of my last post. Enjoy!
Monday, November 19, 2007
New Features!
Hello Friends!
Since nailing down a new job I have found myself with a bit of extra time on my hands during the day. As such, I have been putting in a bit of extra effort spicing up the blog. On the right side the page there are now 2 subscription tools, both RSS and e-mail, so if you like what you read please subscribe! There is also a hits-counter at the very bottom of the blog (that has been there for a while now), and the hits are really piling up! Over 500?!?! Keep spreading my gospel!
Also, you'll see that there is a funky little Stereo Sun icon (called a 'favicon' apparently) in the address bar at the top of the screen. If you're using FireFox it's also on the A Stereo Sun tab.
There are also several new links on the right side of the blog, mostly involving my artistic endeavors, pictures, and anything else I think you might be interested in (in this case, Mozart's Requiem is available for free download).
If you scroll down the bottom of the blog, you'll also see a calendar that has my gigs listed. I'll update it as I schedule more, and for now none are planned other than my weekly Monday attendance at The Cutting Room at 11:00pm (all are welcome to join me there!).
I have also registed my own domain name (www.jakehyman.net) and e-mail address (jake@jakehyman.net) and should be developing a website over the next few months. In the mean time, JakeHyman.net will take you directly to AStereoSun.blogspot.com!
Finally, over the coming weeks I will be trying to figure out how to get some streaming audio on the blog, so that when I talk about a song for an entire post, say "Little Wing," you can listen to it and have some general ideal of what it is exactly that I'm talking about.
Thanks for reading, and there will be more to come tomorrow after I go to the Bright Eyes concert tonight.
Since nailing down a new job I have found myself with a bit of extra time on my hands during the day. As such, I have been putting in a bit of extra effort spicing up the blog. On the right side the page there are now 2 subscription tools, both RSS and e-mail, so if you like what you read please subscribe! There is also a hits-counter at the very bottom of the blog (that has been there for a while now), and the hits are really piling up! Over 500?!?! Keep spreading my gospel!
Also, you'll see that there is a funky little Stereo Sun icon (called a 'favicon' apparently) in the address bar at the top of the screen. If you're using FireFox it's also on the A Stereo Sun tab.
There are also several new links on the right side of the blog, mostly involving my artistic endeavors, pictures, and anything else I think you might be interested in (in this case, Mozart's Requiem is available for free download).
If you scroll down the bottom of the blog, you'll also see a calendar that has my gigs listed. I'll update it as I schedule more, and for now none are planned other than my weekly Monday attendance at The Cutting Room at 11:00pm (all are welcome to join me there!).
I have also registed my own domain name (www.jakehyman.net) and e-mail address (jake@jakehyman.net) and should be developing a website over the next few months. In the mean time, JakeHyman.net will take you directly to AStereoSun.blogspot.com!
Finally, over the coming weeks I will be trying to figure out how to get some streaming audio on the blog, so that when I talk about a song for an entire post, say "Little Wing," you can listen to it and have some general ideal of what it is exactly that I'm talking about.
Thanks for reading, and there will be more to come tomorrow after I go to the Bright Eyes concert tonight.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Little Wing
Listening to my iPod on my hour-long commute to work, I took a break from NPR Podcasts (about which I will undoubtedly write in the near future) to listen to some good old fashioned music. I hit the seemingly not-so-random "Shuffle Songs" on my menu, and was thrown into a musical reverie the likes of which I can usually only dream of attaining. As Jimi hits the first note of "Little Wing" and slides it down the guitar, I close my eyes and shut out the noise of the rush hour A express...143 seconds of pure bliss are underway.
Though it originally appeared on Axis: Bold As Love in 1967 (see: coolest album cover ever...and a poster in my house, compliments of Doug), the version I have is from The Ultimate Experience (compliments of Adam Baker in 7th Grade), a collection of 22 of the best rock songs you'll ever hear.
"Little Wing" went largely unnoticed by me for years until, in the winter of 2004 I had the excellent fortune of seeing a certain John Mayer play his first ever trio show at Webster Hall in New York (he also wrote on the song for Rolling Stone back in 2004...any plagiarism on my part is completely coincidental, I swear). The club is tiny, holding under 1,000, and when Mayer launched into his Hendrix-zone I knew we were all in for a treat. His version that night (which is also on my iPod) exceeded the original by about 6 minutes, and would forever change the way I view both a) the song and b) guitarists. But...enough about John Mayer (is that possible?). We're talkin Hendrix here, so let's focus.
As I mentioned before, "Little Wing" runs at 2:23, a short song even by the standards of the 1960s. The only band that could make 2:23 work more effectively than Hendrix does with "Little Wing" was The Beatles with...oh, I don't know...90% of their songs written before 1965.
From the first aforementioned guitar-slide, to the too-soon fadeout, "Little Wing" is a truly musical and lyrical psychedelic experience.
"Well she's walking through the clouds
With a circus mind that's running round
Butterflies and zebras
And moonbeams and fairy tales
That's all she ever thinks about
Riding with the wind.
When I'm sad, she comes to me
With a thousand smiles, she gives to me free
It's alright, she say's
It's alright
Take anything you want from me
Anything.
Fly on little wing,
Yeah, yeah, yeah, little wing"
At this point there is only :36 left in the song. For half a minute, Hendrix lets go in a way unlike he does in any other song. His guitar moves and soars, and he shakes you to the bone with a most sensual guitar solo (other than possibly Clapton, who has been excluded for reasons of unfair sensuality). Just as the song is looping and spiraling out of control, it begins its inevitable but premature fadeout.
Where did the solo go? How much pure Hendrixian brilliance was cut from the tape? In subsequent live performances he cuts it just as short, but the album version shows no signs of ending until it is ripped away from us.
(Isn't this just perfect, though? The ultimate allegory for Hendrix's life and death...an eerie premonition. A song, just like the man, made of spectacular passion, cut down in its prime when there was endless potential for things to come.)
I can imagine that his solo lasted for three hours past the 2:23. I can see the producer (Chas Chandler) sitting there, Mitch Mitchell pounding away on the drums and Noel Redding punching in his bass, just awestruck. What could he do with that solo? THREE HOURS OF A HENDRIX SOLO? So he decided, in a move of sheer douchebaggery, to cut the solo at 36 seconds just because he had no idea where else to cut it. It got way too intense after that. So, 2:59:24 of the best solo ever played is history.
On the other hand, I can imagine that the solo rambled on and on for a dozen more minutes before Hendrix realized that what had started as the greatest solo of all time became a stoned, unfocused mess after about 40 seconds so he'd better keep it at 36 just to be safe. This is, needless to say, NOT the version of imaginary history that I choose to accept. If you've ever heard "Machine Gun" or any of the Live at Berkeley recordings, you know that Hendrix was not one to shy away from longwinded and dissonant guitar solos.
So, because of Chas Chandler's inability to cope with the longest guitar solo in imaginary history, we are stuck and blessed with the smallest taste...an amouse-bouche, if you will...of what could have been. Mayer's rendition in 2004 brings us close, and sometimes at The Cutting Room Richie Cannata and the guests on stage will play "Little Wing" and bring us ever closer (one in particular 3 weeks ago, Joe __?__, a bear of a man with ass-length hair and a big beard actually appeared to channel Jimi from the stage for about 5 minutes), but in reality all I can really do is hope that Hendrix comes back to life and finishes his masterpiece with me at the production helm.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Requiem in D minor, K.626 (1791)
For those of you who are classical music buffs, which I assume most of you are not, the Requiem in D minor, K.626 is the mysterious and final composition of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (written in 1791). K.626 is representative of the Requiem's place in the "Kochel-Verzeichnis," which is a complete and chronological catalogue of Mozart's works, making K.626 the 626th piece that Mozart composed. Released in 1862 by Ludwig von Kochel, Chronological - Thematic Catalogue of the Complete Musical Works of Wolfgang Amadé Mozart was a 551-page index of Mozart's works. But that's enough useful information for one blog...what is my point? How dare I write a 21st century internet-journal entry on a 216-year-old piece of music? We'll soon find out...
What makes the Requiem such an intriguing piece is the conspiracy that shrouds its composition and subsequent release in the years following Mozart's death. To make a long story short, Mozart was, sadly, a very poor man who was willing to write pieces for commissions even on his death bed. It is rumored (but unconfirmed) that while writing the Requiem, he was convinced that he was writing his Requiem (i.e. funeral march). The individual who commissioned the piece was none other than a mysterious cloaked stranger whose identity was concealed at the time, but is now known to be Count Franz von Walsegg-Stuppach who took credit for the piece in private performances. As Mozart lay dying and attempting to finish his final masterpiece, his limbs became too swollen to allow for movement, which included writing and playing. Therefore, his pupils Eybler and Sussmayr stepped in to finish his work. The problem with this, as many music scholars will attest, is that it is still unknown how much liberty his pupils (primarily Sussmayr because Eybler was a pussy and couldn't handle the pressure of following Mozart) took in finishing the piece. How much was intended by Mozart through notes and composition, how much was conveyed verbally in his final days, and how much Sussmayr created on his own will probably never be known.
I have seen the Requiem performed three times (London, Prague, and now New York), and I was honored enough to perform one movement, Lacrimosa (3rd movement, 6th part), with the Central Jersey II Regional Choir back in my high school days. This section of the piece naturally became my favorite, and it wasn't until the October 17th performance of Requiem by the London Symphony Orchestra that I learned Lacrimosa was the final section that Mozart wrote (only 8 bars, though the questions surrounding Sussmayr's knowledge of Mozart's intentions still remain) before he died the next morning.
Falling in love with the piece is easy. If any of you have the opportunity to download it for free or for any small sum of money it is very worth it. I know friends that have had deeply personal experiences just form listening to the piece, and I was even able to turn someone on to classical music using solely the Requiem (to start, at least).
So, here we are...tons of exposition and background information only to lead to my review of the LSO performance of the Requiem in D Minor on October 17th at Lincoln Center in New York City.
I was, suffice it to say, completely blown away. In London, I was underwhelmed by the Britishness of the direction, conducting, and overall delivery. In Prague, I was very satisfied by a beautiful and apropos performance. But, this time, I was overwhelmed by the passion of conductor Sir Colin Davis (in his 60th year of conducting), the perfection of the choir and soloists, and the intensity of the orchestra. Of course, Lacrimosa was the best part, but the attacks on the frantic second movement (Dies Irae) and some interesting directorial decisions throughout the piece really added new dynamics that I had never considered before. In Tuba Mirum, for example, Sir Colin provided the soloists with support by directing the piece to be played staccato rather than the typical legato. Even his most negligent and controversial choices, such as cutting the tempo of Domine Jesu, added to the variety and surprise in each movement that is so key in any performance of K.626.
If I never see the Requiem performed again, which I hope is not the case, I will be able to say that I saw one of the greatest conductors, orchestras, and choirs in the world do a master's final work the justice it deserves. That being said, the National Chorale will be performing the piece again at Lincoln Center in March...any takers?
What makes the Requiem such an intriguing piece is the conspiracy that shrouds its composition and subsequent release in the years following Mozart's death. To make a long story short, Mozart was, sadly, a very poor man who was willing to write pieces for commissions even on his death bed. It is rumored (but unconfirmed) that while writing the Requiem, he was convinced that he was writing his Requiem (i.e. funeral march). The individual who commissioned the piece was none other than a mysterious cloaked stranger whose identity was concealed at the time, but is now known to be Count Franz von Walsegg-Stuppach who took credit for the piece in private performances. As Mozart lay dying and attempting to finish his final masterpiece, his limbs became too swollen to allow for movement, which included writing and playing. Therefore, his pupils Eybler and Sussmayr stepped in to finish his work. The problem with this, as many music scholars will attest, is that it is still unknown how much liberty his pupils (primarily Sussmayr because Eybler was a pussy and couldn't handle the pressure of following Mozart) took in finishing the piece. How much was intended by Mozart through notes and composition, how much was conveyed verbally in his final days, and how much Sussmayr created on his own will probably never be known.
I have seen the Requiem performed three times (London, Prague, and now New York), and I was honored enough to perform one movement, Lacrimosa (3rd movement, 6th part), with the Central Jersey II Regional Choir back in my high school days. This section of the piece naturally became my favorite, and it wasn't until the October 17th performance of Requiem by the London Symphony Orchestra that I learned Lacrimosa was the final section that Mozart wrote (only 8 bars, though the questions surrounding Sussmayr's knowledge of Mozart's intentions still remain) before he died the next morning.
Falling in love with the piece is easy. If any of you have the opportunity to download it for free or for any small sum of money it is very worth it. I know friends that have had deeply personal experiences just form listening to the piece, and I was even able to turn someone on to classical music using solely the Requiem (to start, at least).
So, here we are...tons of exposition and background information only to lead to my review of the LSO performance of the Requiem in D Minor on October 17th at Lincoln Center in New York City.
I was, suffice it to say, completely blown away. In London, I was underwhelmed by the Britishness of the direction, conducting, and overall delivery. In Prague, I was very satisfied by a beautiful and apropos performance. But, this time, I was overwhelmed by the passion of conductor Sir Colin Davis (in his 60th year of conducting), the perfection of the choir and soloists, and the intensity of the orchestra. Of course, Lacrimosa was the best part, but the attacks on the frantic second movement (Dies Irae) and some interesting directorial decisions throughout the piece really added new dynamics that I had never considered before. In Tuba Mirum, for example, Sir Colin provided the soloists with support by directing the piece to be played staccato rather than the typical legato. Even his most negligent and controversial choices, such as cutting the tempo of Domine Jesu, added to the variety and surprise in each movement that is so key in any performance of K.626.
If I never see the Requiem performed again, which I hope is not the case, I will be able to say that I saw one of the greatest conductors, orchestras, and choirs in the world do a master's final work the justice it deserves. That being said, the National Chorale will be performing the piece again at Lincoln Center in March...any takers?
Friday, October 12, 2007
The Two Day Evolution
It's just after midnight on the night between September 30 and October 1, and I have just moved into my new (slanty, of course) house in Jersey City. I am just about to get into bed when some force of the Almighty drives me to check Pitchforkmedia one last time before bed. Do I have ESP? Do I know how this moment will change my life before I even act? Maybe. But one thing is certain...I have only 10 days to prepare for the greatest music moment of the last three years since the last Radiohead album was released.
I was only in high school then and, to be completely honest, Hail To The Thief scared the living shit out of me. I had never heard Radiohead before, only heard their name and knew of their revered status, but I assumed it was worth a try. I simply couldn't hand it. Never before had an album ignited an emotion other than sadness or happiness or love. Fear in music was relegated to those outcasts, those Slayers and Marylin Mansons and Nine Inch Nails. We John Mayers and Dave Matthews and Billy Joels were all love and longing, not death and anger.
When I heard the song "A Wolf at the Door (It Girl. Rag Doll)" for the first time I nearly shat myself. For at least a year, until I met one Patricia Mara, I was not able to appreciate the album. With her encouragement I delved into my Radioheadaphobia (yes, that is the clinical term), and slowly built my library with their catalog.
In my senior year at GW I wrote a twenty page paper on the advent of the concept album, with the majority of my paper revolving around the modern classic album OK Computer. And, while HTTT might still scare the living hell out of me, I respect it and even love that it can still reach into me and pull something different out than any other album.
It was with this unique perspective and hopeful ear that I unwrapped (or downloaded from a link in my e-mail, whatever) my free copy (yes, I paid nothing because I don't have a paying job and Radiohead does...it's only fair) of the four-years-in-the-making, seventh Radiohead album In Rainbows at about 1:30 on the early morning of October 10. Over the past two days I have listened to the album no less than six times in its entirety, and at least two more in bits and pieces. My reactions and their evolution over the past 72 hours are chronicled in the following passages:
Day 1: I fell asleep with In Rainbows on because I was so tired from sitting up and waiting. Upon waking and leaving the house, I immediately started from the top. The album opens with "15-step" and immediately sounds great. As my walk to the train station continued and the album went on, I can't help but feel decidedly underwhelmed by my current Radiohead experience. I make it through the album on the way to work and arrive pleased with what I've heard, but altogether disappointed that I wasn't touched like I still am by HTTT and Kid A.
At that point, I had several thoughts (in general and about the album). "Am I being too hard on them?" No, I decide. If they are indeed the second coming, they should be able to deliver as they have in their previous three consecutive efforts. To their credit, though, Kid A, OK Computer, and HTTT are three "this is the best album we will ever make" albums, and they were all released one after the other by the same band. So what if Radiohead's precedent of constantly one-upping themselves is broken? In Rainbows is still a valiant effort and, if released by another band, would be a beautiful piece of music. Besides, at least they're not forcing themselves to create insanely complex works in an effort to imitate early success. Overall, after three listens on Day 1, I was still not convinced that this was at all worth the wait.
Day 2: October 11 was a day of discovery and open minded reassessment. After the previous day's disappointments, I really needed the album to come through in a big way. I didn't want to overdo it, so I resolved to online listen once all day. I found it on my boss's iTunes and listened through the new album, as well as the previous three albums (see above) for good measure.
Now, you may be thinking to yourself, "What the hell is wrong with him? When did he start liking Radiohead this much?" Normally, I couldn't agree more. Ever since the Dave Matthews Band fiasco of 2000 - 2004 I have been cautious about riding a band into the ground with an obsession. But, after my one listen during Day 2 and the subsequent listens to the other albums, the tide began to turn for In Rainbows. The songs all started to work together and, by the end of listen number four and Day 2, I was officially 180'd my opinion of the album. It is, after all, a worthy addition to their illustrious collection (and mine). The strongest track is, hands down, "15 Step," the album's opening song, with its closer "Videotape" as a close second. The least inspiring "House of Cards" and "Jigsaw Falling Into Place" (Tracks 8 and 9, respectively), but by the end of Day 3 (today) I will have probably changed my mind between six and twenty times.
In fact, I feel almost ashamed that I couldn't see the immense value of this album for over 24 hours. I admit it...I was far too quick to judge. But, like most Radiohead, In Rainbows has grown on me. And, if my experience with HTTT is any sort of predictor, it will mostly likely continue to do so until their next album takes its place.
I was only in high school then and, to be completely honest, Hail To The Thief scared the living shit out of me. I had never heard Radiohead before, only heard their name and knew of their revered status, but I assumed it was worth a try. I simply couldn't hand it. Never before had an album ignited an emotion other than sadness or happiness or love. Fear in music was relegated to those outcasts, those Slayers and Marylin Mansons and Nine Inch Nails. We John Mayers and Dave Matthews and Billy Joels were all love and longing, not death and anger.
When I heard the song "A Wolf at the Door (It Girl. Rag Doll)" for the first time I nearly shat myself. For at least a year, until I met one Patricia Mara, I was not able to appreciate the album. With her encouragement I delved into my Radioheadaphobia (yes, that is the clinical term), and slowly built my library with their catalog.
In my senior year at GW I wrote a twenty page paper on the advent of the concept album, with the majority of my paper revolving around the modern classic album OK Computer. And, while HTTT might still scare the living hell out of me, I respect it and even love that it can still reach into me and pull something different out than any other album.
It was with this unique perspective and hopeful ear that I unwrapped (or downloaded from a link in my e-mail, whatever) my free copy (yes, I paid nothing because I don't have a paying job and Radiohead does...it's only fair) of the four-years-in-the-making, seventh Radiohead album In Rainbows at about 1:30 on the early morning of October 10. Over the past two days I have listened to the album no less than six times in its entirety, and at least two more in bits and pieces. My reactions and their evolution over the past 72 hours are chronicled in the following passages:
Day 1: I fell asleep with In Rainbows on because I was so tired from sitting up and waiting. Upon waking and leaving the house, I immediately started from the top. The album opens with "15-step" and immediately sounds great. As my walk to the train station continued and the album went on, I can't help but feel decidedly underwhelmed by my current Radiohead experience. I make it through the album on the way to work and arrive pleased with what I've heard, but altogether disappointed that I wasn't touched like I still am by HTTT and Kid A.
At that point, I had several thoughts (in general and about the album). "Am I being too hard on them?" No, I decide. If they are indeed the second coming, they should be able to deliver as they have in their previous three consecutive efforts. To their credit, though, Kid A, OK Computer, and HTTT are three "this is the best album we will ever make" albums, and they were all released one after the other by the same band. So what if Radiohead's precedent of constantly one-upping themselves is broken? In Rainbows is still a valiant effort and, if released by another band, would be a beautiful piece of music. Besides, at least they're not forcing themselves to create insanely complex works in an effort to imitate early success. Overall, after three listens on Day 1, I was still not convinced that this was at all worth the wait.
Day 2: October 11 was a day of discovery and open minded reassessment. After the previous day's disappointments, I really needed the album to come through in a big way. I didn't want to overdo it, so I resolved to online listen once all day. I found it on my boss's iTunes and listened through the new album, as well as the previous three albums (see above) for good measure.
Now, you may be thinking to yourself, "What the hell is wrong with him? When did he start liking Radiohead this much?" Normally, I couldn't agree more. Ever since the Dave Matthews Band fiasco of 2000 - 2004 I have been cautious about riding a band into the ground with an obsession. But, after my one listen during Day 2 and the subsequent listens to the other albums, the tide began to turn for In Rainbows. The songs all started to work together and, by the end of listen number four and Day 2, I was officially 180'd my opinion of the album. It is, after all, a worthy addition to their illustrious collection (and mine). The strongest track is, hands down, "15 Step," the album's opening song, with its closer "Videotape" as a close second. The least inspiring "House of Cards" and "Jigsaw Falling Into Place" (Tracks 8 and 9, respectively), but by the end of Day 3 (today) I will have probably changed my mind between six and twenty times.
In fact, I feel almost ashamed that I couldn't see the immense value of this album for over 24 hours. I admit it...I was far too quick to judge. But, like most Radiohead, In Rainbows has grown on me. And, if my experience with HTTT is any sort of predictor, it will mostly likely continue to do so until their next album takes its place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)