Lorraine Hunt sings "Ich freue mich auf meinem Tod" (BWV82) well, but she's no match for Fisher-Dieskau.
I wonder if anyone ever will be.
The aria is remarkable: it's one of those works in which the text (happiness) and the subtext (sadness) are diametrically opposed. (The Japanese have everyday parlance terminology for this phenomenon: tate mae -- the official line -- the word means literally facade -- and honne -- the underlying truth).
The text speaks about the joyous expectation of the afterlife; but the subtext of it is: my present life is deeply unhappy; oh, please let me die. It is a sad aria; and a lesson at how to listen to people: not their words but what they are really saying.
Jun 26, 2009
Sho Qui
Argerich, Maisky et al playing Shostak's Quintet: the group needs more practice. The best chamber music ensembles have played together for years -- the Borodin have played together these fifty years, I think. Then again, they have known Shostak personally, too; and many of his works were written for them -- incorporating things he knew they could do. The Richter/Borodin recording remains unmatched for both reasons: because they are so good as an ensemble; and because he knew them so well.
Jun 24, 2009
On educating the young ones
We are all to some extent victims of our parent's misplaced ambitions for us. Much of that ambition has centered around college education lately: parents work extra hard, and pay through the nose, to have their offspring educated; and in the process commit their children to anything between four and nine years of economically unproductive and demoralizing, financially dependent existence in order to earn them an education which often turns out economically unworthwhile.
Consider, as an illustration of that, my two friends: Malgosia, 35, with a master's degree in architecture, who works at the city magistrate's approving construction plans at 450 euros a month and just bought her first car on credit; and Edith, 33, with barely a high school degree, a dry-cleaning queen, with a house and car paid off and a 250K a year business. Whose parents' have done a better job preparing their daughter for life?
Clearly, Malgosia's parents messed up; they should have seen that the highly reputable but fiercely competitive profession of architect is not appropriate for their laid back, somewhat dreamy, ungrasping daughter; and have tried to secure for her a renumerative profession she might enjoy: as a baker, for example, a shoe-maker, a weaver. Edith's parents on the other hand have done well: they have trained her in a renumerative profession and have set her to work for herself in it by the age of 17. Byt the time Malgosia got her degree and set about looking for a job, Edith already had 100K to her name.
Yet, Edith regrets not having college education: I wanted to go to college, she said, and my father simply, flatly said no. It is such a pity: I know I would have done well at it! I will educate my sons.
Ominous words: well, yes, she would have done well at it -- the college education -- but would she have done well by it?
It is precisely because so much college degree does nothing economically for us these days that special theories are developed in its favor: my father insisted on my degree (to which I was opposed) on the theory that college transforms the mind and makes for a totally different person. I wonder whether this is true: talking to yet another friend, Hedwig, immensely educated (two master's degrees, one in math and another in chemistry), a fantastically quick-witted, hard-working, ambitious and successful researcher in a biotech firm, seems typical of my encounters with the college educated. I do not see the transformative power of the college degree: I find Hedwig boring (she doesn't have time for art or opera or literature and therefore can't talk about them; in fact, in most things she is profoundly ignorant, knowing most things at best half-well or not at all). Worse, she is deeply unhappy: she's harried by her job, her duties as a working mother of three, and her ho-hum marriage. If her college degree has transformed her mind, it's hard to see positive effects of that transformation.
Consider, as an illustration of that, my two friends: Malgosia, 35, with a master's degree in architecture, who works at the city magistrate's approving construction plans at 450 euros a month and just bought her first car on credit; and Edith, 33, with barely a high school degree, a dry-cleaning queen, with a house and car paid off and a 250K a year business. Whose parents' have done a better job preparing their daughter for life?
Clearly, Malgosia's parents messed up; they should have seen that the highly reputable but fiercely competitive profession of architect is not appropriate for their laid back, somewhat dreamy, ungrasping daughter; and have tried to secure for her a renumerative profession she might enjoy: as a baker, for example, a shoe-maker, a weaver. Edith's parents on the other hand have done well: they have trained her in a renumerative profession and have set her to work for herself in it by the age of 17. Byt the time Malgosia got her degree and set about looking for a job, Edith already had 100K to her name.
Yet, Edith regrets not having college education: I wanted to go to college, she said, and my father simply, flatly said no. It is such a pity: I know I would have done well at it! I will educate my sons.
Ominous words: well, yes, she would have done well at it -- the college education -- but would she have done well by it?
It is precisely because so much college degree does nothing economically for us these days that special theories are developed in its favor: my father insisted on my degree (to which I was opposed) on the theory that college transforms the mind and makes for a totally different person. I wonder whether this is true: talking to yet another friend, Hedwig, immensely educated (two master's degrees, one in math and another in chemistry), a fantastically quick-witted, hard-working, ambitious and successful researcher in a biotech firm, seems typical of my encounters with the college educated. I do not see the transformative power of the college degree: I find Hedwig boring (she doesn't have time for art or opera or literature and therefore can't talk about them; in fact, in most things she is profoundly ignorant, knowing most things at best half-well or not at all). Worse, she is deeply unhappy: she's harried by her job, her duties as a working mother of three, and her ho-hum marriage. If her college degree has transformed her mind, it's hard to see positive effects of that transformation.
Jun 22, 2009
Tribal exceptionalism
Somewhere (Notes from Hampstead?) Canetti writes that he ought stop reading anything other than autobiography. If he needed an example, Steiner's Errata may have been the one to quote. It is an autobiography, and as such a lot more readable than all his literary criticism, I am genuinely sorry to say.
To the extent that the book is a kind of "my life among the great works of art", it has its weak parts, too, however: one wishes there were more life and less literature in it. Steiner's digressive discussion of the classic, for example, circles around several good points without making them well -- except perhaps the one about how classics change us, but even that could have been said far more succinctly (and probably does not pick out a classic in the way in which Steiner would like it to do so). "I define a classic thus", says Steiner, and then follows a long and obscure and convoluted discussion which, if presented as a definition in math 101, would flunk the course.
Jeez.
The chapter on Jews and Jewishness is interesting, however, even if its interest lies mainly in Steiner's discussion of Jewish exceptionalism. The Jews, he feels, are an exceptional people.
(Interestingly, Steiner feels the same way about the Greeks, the West, western theater, the cafe-culture, etc. etc. ("Nothing like x anywhere in the world", put for "x" whatever you like). Perhaps his life-long interaction with being exceptionally Jewish has informed his attitudes towards everything?)
The point I would like to make (without hurting anyone's feelings) is that Jews are not exceptional and being Jewish is not an exceptional condition; the idea that the Jews are somehow special is... a kind of optical illusion. First, it is exceptional to be anything - Polish Unitate petty nobility, a descendant of the prophet, a Tutsi. Every person who sees himself as belonging to his tribe first and foremost can't help feeling that his tribe is special and unique and the rest of the world is in some sort of special (usually antagonist) relationship to him. Everyone of us feels that his condition is special and unique and for Steiner to assume this is on account of his Jewishness is silly.
And, secondly, narrowly defined social groups with long-standing religious traditions and endogamous marriage rules are in the old world not an exception but -- a rule. Right off the bat I can name several very similar groups: Gypsies, Karaims, Armenians, Parsis, Banjaras, Rajputs, Sudeten Germans, Transylvanian Saxons, Sikhs, Basques, Polish Tartars, Manchus, Ainus, Japanese Koreans, Alaxandrian Greeks, Sri Lankan Tamils, Kazakhstani Poles, Dalits, Bengali Brahmins (and Catholic Brahmins in Goa), The Amish, South Italian Albanians, Bhils, Tutsis, Ibos, Zulus, Boston Irish, Lemki, Rumelian Turks, West African Ismailis, Qashqa'is, Tekke Turkmen, Kurds, Thai Chinese Muslims, Hmong, Lisu, Akha, Hakka -- must I go on?
True: the Jews can justly claim three thousand year old history of their religious tradition, but Parsis have an equally old one (they use cuneinform script, for Chrissake); as do the Bengali Brahmins (who still carry out Vedic animal sacrifices); Gypsies, Armenians, Paris and Tamils have all lived in their diasporas for a thousand years plus -- and what is the difference between a thousand and three thousand in the history of humanity which stretches perhaps 250,000 years?
True, the Jewish scriptures have had a profound effect on much of the world; but whether this effect has been positive is not as clear to me as it seems to Steiner; and whether he should take pride in it is not clear either: he didn't write the scriptures, after all, someone else did. (The whole premise of being proud of one's ethnicity seems a little silly to me; what does it mean to be proud of being x?)
Nor is Steiner's theory of anti-Semitism (that Jews are hated for having invented superior morals) anything other than feel-good self-stroking.
Romila Thapar's theory of history of inter-group relationships is much closer to the truth: tribes fight until, unable to wipe each other out, they collapse in bloody exhaustion and -- willy nilly -- make peace (in the spirit of Godfather's "I am a reasonable man": the grand mafioso pronounces these words after losing half his family to a war). Then, the peace comes and continues for as long as people who remember the futility of struggle remain among the living; but as soon as the oldest die, the memory dies, and the conflict resumes again. But why, people then say with incredulity. Whence all this warmongering and blood spilling? Have we not lived in peace and harmony for so many hundred years? Well, yes; they have. But they slaughtered each other before that; and before that they had lived in peace; and before that they killed each other.
What I am trying to say is that a tribe does not need to be offended by the demanding morals of another tribe in order to proceed to wipe it out. Wiping each other out is what tribes do. Merely setting oneself up as a tribe automatically generates hostility (theirs against you, yours against them: setting up a tribe means excluding someone, and the excluded per force do not like it). It is therefore the duty of all enlightened men to oppose the creation and maintenance of tribes.
But Steiner's apology for Jewish exceptionalism -- "we are hated because we have invented morals" -- lies squarely in the tradition of tribe-building: to make a tribe one begins by making a nice myth about oneself; then one stokes the feelings of resentment by privileging accounts of past injustice. This sort of conduct is precisely the root of the ethnic problem. How I wish an educated man like Steiner could be enlightened in matters of nationalism, too.
As for me, I refuse to belong to any of my potential tribes: I want all my relationships with other men to be between equals; and this means -- unaffiliated individuals; if you are Ismaili, or Jewish, or Lap -- really and honestly, I do not want to know. Nor ask me what I am, because I am nothing: I am myself, that's all. If I am then killed, at least my killers will not be able to claim to have acted on tribal grounds (and therefore "nobly", because for their nation, or for the love of their country, or their religion, or their race). They will be murderers plain and simple and I will not be part of my nation's eternal hecatomb -- but merely an ordinary dead man.
To the extent that the book is a kind of "my life among the great works of art", it has its weak parts, too, however: one wishes there were more life and less literature in it. Steiner's digressive discussion of the classic, for example, circles around several good points without making them well -- except perhaps the one about how classics change us, but even that could have been said far more succinctly (and probably does not pick out a classic in the way in which Steiner would like it to do so). "I define a classic thus", says Steiner, and then follows a long and obscure and convoluted discussion which, if presented as a definition in math 101, would flunk the course.
Jeez.
*
The chapter on Jews and Jewishness is interesting, however, even if its interest lies mainly in Steiner's discussion of Jewish exceptionalism. The Jews, he feels, are an exceptional people.
(Interestingly, Steiner feels the same way about the Greeks, the West, western theater, the cafe-culture, etc. etc. ("Nothing like x anywhere in the world", put for "x" whatever you like). Perhaps his life-long interaction with being exceptionally Jewish has informed his attitudes towards everything?)
The point I would like to make (without hurting anyone's feelings) is that Jews are not exceptional and being Jewish is not an exceptional condition; the idea that the Jews are somehow special is... a kind of optical illusion. First, it is exceptional to be anything - Polish Unitate petty nobility, a descendant of the prophet, a Tutsi. Every person who sees himself as belonging to his tribe first and foremost can't help feeling that his tribe is special and unique and the rest of the world is in some sort of special (usually antagonist) relationship to him. Everyone of us feels that his condition is special and unique and for Steiner to assume this is on account of his Jewishness is silly.
And, secondly, narrowly defined social groups with long-standing religious traditions and endogamous marriage rules are in the old world not an exception but -- a rule. Right off the bat I can name several very similar groups: Gypsies, Karaims, Armenians, Parsis, Banjaras, Rajputs, Sudeten Germans, Transylvanian Saxons, Sikhs, Basques, Polish Tartars, Manchus, Ainus, Japanese Koreans, Alaxandrian Greeks, Sri Lankan Tamils, Kazakhstani Poles, Dalits, Bengali Brahmins (and Catholic Brahmins in Goa), The Amish, South Italian Albanians, Bhils, Tutsis, Ibos, Zulus, Boston Irish, Lemki, Rumelian Turks, West African Ismailis, Qashqa'is, Tekke Turkmen, Kurds, Thai Chinese Muslims, Hmong, Lisu, Akha, Hakka -- must I go on?
True: the Jews can justly claim three thousand year old history of their religious tradition, but Parsis have an equally old one (they use cuneinform script, for Chrissake); as do the Bengali Brahmins (who still carry out Vedic animal sacrifices); Gypsies, Armenians, Paris and Tamils have all lived in their diasporas for a thousand years plus -- and what is the difference between a thousand and three thousand in the history of humanity which stretches perhaps 250,000 years?
True, the Jewish scriptures have had a profound effect on much of the world; but whether this effect has been positive is not as clear to me as it seems to Steiner; and whether he should take pride in it is not clear either: he didn't write the scriptures, after all, someone else did. (The whole premise of being proud of one's ethnicity seems a little silly to me; what does it mean to be proud of being x?)
Nor is Steiner's theory of anti-Semitism (that Jews are hated for having invented superior morals) anything other than feel-good self-stroking.
Romila Thapar's theory of history of inter-group relationships is much closer to the truth: tribes fight until, unable to wipe each other out, they collapse in bloody exhaustion and -- willy nilly -- make peace (in the spirit of Godfather's "I am a reasonable man": the grand mafioso pronounces these words after losing half his family to a war). Then, the peace comes and continues for as long as people who remember the futility of struggle remain among the living; but as soon as the oldest die, the memory dies, and the conflict resumes again. But why, people then say with incredulity. Whence all this warmongering and blood spilling? Have we not lived in peace and harmony for so many hundred years? Well, yes; they have. But they slaughtered each other before that; and before that they had lived in peace; and before that they killed each other.
What I am trying to say is that a tribe does not need to be offended by the demanding morals of another tribe in order to proceed to wipe it out. Wiping each other out is what tribes do. Merely setting oneself up as a tribe automatically generates hostility (theirs against you, yours against them: setting up a tribe means excluding someone, and the excluded per force do not like it). It is therefore the duty of all enlightened men to oppose the creation and maintenance of tribes.
But Steiner's apology for Jewish exceptionalism -- "we are hated because we have invented morals" -- lies squarely in the tradition of tribe-building: to make a tribe one begins by making a nice myth about oneself; then one stokes the feelings of resentment by privileging accounts of past injustice. This sort of conduct is precisely the root of the ethnic problem. How I wish an educated man like Steiner could be enlightened in matters of nationalism, too.
As for me, I refuse to belong to any of my potential tribes: I want all my relationships with other men to be between equals; and this means -- unaffiliated individuals; if you are Ismaili, or Jewish, or Lap -- really and honestly, I do not want to know. Nor ask me what I am, because I am nothing: I am myself, that's all. If I am then killed, at least my killers will not be able to claim to have acted on tribal grounds (and therefore "nobly", because for their nation, or for the love of their country, or their religion, or their race). They will be murderers plain and simple and I will not be part of my nation's eternal hecatomb -- but merely an ordinary dead man.
Jun 21, 2009
Recent firings
Zobie runs another blog -- the Phosophorus, if you will to Zobenigo's Hesperus -- his daylight, smiling face. (Yes, he has one, or perhaps we should say that he can at least do a good imitation of one). But he runs that blog unprofessionally; ignores comments, has no traffic counter, and, most importantly, uses the side-bar to help him navigate the web, instead of the usual marketing use to which it is put. Finding a new RSS feed to follow and sticking it in there is a joy; but so is pruning the list.
Lately, he pruned.
A website purportedly on Portuguese cultural life whose recent entries covered some PR petition regarding the Great Ukrainian Hunger; and the awfulness of the Air France disaster. Chop. (The reason why I do not watch TV is precisely that I don't want this sort of garbage).
Then the one work a day feed from the Metropolitan - two weeks of uninterrupted, relentless ugliness. Chop. (If they can't do pretty, what is their use in life).
Chop, too, the Cultural Tourist for his warm endorsement of two books (by friend, no doubt) whose goodness lay, he said, in guiding us, readers, through the thicket of literature and advising us which bits to read and which to skip. (Spence, he seemed to suggest, especially).
Now, my uncle once had a record -- a product of America, you will immediately see -- called The World's Most Beautiful Classical Music, which consisted of a daisy chain of 30-second snippets of, in no particular order, the main themes of Eroica's third movement, followed by the main theme of the Persian Market, etc. My uncle thought it was great because one only got the good stuff without the need to waste his time on the dross (modulation, development, coda, etc.).
I should dig it up and send it to Kissel as a gift. I bet he will love it; perhaps even write it up. But I will not have to read it.
Lately, he pruned.
A website purportedly on Portuguese cultural life whose recent entries covered some PR petition regarding the Great Ukrainian Hunger; and the awfulness of the Air France disaster. Chop. (The reason why I do not watch TV is precisely that I don't want this sort of garbage).
Then the one work a day feed from the Metropolitan - two weeks of uninterrupted, relentless ugliness. Chop. (If they can't do pretty, what is their use in life).
Chop, too, the Cultural Tourist for his warm endorsement of two books (by friend, no doubt) whose goodness lay, he said, in guiding us, readers, through the thicket of literature and advising us which bits to read and which to skip. (Spence, he seemed to suggest, especially).
Now, my uncle once had a record -- a product of America, you will immediately see -- called The World's Most Beautiful Classical Music, which consisted of a daisy chain of 30-second snippets of, in no particular order, the main themes of Eroica's third movement, followed by the main theme of the Persian Market, etc. My uncle thought it was great because one only got the good stuff without the need to waste his time on the dross (modulation, development, coda, etc.).
I should dig it up and send it to Kissel as a gift. I bet he will love it; perhaps even write it up. But I will not have to read it.
Jun 20, 2009
Yet more on cars
Not that I should deny anyone the right to spend their money anyway they see fit. Anyone who wants to have a Maierbach is welcome to it. Why, if he can afford to have a Meierbach he can certainly afford to buy it new and even carry a loan on it. I am merely pointing out that buying an expensive, uneconomical, useless car beyond one's means is not a smart economic move.
(But if it gets you the girl, perhaps it works?)
(But if it gets you the girl, perhaps it works?)
Jun 19, 2009
More on cars
Watching a smartly dressed, enterprising man spot a parking space several car lengths back and back up into it decisively in the face of oncoming traffic -- and all within an eye-blink, too -- I could not help being impressed. I also reflected on the difference between being alert and being... smart. The car he drove was clearly too much car: it was a Range Rover SUV, expensive, famously unreliable, uneconomical, and, above all, unnecessary (an SUV -- in Lisbon? It doesn't even rain here). Add difficult to park, too, of course, though perhaps that he considered a benefit, i.e. a stimulating challenge, an opportunity to display.
The smartly dressed, alert looking man had clearly bought the car new (thus turning it into a used car and giving himself a 30% instant capital loss1); and he almost certainly carried a loan on it (what middle class person in Portugal has 30K to put down in cash to buy a car? And, at any rate, a person who can put down 30K in cash for a car does not need to grab aggressively for free parking spaces: I am certain the man carried a loan).2
The car revealed to me almost everything I needed to know about the man's powers of cerebration. But the woman sitting next to him did not see what I saw. She was clearly impressed by his parking-spotting-backing-up skills. (What great genes my babies will have!) She was probably impressed by the car, too. And that's just as well since, if she marries him, she'll be responsible for half the interest on the loan.
Footnotes:
1 Instant destruction of about 13K of capital in the case of a Range Rover SUV.
2 If he carries 50% LTV loan at 10%, he pays 2K a year in interest: more than 200 taxi rides' worth. As a result, he can't take those 200 hundred taxis (while leisurely reading a book in the back) and must drive himself. Hm.
The smartly dressed, alert looking man had clearly bought the car new (thus turning it into a used car and giving himself a 30% instant capital loss1); and he almost certainly carried a loan on it (what middle class person in Portugal has 30K to put down in cash to buy a car? And, at any rate, a person who can put down 30K in cash for a car does not need to grab aggressively for free parking spaces: I am certain the man carried a loan).2
The car revealed to me almost everything I needed to know about the man's powers of cerebration. But the woman sitting next to him did not see what I saw. She was clearly impressed by his parking-spotting-backing-up skills. (What great genes my babies will have!) She was probably impressed by the car, too. And that's just as well since, if she marries him, she'll be responsible for half the interest on the loan.
Footnotes:
1 Instant destruction of about 13K of capital in the case of a Range Rover SUV.
2 If he carries 50% LTV loan at 10%, he pays 2K a year in interest: more than 200 taxi rides' worth. As a result, he can't take those 200 hundred taxis (while leisurely reading a book in the back) and must drive himself. Hm.
Jun 18, 2009
Cars and brains
Zobenigo has not owned a car for decades. When he is in Europe, he lives downtown -- walking distance to most places -- in cities with reliable and convenient public transport. A car -- parking! -- would only be a nuisance here. And in Asia he rides a bike -- a silly squeaky little thing -- a Mr Bean mobile, good for zipping over small distances in the awful traffic of Asia and easy to park anywhere. (And dirt cheap, too). When Zobenigo needs a car, he rents one. As he needs it infrequently, the annualized cost of rental comes out to far below what the costs of maintenance and parking his own car would be. In Zobenigo's case, at least, the economic calculation works clearly against owning a car.
Zobenigo tried to explain it to his friend when she mooted the idea of buying a car herself. But perhaps she has not understood it: she went ahead and bought one. Fine, Zobenigo supposes, there are economic calculations in which owning a car makes sense. But the friend went one step further on the road to middle-class normalcy: she financed her car; and, as it was a used one, she financed it at twenty percent interest. She could have used her own money to buy the car -- there is enough in the bank where she gets 0.25% annually in interest -- taxable -- but she chose to take the car loan instead. Why? One assumes that the seller explained to her the small cost of the loan -- it's only 50 euros a month. But if it is only 50 euros a month, then why does the seller not pay her instead? It's only 50 euros a month!
I happened to be sitting in a cafe in a crowded airport when I thought these thoughts to myself. I looked around me and realized that everyone there owned a car; and nearly everyone carried a car loan.
Later that day I tried to go to a concert; it was at seven and I set out at six. Since I do not usually go out at that time of day, the expedition was a revelation: the traffic jam was fantastic: the most traffic-snarled city of Asia, Bangkok, cannot do better. In thirty minutes my bus covered about five hundred meters. I got out and walked back: the heck with the concert, I'll read a book instead. As I walked, I passed tens of millions of people sitting in their cars, revving their engines and cursing.
Why don't they park somewhere and go into a cafe for a cup of coffee and wait out the traffic jam? I asked myself. Surely, in this traffic it will take them two hours to get to where they are going; but if they simply wait, by eight the roads will be wide open again and the driving will be smooth and quick. Thus, the total time taken to get there will be about the same -- and the experience will be more pleasurable.
Why don't they do it? For the same reason, I suppose, for which they all carry that car loan: brains, it would appear, is not the species strongest suit.
Zobenigo tried to explain it to his friend when she mooted the idea of buying a car herself. But perhaps she has not understood it: she went ahead and bought one. Fine, Zobenigo supposes, there are economic calculations in which owning a car makes sense. But the friend went one step further on the road to middle-class normalcy: she financed her car; and, as it was a used one, she financed it at twenty percent interest. She could have used her own money to buy the car -- there is enough in the bank where she gets 0.25% annually in interest -- taxable -- but she chose to take the car loan instead. Why? One assumes that the seller explained to her the small cost of the loan -- it's only 50 euros a month. But if it is only 50 euros a month, then why does the seller not pay her instead? It's only 50 euros a month!
I happened to be sitting in a cafe in a crowded airport when I thought these thoughts to myself. I looked around me and realized that everyone there owned a car; and nearly everyone carried a car loan.
Later that day I tried to go to a concert; it was at seven and I set out at six. Since I do not usually go out at that time of day, the expedition was a revelation: the traffic jam was fantastic: the most traffic-snarled city of Asia, Bangkok, cannot do better. In thirty minutes my bus covered about five hundred meters. I got out and walked back: the heck with the concert, I'll read a book instead. As I walked, I passed tens of millions of people sitting in their cars, revving their engines and cursing.
Why don't they park somewhere and go into a cafe for a cup of coffee and wait out the traffic jam? I asked myself. Surely, in this traffic it will take them two hours to get to where they are going; but if they simply wait, by eight the roads will be wide open again and the driving will be smooth and quick. Thus, the total time taken to get there will be about the same -- and the experience will be more pleasurable.
Why don't they do it? For the same reason, I suppose, for which they all carry that car loan: brains, it would appear, is not the species strongest suit.
Jun 16, 2009
The other Versailles
Versailles -- pronounced Ver-sigh-ish -- is one of the cult cafes of Lisbon. It was founded in 1922 and has since preserves all of its original art-deco glory: cut crystal, mirrors, polychrome marble pilasters topped with gilt capitals, stained glass a la Mucha (and perhaps it is by Mucha -- since the tall bridge is by Eiffel?), bronze statuary and sconces, polished brass counter - the works. The waiters bus around in ankle-length aprons, bow-ties and green vests complete with pocket watch chains. At tea-time -- which falls here around four o'clock -- one spots here distinguished looking silver-haired ladies, beautifully dressed and immaculately coiffed -- delicately taking their torradas and galoes with bejeweled hands.
But the majority of the clientele -- pretty much to a man all those forty and down -- make for a stark contrast: sweatpants, tank-tops, flip-flops; clothes so bad I should think one would not wear them to I take the trash out. It's an odd thing: the waiters, when they come to Versailles, dress for a cult cafe with great tradition; but the 40-and-down clientele of Versailles appears to be passing through here on their way to the garbage dump.
These are not the underclass, mind you (Versailles ain't cheap). No. This is the new dress code of the European middle class. This is how Germans get up to the philharmonic nowadays: I could not believe my eyes when I first saw it in 2005. Germans? You know, those people who look so well in smart uniforms?
It isn't smart-casual, either. It isn't even casual. It's just really really bad. It is so bad, in fact that it looks like an intentional effort to look awful; and perhaps it is intentional? Perhaps -- goodness me, perhaps it is calculated to have just the effect it does? Perhaps it is meant to... offend?
A French philosopher (one with a special hair-do) might see in this a kind of social demonstration. You, waiters, are so lowly that you must dress well (and smile and call me "sir"); but I am so high up the totem pole (relative to the little you) that I might as well come in my pajamas. (And, look at that lady over there: I think she has!) Coming in in one's pajamas --would this be the unspoken equivalent of calling the helpers "help"?
If so, it does not speak well of them.
Among the many deep and important lessons which I have learned in India was to study people by observing the way they dealt with their servants. (This is a lesson applicable very broadly in India, where nearly everyone has a servant, it seems, and even servants have servants). The employers of decently-dressed servants were invariably the better sort: better off usually, yes, but also and kinder, gentler, more accommodating. They displayed their power, if you wish to be French about it, by being generous with their underlings. But a badly dressed servant always indicated a mean -- though not always poor -- master. This is the wisdom: stay away from men with dirty, poorly dressed servants: their dirt is an index of their master's meanness.
But perhaps in our topsy-turvy world of Europe one has to tweak the wisdom: avoid the men who insist on looking markedly different from their servants (whether better or worse dressed). Insisting on marking clear differences between us and our underlings is a mark of -- well -- meanness: it is a way to emphasize the social divide; and only mean masters do: they do it only because it gives them pleasure to wallow in their thus emphasized superiority. After all, there is no social need for it: the servants always know who they are.
But in the case of the 40-and-under middle class in Versailles, something else seems worth commenting upon: the loss of the pleasure of dressing up.
One of the joys of going to a live concert has always been to me - getting ready for it: washing up and shaving, picking my clothes and tie, selecting the cuff links, polishing the shoes, combing my hair. A kind of foreplay, if you will: it puts me in the mood, it heightens the pleasure. To me, going to Versailles is a little like that too: I dress up and that very act makes the whole afternoon feel special.
It is also indispensable, I find: the pasteis in Versailles aren't all that great: being in the right mood is therefore more than half the pleasure. And here is the point: they, the badly dressed under 40's, do not get the mood effect of dressing up and making a big deal of it. And if that doesn't matter, then mood doesn't matter, then what does the ambiance of the place -- the marble, crystal and gilt -- matter to them? Why bother with Versailles, at all? Would not McDonald's across the street do as well? Why don't they go there?
But the majority of the clientele -- pretty much to a man all those forty and down -- make for a stark contrast: sweatpants, tank-tops, flip-flops; clothes so bad I should think one would not wear them to I take the trash out. It's an odd thing: the waiters, when they come to Versailles, dress for a cult cafe with great tradition; but the 40-and-down clientele of Versailles appears to be passing through here on their way to the garbage dump.
These are not the underclass, mind you (Versailles ain't cheap). No. This is the new dress code of the European middle class. This is how Germans get up to the philharmonic nowadays: I could not believe my eyes when I first saw it in 2005. Germans? You know, those people who look so well in smart uniforms?
It isn't smart-casual, either. It isn't even casual. It's just really really bad. It is so bad, in fact that it looks like an intentional effort to look awful; and perhaps it is intentional? Perhaps -- goodness me, perhaps it is calculated to have just the effect it does? Perhaps it is meant to... offend?
A French philosopher (one with a special hair-do) might see in this a kind of social demonstration. You, waiters, are so lowly that you must dress well (and smile and call me "sir"); but I am so high up the totem pole (relative to the little you) that I might as well come in my pajamas. (And, look at that lady over there: I think she has!) Coming in in one's pajamas --would this be the unspoken equivalent of calling the helpers "help"?
*
If so, it does not speak well of them.
Among the many deep and important lessons which I have learned in India was to study people by observing the way they dealt with their servants. (This is a lesson applicable very broadly in India, where nearly everyone has a servant, it seems, and even servants have servants). The employers of decently-dressed servants were invariably the better sort: better off usually, yes, but also and kinder, gentler, more accommodating. They displayed their power, if you wish to be French about it, by being generous with their underlings. But a badly dressed servant always indicated a mean -- though not always poor -- master. This is the wisdom: stay away from men with dirty, poorly dressed servants: their dirt is an index of their master's meanness.
But perhaps in our topsy-turvy world of Europe one has to tweak the wisdom: avoid the men who insist on looking markedly different from their servants (whether better or worse dressed). Insisting on marking clear differences between us and our underlings is a mark of -- well -- meanness: it is a way to emphasize the social divide; and only mean masters do: they do it only because it gives them pleasure to wallow in their thus emphasized superiority. After all, there is no social need for it: the servants always know who they are.
*
But in the case of the 40-and-under middle class in Versailles, something else seems worth commenting upon: the loss of the pleasure of dressing up.
One of the joys of going to a live concert has always been to me - getting ready for it: washing up and shaving, picking my clothes and tie, selecting the cuff links, polishing the shoes, combing my hair. A kind of foreplay, if you will: it puts me in the mood, it heightens the pleasure. To me, going to Versailles is a little like that too: I dress up and that very act makes the whole afternoon feel special.
It is also indispensable, I find: the pasteis in Versailles aren't all that great: being in the right mood is therefore more than half the pleasure. And here is the point: they, the badly dressed under 40's, do not get the mood effect of dressing up and making a big deal of it. And if that doesn't matter, then mood doesn't matter, then what does the ambiance of the place -- the marble, crystal and gilt -- matter to them? Why bother with Versailles, at all? Would not McDonald's across the street do as well? Why don't they go there?
Jun 10, 2009
Serkin sucks
Rudolf Serkin, piano and wind quintets of Mozart and Beethoven: goodness gracious, I had no idea that Mozart and Beethoven could be played this badly. I have certainly lived a sheltered life: I have not studied music and therefore have not had the opportunity to listen to beginners torture their instruments; and the wonder of air travel and internet shopping have insulated me against all performances save those deemed very best. I simply did not know what was possible. What is, indeed, the -- usual?!
Jun 2, 2009
Hummel
Hummel, Johann Nepomuk, Piano Quintet, by Trio Wanderer and friends. Priceless. Seven times in a row this afternoon and now again to bed. The great sensitivity to music occasioned by the Yundi Li concert continues. I am at some kind of a plateau, coasting. Please, keep it up, whoever you are.
Jun 1, 2009
A mystery
I have told two migraine-tormented friends about the nose-drop cure. ( It is really quite miraculous: I have not had a migraine in years; the only time I have a headache these days is when I drink too much red wine).
But neither of my friends has tried it.
A mystery.
I really ought to make a note to myself not offer advice again: it's waste of breath. Better use that same breath to whistle. Hummel, for example.
But neither of my friends has tried it.
A mystery.
I really ought to make a note to myself not offer advice again: it's waste of breath. Better use that same breath to whistle. Hummel, for example.
May 31, 2009
Oriente, Lisboa
The Museu d'Oriente has a rich, well organized, well-labeled collection; it's also at the end of the world across three wrong sets of tracks and therefore real hell to get to; and in a building which makes me sick (it's a converted factory, all reinforced concrete, sloping ramps and delivery size elevators).
It also has a gift shop which is not just ridiculously priced -- they buy for 3 euros and sell for 36 -- and full of utter and total junk -- not a single item of any value at all - but it is also all wrong: the Asian outfits are not Asian, Burmese "laquerware" is plastic, the cabinet with tea-pots, helpfully inscribed "China" -- has not a single Chinese item in it and the tea implements are worse than useless. The museum does a good job popularizing some aspects of Asia; but its gift shop completely undoes it all. I am entertained -- i can't help laughing outloud at some of the shop items -- but also shocked. Is the really allowed to do this? Is this not a violation of some kind of principle?
While waiting for my show I saw a documentary on Goa -- with three acquaintances in it. Mario looked younger and healthier than I remember him; perhaps it predated my stay, it was somehow cleaner than I remember it.
The shindig was Bharatnatyam by Saju George, the Dancing Jesuit; not the greatest BN I have seen, Saju also tired towards the end of the first half and began to lose balance; still, for a priest -- I mean, an amateur -- he was really remarkably good, even excellent. For a moment I had a spell of aesthetic delight.
Coming back by way of a fancy restaurant where overpriced vegetarian food is served in thalis, I noted that, it being Friday night, it was time for Oriental Dance; it wasn't Bharatnatyam, though, as the thali has always suggested to me, but North African belly dance; except it wasn't that either: it was a pretty lame ad lib by someone who has clearly not even taken lessons. That someone was pretty and was clearly having fun; she caught my glance through the window; she gave me was a pixish smirk; she was enjoying herself -- the fraud perhaps more than anything else. She was clearly English -- a tourist perhaps or a student -- it's such an English joke; and such a English smirk.
It also has a gift shop which is not just ridiculously priced -- they buy for 3 euros and sell for 36 -- and full of utter and total junk -- not a single item of any value at all - but it is also all wrong: the Asian outfits are not Asian, Burmese "laquerware" is plastic, the cabinet with tea-pots, helpfully inscribed "China" -- has not a single Chinese item in it and the tea implements are worse than useless. The museum does a good job popularizing some aspects of Asia; but its gift shop completely undoes it all. I am entertained -- i can't help laughing outloud at some of the shop items -- but also shocked. Is the really allowed to do this? Is this not a violation of some kind of principle?
While waiting for my show I saw a documentary on Goa -- with three acquaintances in it. Mario looked younger and healthier than I remember him; perhaps it predated my stay, it was somehow cleaner than I remember it.
The shindig was Bharatnatyam by Saju George, the Dancing Jesuit; not the greatest BN I have seen, Saju also tired towards the end of the first half and began to lose balance; still, for a priest -- I mean, an amateur -- he was really remarkably good, even excellent. For a moment I had a spell of aesthetic delight.
*
Coming back by way of a fancy restaurant where overpriced vegetarian food is served in thalis, I noted that, it being Friday night, it was time for Oriental Dance; it wasn't Bharatnatyam, though, as the thali has always suggested to me, but North African belly dance; except it wasn't that either: it was a pretty lame ad lib by someone who has clearly not even taken lessons. That someone was pretty and was clearly having fun; she caught my glance through the window; she gave me was a pixish smirk; she was enjoying herself -- the fraud perhaps more than anything else. She was clearly English -- a tourist perhaps or a student -- it's such an English joke; and such a English smirk.
May 30, 2009
Monsieur Teste
Goethe, old soul, feels sorry to have no time for me. He shouldn't: he has a busy life and I don't really fit into it. Of course, this is how it is with all my would be friends: they have families and jobs and I do not; this means two things: first, they have a lot less time for me than I do for them. And, second, it also means that I have little to contribute to their lives: as a networking resource I am worse than useless: I can't ever help them find a nanny or introduce a client. So while a part of me wants to say that by not finding time for me they are missing something, the truth is -- they are not really missing anything important. What can possibly be important about discussing South Indian dance drama or the end of literature? The opposite is also true: my friends have little to say that I am interested in hearing. What interests me -- the end of literature, South Indian dance drama -- especially as they can be seen in each other's light -- well, my friends don't know the first thing about any of it, do they.
May 27, 2009
Enough of the wishy-washy peace-loving non-violent BS
Zobenigo does not normally comment on news but this time the news is such a heart-warming bit that he will make an exception.
1) Non-violent religions are for woosies. (One does not carry around swords -- one of the five precepts of Sikkhism -- for picking his teeth with them, eh?).
2) Clearly, as I argued here only 2 days ago, Indian immigrants revive the lost European custom of treating religion with the respect and commitment it deserves. Surely, Jean Raspail ought to approve.
3) The conflict is caste-based. Sikhism is of course famously caste-free (which had made it expand so rapidly in the first place: dalits were joining in droves to get rid of untouchability). Or is it? The preacher in question was low-caste and dissed the Holy Granth -- presumably by touching it, I assume. If you ever wondered whether high-sounding religious precepts could just possibly be bullsh*t, here's your proof.
(I am NOT dissing Sikkhism: the other non-caste religions -- Islam, Catholicism -- fare identically in India; they really are all the same).
4) Alas, even Sikhs are not spared globalization: Violent protests in Punjab after Vienna clash
Y-yes! Enough of the wishy-washy peace-loving non-violent BS!
1) Non-violent religions are for woosies. (One does not carry around swords -- one of the five precepts of Sikkhism -- for picking his teeth with them, eh?).
2) Clearly, as I argued here only 2 days ago, Indian immigrants revive the lost European custom of treating religion with the respect and commitment it deserves. Surely, Jean Raspail ought to approve.
3) The conflict is caste-based. Sikhism is of course famously caste-free (which had made it expand so rapidly in the first place: dalits were joining in droves to get rid of untouchability). Or is it? The preacher in question was low-caste and dissed the Holy Granth -- presumably by touching it, I assume. If you ever wondered whether high-sounding religious precepts could just possibly be bullsh*t, here's your proof.
(I am NOT dissing Sikkhism: the other non-caste religions -- Islam, Catholicism -- fare identically in India; they really are all the same).
4) Alas, even Sikhs are not spared globalization: Violent protests in Punjab after Vienna clash
May 26, 2009
Senstive days
Listening to music is not the same every day of life. Some days seem better for it than others.
Who can tell just why? The air-pressure or humidity affect the brain one way; alcohol and nicotine another. Just the right amount of sleep; just the right amount of stress (key: manageable); perhaps a little beet salad in the afternoon; a coffee intentionally not taken; some stroking of the skin, preferrably by a beautiful woman but a stiff breeze off the bay will do in a pinch. Who knows what else?
But there are days when one finds himself especially sensitive to music; then Ivo playing Chopin preludes, or Emerson playing Shostak No. 8, or Argerich the Prokof toccata work a specially intense magic and one is breathless, gasping, amazed, lost in the intense, confusing solid gold brocade of sound, writhing with strong intellectual pleasure. These recordings are always good, of course, but it is only at times like tonight that I get into this stuff this much. Luckily - or perhaps unluckily - these days do not happen too often: several times a year at most. Good sex -- for all I am inclined to say about the quality of commonly available sex -- seems easier to arrange.
Who can tell just why? The air-pressure or humidity affect the brain one way; alcohol and nicotine another. Just the right amount of sleep; just the right amount of stress (key: manageable); perhaps a little beet salad in the afternoon; a coffee intentionally not taken; some stroking of the skin, preferrably by a beautiful woman but a stiff breeze off the bay will do in a pinch. Who knows what else?
But there are days when one finds himself especially sensitive to music; then Ivo playing Chopin preludes, or Emerson playing Shostak No. 8, or Argerich the Prokof toccata work a specially intense magic and one is breathless, gasping, amazed, lost in the intense, confusing solid gold brocade of sound, writhing with strong intellectual pleasure. These recordings are always good, of course, but it is only at times like tonight that I get into this stuff this much. Luckily - or perhaps unluckily - these days do not happen too often: several times a year at most. Good sex -- for all I am inclined to say about the quality of commonly available sex -- seems easier to arrange.
May 25, 2009
Psst, don't tell the Poles
When I first heard Szymanowski's violin concerto No. 1 (1916) -- some 15 years ago -- I was delighted by it, though possibly less by the music itself (since it did not become part of my regular listening repertoire) but more by the strong sensation that one needed to listen to it differently, with a different part of the brain as it were, different from that part, that is, which one normally uses to listen to classical and romantic music. (Perhaps my discovery of Szymanowski was made possible by the fact that by then I had considerable experience listening with another part of the brain, so to speak, to Japanese classical music). Now, as I listen to Prokofiev's violin concerto No. 1 (1915), I realize how derivative Szymanowski's concerto really is -- 'directly inspired' - and how much less interesting. But don't tell the Poles.
May 24, 2009
The cognitive dissonance of Jean Raspail
The reasons for the popularity of Le Camp des saints are easy enough to decode. Here's the novel's synopsis from the usual place:
THE OYPA seems a weird beast to me since I have spent all my life being bored with the familiar and seeking out out the exotic as its antidote. I welcome Asian immigration on several grounds: first, the wonderfully zany Indians seem a million times more interesting to me than the predictable familiar boring French, whom I have no reason to love anyway; certainly, on average, Pakistani women are prettier than the English; the food they bring is more tasty; etc.
I therefore cannot fit into my head: why would not everyone else feel the same way?
Yet, years of interacting with human beings have taught me that most appear to have their heads screwed on the other way round which means that they ceaselessly seek the safety of the familiar, prefering boredom over excitement any time of day. I continue not to empathize with this odd mental condition, but have learned to accept for a fact that they do.
(But here is an interesting thought: how comes it that the Kaiser (the author of the OYPA) should function as a philosophical authority for the same Polish and French intellectuals whose sympathies are otherwise pro-Entente and anti-German? Hate the Germans, but love their xenophobia? How weird can you get?)
What is more interesting about Jean Raspail's brain is that it appears to be internally split: while writing his Dantean yellow perilist visions about foreigners flooding (and destroying) good old France, he simultaneously writes other books of scathing criticism of the very same modern France as a rotten perversion of its former self. He is a monarchist to the core and writes movingly about the spark of divinity which resides in the person of the king; his inviolability and irreplaceability; the dire consequences of regicide; the lack of proper legitimacy in the person of a merely elected President; lack of authority; lack of respect for authority; etc. This is not merely a political fantasy: Jean Raspail senses that there is something deeply and fundamentally rotten about modern French (and, more generally, European) culture (about which he is probably right) and seeks its causes in the abolition of the monarchy two hundred years ago (I withhold my opinion).
But then he defends that very same rotten France against subversion by foreigners. Why? If France is rotten, then, heck, why not let it sink?
This is known to psychologists as cognitive dissonance.
Let me take this argument further: had Jean Raspail bothered to read anything about Indians he would have discovered how attached they are to their ancient traditions; how underacined they therefore are; and how much more deserving of his love and admiration they are on these grounds than the modern-day French. Indians are a traditional, conservative, feudal people; they respect tradition, religion, authority, primogeniture, kingship, family values; Jean Raspail should pray that they take over France soonest so that he can finally live among his kind of people at last.
The story begins in Bombay, India, where the Dutch government has announced a policy that Indian babies will be adopted and raised in the Netherlands. The policy is reversed when the Dutch consulate is inundated with parents eager to give up their infant children as it would be one less mouth to feed. An Indian "wise man" then rallies the masses to make a mass exodus to live in Europe. Most of the story centers on the French Riviera, where almost no one remains except for the military and a few civilians, including a retired professor who has been watching the huge fleet of run down freighters approaching the French coast. The story alternates between the French reaction to the mass immigration and the attitude of the immigrants. They have no desire to assimilate into French culture but want the plentiful food and water that are in short supply their native India. Near the end of the story the mayor of New York City is made to share Gracie Mansion with three families from Harlem, the Queen of England must agree to have her son marry a Pakistani woman, and only one drunken Soviet soldier stands in the way of thousands of Chinese people as they swarm into Siberia.In short, it's the OYPA -- the old yellow peril alarm -- all over again.
THE OYPA seems a weird beast to me since I have spent all my life being bored with the familiar and seeking out out the exotic as its antidote. I welcome Asian immigration on several grounds: first, the wonderfully zany Indians seem a million times more interesting to me than the predictable familiar boring French, whom I have no reason to love anyway; certainly, on average, Pakistani women are prettier than the English; the food they bring is more tasty; etc.
I therefore cannot fit into my head: why would not everyone else feel the same way?
Yet, years of interacting with human beings have taught me that most appear to have their heads screwed on the other way round which means that they ceaselessly seek the safety of the familiar, prefering boredom over excitement any time of day. I continue not to empathize with this odd mental condition, but have learned to accept for a fact that they do.
(But here is an interesting thought: how comes it that the Kaiser (the author of the OYPA) should function as a philosophical authority for the same Polish and French intellectuals whose sympathies are otherwise pro-Entente and anti-German? Hate the Germans, but love their xenophobia? How weird can you get?)
What is more interesting about Jean Raspail's brain is that it appears to be internally split: while writing his Dantean yellow perilist visions about foreigners flooding (and destroying) good old France, he simultaneously writes other books of scathing criticism of the very same modern France as a rotten perversion of its former self. He is a monarchist to the core and writes movingly about the spark of divinity which resides in the person of the king; his inviolability and irreplaceability; the dire consequences of regicide; the lack of proper legitimacy in the person of a merely elected President; lack of authority; lack of respect for authority; etc. This is not merely a political fantasy: Jean Raspail senses that there is something deeply and fundamentally rotten about modern French (and, more generally, European) culture (about which he is probably right) and seeks its causes in the abolition of the monarchy two hundred years ago (I withhold my opinion).
But then he defends that very same rotten France against subversion by foreigners. Why? If France is rotten, then, heck, why not let it sink?
This is known to psychologists as cognitive dissonance.
Let me take this argument further: had Jean Raspail bothered to read anything about Indians he would have discovered how attached they are to their ancient traditions; how underacined they therefore are; and how much more deserving of his love and admiration they are on these grounds than the modern-day French. Indians are a traditional, conservative, feudal people; they respect tradition, religion, authority, primogeniture, kingship, family values; Jean Raspail should pray that they take over France soonest so that he can finally live among his kind of people at last.
May 23, 2009
Her name is admirable
In one of those moments of retrospection which I have now had several times these past couple years (a clear sign that I am getting on and am no longer wasting time on imagining limitless possibilities of the future since I have learned to predict it and budget for it so very reliably) I was reflecting this morning on a person I once knew. I knew her for many years and quite intimately; yet it is only now that we have not seen each other for many years that I notice things about her which I now realize were quite ugly. To put it short, I suppose, I would have to say that my friend was greedy in the word's most ordinary, vulgar sense: she was consumed by an intense desire for money and property plain and simple.
This impression was tempered by the generosity which she showed towards her children; but this, too -- and I did not realize it then -- was really a measure of her greed: she simply did not distinguish between her and her children. Acquiring on behalf of her children was therefore an extension of acquiring for herself. She seemed generous towards me, too, but that generosity was not really generous: my friend was not giving me gifts, she was buying something she wanted: my friendship.
Throughout our association I could see signs -- behaviors and reactions in my friend-- which disturbed me, yet I was somehow able to overlook them, disguise them from myself. (Sex is a great coloring agent). I liked her and for this reason blamed what I saw on my own misperception -- I must have misobserved, I thought -- or extenuating circumstances -- perhaps she was tired, etc. Overall, I suppose, I was less blind about my friend and for a shorter period of time than I was about my mother: perhaps life has taught me something then, perhaps I have made progress.
One hopes, of course, that one can be even more astute in one's social engagements in the future; but given the nature and quality of my experience with family and friends -- the statistics are not encouraging -- it would perhaps be wiser not to bother with further engagements in the first place.
This impression was tempered by the generosity which she showed towards her children; but this, too -- and I did not realize it then -- was really a measure of her greed: she simply did not distinguish between her and her children. Acquiring on behalf of her children was therefore an extension of acquiring for herself. She seemed generous towards me, too, but that generosity was not really generous: my friend was not giving me gifts, she was buying something she wanted: my friendship.
Throughout our association I could see signs -- behaviors and reactions in my friend-- which disturbed me, yet I was somehow able to overlook them, disguise them from myself. (Sex is a great coloring agent). I liked her and for this reason blamed what I saw on my own misperception -- I must have misobserved, I thought -- or extenuating circumstances -- perhaps she was tired, etc. Overall, I suppose, I was less blind about my friend and for a shorter period of time than I was about my mother: perhaps life has taught me something then, perhaps I have made progress.
One hopes, of course, that one can be even more astute in one's social engagements in the future; but given the nature and quality of my experience with family and friends -- the statistics are not encouraging -- it would perhaps be wiser not to bother with further engagements in the first place.
May 22, 2009
Brief introspection regarding jazz
Jazz bores and irritates me and the aestheticist in me would like to know why. Alas, the following observations will have to remain superficial since, in order to understand the matter properly, I would have to hear a lot more Jazz than I possibly can manage to get through. I am not sufficiently dedicated to the question to put myself through the exercise. The following remarks are therefore trivial; you should probably skip this post.
The irritating bit has two prongs: the first is the matter of the building blocks of the music: like all improvised music it consists of standardized elements -- "lego blocks" -- which one shuffles around -- and I do not like them; this may be merely a matter of cultural association -- they seem perceptibly American to me; but it could perhaps be argued that they are in fact not as interesting as the lego blocks of its older improvised siblings, maquams and raagas. (Consider the rather narrow range of rhythmic options available to the Jazz base section and compare them to the immense variety of tals).
(Certainly the lego blocks out of which raaga's are built are more interesting to European ears on account of being "exotic" -- that is novel, or previously unheard; but, given the amount of time I have spent in India and the amount of exposure I have had to classical Indian music, novelty is clearly not the source of my pleasure in the Indian elements; something else must be; complexity, color and steepness and convolution of melodic line may be some of the answers).
The second bit is the snobbishness surrounding Jazz' status as an improvised art form. This notion is romantic -- "great art reveals something deep about us" -- and as such deeply ingrained in heavily schooled minds; but the truth is that most of us do not have an interior interesting enough to make for an interesting subject of artistic production. The truth about improvisation is that most of it is too dull to stand on its own legs; which is why fellows like Bach and Chopin -- well known in their days for their improvisatory skills -- insisted on composing.
And thus we arrive at the dull bit. There is no such thing as free improvisation: all improvisation follows some sort of rules; the rules observed in Indian classical music are very complex; this has many positive results, one of which is to impose a structure on the concert (basically, that of an accelerando); another is to make artists aware of the need to discuss and agree a plan ahead of time. Jazz performances appear to lack this kind of coherence. Perhaps there are not sufficient rules in jazz to require a structurally coherent work to emerge.
Which leaves me with the odd question why so many European practitioners of western classical music take an active interest in jazz. I suppose the answer to that must be that it feels nice to play jazz.
Surely, playing jazz must feel nicer than listening to it does.
The irritating bit has two prongs: the first is the matter of the building blocks of the music: like all improvised music it consists of standardized elements -- "lego blocks" -- which one shuffles around -- and I do not like them; this may be merely a matter of cultural association -- they seem perceptibly American to me; but it could perhaps be argued that they are in fact not as interesting as the lego blocks of its older improvised siblings, maquams and raagas. (Consider the rather narrow range of rhythmic options available to the Jazz base section and compare them to the immense variety of tals).
(Certainly the lego blocks out of which raaga's are built are more interesting to European ears on account of being "exotic" -- that is novel, or previously unheard; but, given the amount of time I have spent in India and the amount of exposure I have had to classical Indian music, novelty is clearly not the source of my pleasure in the Indian elements; something else must be; complexity, color and steepness and convolution of melodic line may be some of the answers).
The second bit is the snobbishness surrounding Jazz' status as an improvised art form. This notion is romantic -- "great art reveals something deep about us" -- and as such deeply ingrained in heavily schooled minds; but the truth is that most of us do not have an interior interesting enough to make for an interesting subject of artistic production. The truth about improvisation is that most of it is too dull to stand on its own legs; which is why fellows like Bach and Chopin -- well known in their days for their improvisatory skills -- insisted on composing.
And thus we arrive at the dull bit. There is no such thing as free improvisation: all improvisation follows some sort of rules; the rules observed in Indian classical music are very complex; this has many positive results, one of which is to impose a structure on the concert (basically, that of an accelerando); another is to make artists aware of the need to discuss and agree a plan ahead of time. Jazz performances appear to lack this kind of coherence. Perhaps there are not sufficient rules in jazz to require a structurally coherent work to emerge.
Which leaves me with the odd question why so many European practitioners of western classical music take an active interest in jazz. I suppose the answer to that must be that it feels nice to play jazz.
Surely, playing jazz must feel nicer than listening to it does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)