Sturm und Drang in Mozart

Sturm und Drang (German: "Storm and Urge", although usually translated as "Storm and Stress") was a European artistic and philosophical movement which ran counter to the Enlightenment rationalism of the times. It ran from 1776 (though it can be traced back as far as the 1760's) when it first appeared in common usage, through the early 1800's. Sturm und Drang is actually a better term to describe all the “classical” music which followed it commonly known as “romantic” music today, because counter to the false notion implied by the word romantic; i. e. fictional, Sturm und Drang represented an attempt at emotional realism, focused at an individual and personal level, which the movement's proponents considered to be neglected by the schools of “enlightened” rationalism, empiricism, and universalism.

A perennial favourite of mine is this piano piece by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791) called the Fantasy and Fugue in C Major K394, which was written in 1782, clearly within the influence of Sturm und Drang. Almost all of Mozart's music is catalogued with what some have called K numbers, the more learned call them Köchel [KUR-shel] numbers after the man who created them, the Austrian musicologist Ludwig Ritter von Köchel (1800-1877).

Mozart was among the most prolific composers. He probably dashed this out, or as was more likely ... was just taking dictation, as few of his original manuscripts show any corrections of any kind. I want that point to sink in. Mozart was also clearly ambidextrous, able to use each hand independently of the other, as was demonstrated on many occasions, one good example being while sitting on a terrace behind a café in Linz, writing music with his left hand while writing a letter to his father with his right.

The date of this particular work, 1782, places Mozart in Vienna and established as a composer there; during the time he was being paid in solid gold snuff boxes if one remembers rightly from that mix of urban legends, etc. made of his life called Amadeus. He was already world famous before his big arrival in Vienna in 1781. From this point in his career, Mozart would have but nine years to live and would compose most of his greatest works within a span of ten years. I'd like that point to sink in too, because when one contemplates Mozart, there is just so much of it, a veritable ocean of music that literally poured through him. There's never been and probably never will again be another Mozart.

That being said, you will hear things under the strict playing of the inimitable Glenn Gould that you'd likely miss or take in another way, especially in the fugue. More than anything else I have always believed that this piece represents Mozart drawing directly from nature, especially in the mathematical games he plays with turns in the tonality; what are often called harmonic progressions, or episodic series. In the Fantasy you can imagine scenes from a country setting, perhaps the day is fair interrupted by an occasional pelting of rain or hail, or there is something arduous being done, perhaps something to do with animals, horses maybe, anything at all your mind can imagine. This is not music about anything in particular.

With the fugue Mozart is offering, as it were, a toast to the great Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) who was and is in “classical” music's sense of it, everyone's musical grandfather. But Mozart takes the fugue into harmonic territories Bach seldom dreamed of. This is truly modern music in ways that Bach was not. As usual, I have a few criticisms of Gould's interpretation, but one has to admit that he makes the work cohesive. And there are contours, more geometric games with the harmonic progressions which leap out at you, which can only be achieved if one plays the piece at this galloping gait of his.

Featured: Glenn Gould's performances on You Tube

Fantasy 

Fugue 

FINIS

Sixth Interview – Of Time, Times and The Times

Kanye West, Lets Have a Toast Runaway

"I went upstairs to my room, but I was not alone there. I could hear someone mellifluously playing Schumann. No doubt it happens sometimes that people, even those whom we love best, become permeated with the gloom or irritation that emanates from us. There is however an inanimate object which is capable of a power of exasperation to which no human being will ever attain, to wit, a piano."

Marcel Proust

Cities of the Plain

Chapter Two

We've made it to Spring, 2011 and you have finally decided to make a trip back down to New York at the end of this month.

Yes.

You plan on going straight to piano row once you get there?

Yes. I kind of would like to take in a museum too, but we'll see. I'll only be there a few hours, then back home. Anyone who wants to meet up with me can contact me at dpbmss@aol.com.

OK. You're still reading Proust …

… and other things …

… and still practising?

Of course.

Nevertheless, you find your piano exasperating.

Even were my piano among the better ones it would be, but I put that Proust quote up to give pianists some idea of one of the most common obstacles to attaining pianism; the dislike for piano among others who have to endure a pianist's practise sessions.

Yes, that's a problem some think they've solved with electronic keyboards. You don't really agree though.

No, I don't, but then again my practise sessions may be quite different from others'. Any musician must rely on their memory one way or another, either the music is written out down to the individual grace note, or it is “charted” or is of some universal form, like a blues. It all requires some non-distracted memory. If playing with others, the musician has to know when to play and how to play and memory is always involved. As long as a musician plays with the intention of being heard by others, they will use their memory. When their memory fails a musician, intuition can sometimes pose “creative” solutions, and most people probably wouldn't know the difference in the music anyway …

Why is that?

Because they aren't usually listening hard enough to catch it.

Will they know if a musician blows it or if the performance …

Sucks? Yes, they'll know. If they don't know the music; what to expect next, they'll just experience a temporary disappointment, and may not even know why or even care to know.

Music for them is …

Ephemeral; it isn't really a prime concern, just something to do or something to keep the non-committed mind occupied while doing something else.

That's what music is to most people?

Apparently.

So your practise sessions …

… often have to coincide with others not being around. And then there's the other problem, they may not like what you play.

You have that problem?

Yes, of course and it shouldn't be too surprising. Many find the music I play “too pretty” or even worse.

You would perhaps like to be playing more popular styles?

If I wanted to play them, I would learn how, either with a teacher or on my own. I have enough technique to grasp a lot of it at least in theory. But none of it is really me, so I don't. And even so, some of the music I play now isn't really me.

For instance?

Well Chopin is really a different style from say J. S. Bach. I'd say that Bach was a lot closer to “me” than Chopin.

You could play whatever you want, I don't really get it?

You mean why try and play Chopin? Because he was really the first composer dedicated to the piano and his achievements are associated with the instrument in many inescapable ways. Most people recognise his music immediately and like it. It's like learning anything, you have to master certain techniques to fully appreciate playing piano. Chopin was in his day a great piano teacher and he still is; if you really want to learn how to play the piano, you must master some elements of Chopin and make them sound convincing or accomplished. That's one possible goal to attain pianism; learn to play a few pieces by Chopin.

But others who might be bothered by your practising and your music have their music which you no doubt have heard.

Of course.

You wanted to say something about this?

Well, I'll start with something Andrew Violette told me years ago, something about class and musicianship; that most people tended to expect musicians to be from a lower class background than themselves, that it would have been unthinkable for a prince back in the day or these days for a corporate mogul, to commission any original musical work from a person of his own class.

You still think this idea has legs?

Look around, check out what we have now. We have a lot of different kinds of popular music these days. But it all has something in common. Every bit of it is projecting values from social strata that are below the level of the average American, European or Asian middle class, expressing a preference among the “market” for musical forms and styles, for what I'd pretentiously term the “sub-bourgeois.” This applies to all so called “world music” too, which is music usually from some local aboriginal group which again lives below the level of the average middle class from any of the first world countries.

You're saying that this preference for … low class music is …

It's largely unconscious, but it's part of a longer historical process. The other books I'm reading these days are history, particularly from the late Middle Ages into the present time.

You said you were making a study of the history of financial institutions.

Yes. I'm also trying to see historical events and developments from different perspectives than the rosy “progressive” slant they were given by my American “public school” education. Most people just blithely and thoughtlessly digest whatever attitudes, perspectives and outlooks they got from their teachers, while a few of us, who are often fated to be regarded as obdurate, obtuse or recalcitrant, or in my case profoundly sceptical and unconvertably cynical, must continue to ask why and demand to see things form different perspectives.

So, what lately … (much laughter)

Let's begin with the Renaissance as a huge misnomer. They weren't waking up from anything to anything else. In many ways the world is still asleep. We're in the same mess today that our ancestors were in the 16^th century; war upon senseless war, regime after regime going into stupendous debt and declaring bankruptcy, the common people insensible to what was going on and being dragged along by events. There has been material and technical progress since then, especially concerning the means to kill more people faster and destroy more of the earth's surface faster. There are many more of us than there were then too …

… and some still think there are too many …

… and the people are essentially the same kinds of people in charge back then, with many of the same attitudes ...

So there's been no real progress?

Materially and technically, yes. Otherwise, no.

And this surprises you?

No, not really. The other day I saw something on You Tube where someone was asking people in the street if they knew the news facts of today and they didn't know any of them about their own country, let alone the rest of the world. Should I dare ask the embarrassing question here about WHY we should be paying for public schools that produce this shoddy level of performance? Or was that intended all along? Should I perhaps ask why people don't want to know the correct answers? Because it wouldn't matter to them if they did? Should I ask why they don't care about not knowing? Should I ask why they would be content with the rude “bread and circuses” the great republic turned empire (without their consent but certainly while they were kept sleeping and didn't ask why) is doling out to them?

… and the music they listen to …

… is part of the big picture and it agrees with Andrew's point about music and class consciousness; people want music and musicians to express an even lower level of social status than their already pretty abysmally low level.

They don't care about the smut that is part of the rap scene.

No, and why should they? They can and do usually just laugh at it. It gives them someone or something they can look down on whether consciously or not.

And so all the popular music is like this?

For the most part, yes. Even though, and this is really sort of interesting, most of the popular music of today shows evidence of great precision and intention, particularly evident in the percussive effects.

Those may all be mechanical or created by mixing sound tracks on a computer.

Well, we can all look down on computers as having lower social status than ourselves.

(Laughter)

You said that this social status thing has all sorts of resonance in other areas of our lives.

It certainly seems to. Look we're in a worldwide depression that is being fought by those who are in control of the financial institutions who are afraid of being found out. If the average dumbed down person in the street knew, and some do only dimly, then those in charge fear they might be toppled from power.

And replaced by who?

Very good question. But in the meantime the average Joe knowing little or nothing about what's really going on way above his head can feel content to look down on someone else; some scumbag with billions of dollars is still essentially “lower class” than he and his six pack swilling friends with barely passing high school educations. They already consider everyone else below their own dignity except raw power, “the man” with his tazer or other implements of pain or destruction.

So this isn't really a good time for eh, “serious” music.

I don't believe any particular time has been really great for it. It's just that here and there in Europe and to a lesser degree elsewhere, once in a while, out of a culture that supported it, a few talented musicians were encouraged and provided with enough money to get them to produce what we have today as the miracle of so called “classical” music. How it manages to continue amounts to a “religious” effort among the “interested.”

And you can't get people interested if they aren't interested.

Which is why when they do get interested, it's usually like a religious experience; something awakens in them. If they aren't aware of it, then develop the thirst for knowing more, they may hear something and it only sounds “pretty” or “antique” or in whatever way not modern, current or popular.

And anyway all that's popular is only of limited interest to its audience.

Someone else I know said they don't listen to music by people who have died.

That would certainly cut out everything you play.  (laughs)

Yeah. It would. But I want to drop another bombshell of sorts having to do with the foregoing argument concerning music and musicians as traditionally looked down upon. The argument doesn't just apply to music.

It applied to the English as a nation from the time of Purcell (1659-1695) to Edward Elgar (1857-1934).

Well they were importing everything including their kings from elsewhere. Perhaps they admire the institution (which they put back up after tearing it down) whilst they look down upon those currently bearing its titles. It's possible.

You're stretching this to apply to human relations aren't you?

Well look around and what do you see? A lot of people are with people who are beneath them in dignity and attainments. They even seek them out. Some even set themselves up as persons of lesser social status just to get dates. Often the very good looking or well accomplished are among the loneliest.

They may not want the association of their equals. Too predictable, too boring.

Exactly. The people of lower orders, which would be the vast majority in their many faceted ways, are often more interesting and less threatening than those at one's own level. One looks up to those from whom one expects to gain something, and looks down to those from whom less is required. It gets weird when those one looks up to are worse than those one looks down upon.

You're saying everyone does it.

Giving some people more esteem and respect than others? It's done all the time. Watching people do it is highly instructive. The higher socially one goes, the more absurd the ingratiating becomes too. Nobody is sincere up there.  It is seen all the time in great corporations, large organizations, governments, academe, etc.

Well one can't just stand there and say nothing.

Indeed and the habitually silent among us often risk pejorative labels as sneaks, underhanded or back-stabbers, whether they are or not. It's always best to say something.

So an ingratiating comment …

… is something to say in the hope of getting something beneficial from someone above yourself in social status. That could even include being otherwise left alone.

Yes. OK, well what about electronic keyboards for being left alone while practising?

They just aren't the real thing. Most don't even play like the real thing, with all its peculiarly exasperating qualities. Pull the plug and they're off. No electricity and you're without a piano. No, I own one, a good one, and I never use it. The piano I own, limited as it is, is still a piano.

So you insist that a person committed to pianism must work on a real piano?

People do whatever they can with what they can. If an electronic keyboard is what they can do, then that's all they can do and it will have to work for them until they can get something better. If I could get something better, don't you think I would?

But every committed pianist should have their own real piano.

It's something to work for, something to go out there and look for, something to aspire to. You wont really know what it's like to play a real piano if you only play an electronic keyboard and don't go out there and see what real pianos can be like.

You aren't making some claim that acoustic instruments are better than electronic ones are you?

One doesn't do that if one's discussing electric guitars as they are distinct from acoustic ones. One could do that when discussing electronic keyboards that attempt to reproduce acoustic piano sound and feel and what I said before wouldn't really apply to synthesizers that use the keyboard as an interface because we'd be discussing sound that wouldn't be acoustic piano sound.

This applies only to pianos that sound like pianos.

To unique piano sound, yes.

Some think maybe electronic pianos will take over.

If there is no “classical” piano music, or if interest in it dies out, as is possible, since the market for music that one looks up to rather than down upon isn't going anywhere and hasn't for at least 66 years (see my previous entry), with the possible exception of Nikolai Kapustin, then who cares how the “piano sound” is reproduced? Nobody will be listening that hard to care anyway.

You still working on your compositions?

Not right at the moment no.

Why not?

Isn't it obvious yet?

But surely someone might really want to hear them.

You think?  Well, let them grapple with the works of Andrew Violette first.

FINIS

Did Bartók write the last great piano concerto?

Béla Bartók's Piano Concerto No. 3 in E major (Sz. 119, BB 127) was composed in 1945 by the Hungarian composer during the final months of his life. As is typical with compositions calling themselves concertos, this piece has three movements; 1. Allegretto, 2. Adagio religioso and 3. Allegro vivace. (For the present, a movement is synonymous with a section. To most people, each movement will seem as a separate song, so this piece will have three songs to it.) It was not commissioned (which would have meant he got paid for it), as was much of Bartók's work, but composed as a surprise birthday gift for his second wife, Ditto Pásztory, who was a skilled pianist, as was Bartók. One must be serious to play this piece, though it is usually considered technically the easiest of Bartók's three piano concertos.

Bartók died on September 26, 1945, after a long fight with leukaemia, with this concerto unfinished. We know that it was complete but for the last 17 measures, which fell to Tibor Serly, a friend and pupil of Bartók to finish. He did a superb job too. We also know that before his end, Bartók had managed to be able to travel to North Carolina and to the Adirondacks in upstate New York. The entire work was written in America and as can easily be heard, strongly resonates with much that is typical of this country. The second movement, possibly the emotional focus of the entire work, was probably written in North Carolina and maybe even the middle section, the climax, may have been written at the same time as first atomic bombs in combat brought about the end of World War II. For Bartók, this part was most likely a personal statement of existential agony, but Bartók was always keenly aware of his duties as a serious composer, to attempt the almost impossible task of writing music for the ages. From our vantage point we can look back on this period right after the war, which gave us some notable pieces by composers who had sought refuge in America, as about the last time that music of the spirit of doing what those of the calibre of a Bartók would have been produced.

The question at the top is hardly rhetorical. I ask all my friends and acquaintances to suggest any composition of standing that merit comparison with this concerto written 66 years ago this year. If this was indeed the last great piano concerto to be written, what's that say of the future of piano concertos, of this business of daring to write music for the ages? I maintain that it is a sign of a kind of degeneracy borne of modern times, of factors and conditions that shaped the world long before any of us were born. Will these conditions continue? Could the idea of doing something in music that will be as close to immortal as it is possible to achieve will take root and flourish elsewhere on the planet once again? Could we hear the next great piano concerto come perhaps out of Asia? We'll just have to wait and see. 

But some things are certain; the audacity required to create it will have to be matched by enough people to respond to it, that it may become a thing of universal memory. As it is, I know of perhaps a dozen people who have ever heard of Bartók (and of those few pronounce his name correctly!), fewer still know this piece, fewer still who have ever heard it. For me things like this might seem tragic but for my realization that after all people like Bartók were and are rare. Their music is rare too, and those who like it or play it may be rarer still. We have always been in a minority as those who admire the greatest poets are.  Yet I honestly can't think of too many pieces I would be sadder not to have known as this one (how can one even say such a thing?). I find in it an ode to the longing in the human spirit, with a keen sense that the longings for this particular composer happened in and around New York City, a place I consider to know well, of other places that seem familiar to me through my travels and life down south and here in upstate New York.

My personal acquaintance with this great piece goes back into my teens when I first heard Peter Serkin play it. He is still playing it as of March 5, 2011!  Those in the vicinity of Tanglewood take notice; it's time to get behind the Berkshire Symphony Orchestra, in Williamstown, Massachusetts!

So now it is with great pleasure that I draw your attention to an accomplished performance of this wonderful concerto by Andrãs Schiff, the ... Hungarian born pianist. Is there anything he can't do? The Birmingham Symphony Orchestra (UK of course) is directed by one of my favourite conductors, eh, SIR. Simon Rattle. Imagine being a conductor with the name Rattle, isn't it funny? Well, his interpretations are not funny unless that's exactly what the music intended, you know, intentional as in “on purpose.” That's what makes all of this stuff any good. It's all strictly intentional, every little nuance of it.

You might notice that these videos take a while to download and stopping and having to wait in the middle of a piece is really a drag. So to avoid that, you may want to select each of the videos in a separate window and wait until they're all downloaded to play them. Enjoy.

Featured Videos:

1. Allegretto

2. Adagio religioso

3. Allegro vivace

FINIS 

András Schiff and Chopin

Once again, Classical TV provides a unique glimpse into the life and work of one of our favourite composers whose 200^th birthday was celebrated last year. András Schiff came to my attention years ago as a marvellous interpreter of Beethoven. In the two featured videos Schiff is revealed as a wonderful performer of Chopin's music as well.

Two things; first in the video on Chopin's life, which is really remarkable, Schiff as the narrator comes off as one of the most humble, gentle and worshipful souls in the world; the kind of person one would cherish meeting in person and secondly, in the video of the Chopin preludes, the sound and texture of the music played on a piano which is a Pleyel rather than a Steinway, gives us another glimpse into the smaller venues, the Paris “salons” in which many of Chopin's works were first introduced by himself and his pupils.

Featured videos:

András Schiff on Chopin

András Schiff: Chopin’s 24 Preludes Op. 28

FINIS

Fifth Interview - Attacks on Asking Why are Attacks on Finding the Truth

“The somber picture presented in this book, in which human life is mainly a process of filing in time until the arrival of death, or Santa Claus, with very little choice, if any, of what kind of business one is going to transact during the long wait, is a commonplace, but not the final answer. For certain fortunate people there is something which transcends all classifications of behavior and that is AWARENESS; something which rises above the programming of the past, and that is SPONTANEITY; and something that is more rewarding than games, and that is INTIMACY. But all three of these may be frightening and even perilous to the unprepared. Perhaps they are better off as they are, seeking their solutions in popular techniques of social action, such as “togetherness.” This may mean that there is no hope for the human race, but there is hope for individual members of it.”

Eric Berne MD (1910-1970) – Games People Play (1964)
Emphasis mine

Have you just now gotten around to reading this book?

Yes.

You hadn't read it before?

No.

Why not?

Probably because back when everyone was reading it, in typical recalcitrant fashion, I decided it was too popular for me to want to read.

You're like that with other things too, aren't you?

About books, movies, the latest gadgets, things like that, yes.

Well, you obviously got through it. This quote comes right at the end of the book. You told me about something else that had been bothering you, that you weren't sure you would be posting here because you considered it a religious matter …

Political too.

… and I told you that there would be a time when you would have to reveal more of yourself to your readers, in order to be true to yourself, and to them. Don't protest either. You showed me what you were going to post here and I agreed that the matter was serious and somebody would need to step forward and let people know.

(sigh) Why me?

Don't play a game with me!

(laughs) Right. Yes, but sometimes it's dangerous to point out the obvious to some people. They don't always get it, and most don't like it.

So what are you trying to do now, be liked by everyone?

(laughs) If so, maybe I would have had to have read Dr. Berne's book years ago.

(more laughs) I read it years ago, during the fad for it and it didn't help me become any more popular. (laughs) But before we get into the real subject of this interview, perhaps you'd tell us something of your current activities.

Current Activities

Well, I just got my piano tuned and am still working on my repertoire.

Progress?

Some, yes.

I know the general outlines, the Romantic period, yes? (nod) You're still on course?

Yes, well mostly.

Out of it, you're concentrating on what?

Now there are five Chopin Nocturnes, the Mendelssohn Op 19 Songs Without Words …

You like those don't you?

Yes. I'm impressed with the subtleties they contain and I intend on playing them differently from how I hear most other people play them. They are really quite serious little pieces.

Anything else?

The Beethoven Andante favori is certainly coming along. I want to start my program with that one.

You have also had some changes in your family?

Yes. My favourite uncle, whom I saw for the last time in 2007, passed away late last year. I wasn't able to go out and be with the rest of the family at his memorial service.

And you are dealing with the terminal illness of another uncle?

Yes, we are rotating hospice care for him in his home. He's 90, will be 91 at the end of the month. Some days he seems better but he's bedridden and has cancer and doesn't want treatment. His wife passed away last year.

I'm sorry.

Everyone says that and I guess it's just what is expected. There's no need to be sorry, these things happen. It's the one thing we can be sure of, that we will all die some day. But these uncles had something else in common; physically they were strongly built, athletic even, both of Swedish descent, tall handsome and good natured men who were easy to like and to be around. They both liked to laugh. The one who is dying now was a World War II veteran. He served in Europe and had many good tales from those days.

They ever meet each other?

Nope.

You still doing farm work? I guess not, too cold.

Horses and chickens still need to be fed and watered. Firewood still needs to be brought in.

Still reading Marcel Proust?

Yep.

Really? How far into it are you?

I just read about the most purple prose on the subject of homosexuality I've ever come across in Part One of Cities of the Plain.

So you're right in the middle.

Yes.

You're just reading it to be one of the few who have read all of it, aren't you?

In part, yes. But there were a number of very intelligent friends who recommended I read Proust and I'm beginning to understand a few reasons why. After all, this is in part a mémoire, his prose a series of period photographs of a time almost exactly 100 years ago in France. They still had royalty then, ruling houses of aristocrats. (They still do actually, it's just that most people don't see them in public view much anymore.)  Reading Proust is one very good way to see what it was really like to move in their circles and to see the political dimensions of money and prestige running down through the social classes of those times and even have some idea of how the same mechanisms are still in use today. It's not just like reading literature in the sense of following a story, it's like reading social history with notes taken by a very articulate (verbose) reporter. But Proust's huge work is also about himself, his coming of age from a bourgeois background into the high society of his time and place. There's a sense in which this work is related to the huge Mahler symphonies and other artistic movements of the same period that strove for grandness of scale and an encapsulation of the whole world.

My, you're verbose! (laughs) 

 

The Main Topic – The Attack on asking Why

Look, painful as it is, I think we want to get into the main topic of this interview. So why bring up an attack on asking why? (laughs)

Well you know that everything of a news nature that we read or listen to is delivered to us packaged and accepted as having some authority behind it, the government or some other official body, offering a kind of guarantee that what is being presented is true, honest and reliable. Nevertheless, for at least the last three years, some of us have been watching great cracks develop in some mighty institutions. By now, these cracks are becoming more obvious to everyone. People are wanting answers about why things are happening to them. They are given answers that do not make any sense by what they can observe around them. Meanwhile, and despite attempts to hide or spin the obvious, larger schemes of deceit and treachery and looting on monumental scales are being disclosed daily. I hate to be among those to tell the people behind those institutions that they have no clothes.

You think there are growing attempts to stop people from asking why?

Yes. But the good news is that more people every day are waking up to the fact that they have been lied to and gaining enough self respect to start demanding some real answers.

Let's get into this. You told me that you had been bothered by something that you considered a matter of personal integrity to get off your chest and regardless of the nature of this topic, it's controversial, religious …

… and political ...

and political nature, you felt it necessary to …

(sigh) I don't know, it was maybe about six years ago, maybe more? I was encouraged to research a certain Italian Catholic mystic, Luisa Piccarreta (1865-1947), aka "Little Daughter of the Divine Will" who like Proust wrote a huge mémoire variously called The Book of Heaven or The Kingdom of the Divine Will. It runs to 36 volumes. 

Oh my, did you read them all?

No, I only got to the end of Volume 8 where I read this:

"My daughter, in almost all of the events that occur, creatures keep repeating, over and over again: ‘And why? And why? And why? Why this illness? Why this interior state? Why this scourge?’ And many other why’s. The explanation of ‘why’ is not written on earth, but in Heaven, and there everyone will read it. Do you know what ‘why’ is? It is egoism, which gives continuous food to love of self. Do you know where ‘why’ was created? In hell. Who was the first one that pronounced it? A demon. The effects produced by the first ‘why’ were the loss of innocence in Eden Itself, the war of untameable passions, the ruin of many souls, the evils of life. The story of ‘why’ is long; it is enough to tell you that there is no evil in the world which does not carry the mark of ‘why’. ‘Why’ is destruction of divine wisdom in souls. And do you know where ‘why’ will be buried? In hell, to make them restless for eternity, without ever giving them peace. The art of ‘why’ is to wage war against souls, without ever giving them respite."

From The Kingdom of the Divine Will, end of Book 8 The Writings of Luisa Piccarreta via by “channeling” (or something else)

These words are reputed by this “seer” to be those of Jesus.

Really? They sure don't sound like Jesus.

That was exactly my reaction too and it was at this point that I stopped reading.

But you'd read much before you got to this.

Yes.

Were you apprehensive that this was a fraud of some kind before you got to this quote?

Yes, but for different reasons. The words in that quote certainly don't square with these:

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.”

Reputed to be the words of Jesus

Matthew 7: 7-8

No, it's the exact opposite.

Exactly and isn't it obvious?  These two quotes cannot be from the same person. Therefore the entire structure, including all attempts within the Roman Catholic Church to exalt this “seer” to sainthood, are laid bare as misguided at best and fraudulent at worst.

So it wouldn't be the best idea for the Church to go on promoting this, but so what? I mean why does this bother you? The Church stands accused of allowing its prelates to molest children without reporting it to the authorities. How does this square with Jesus' reputed words:

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” Luke 18:16

It's a cynical perversion that they think people will just ignore because anyway they have certain powers and privileges and assume they can jolly well get away with it. But believe it or not, the real answer as for what these words of Jesus were about was in that book by Dr. Eric Berne; little children don't play games.

You had a good friend who made the connection between child sexual abuse and the unpardonable sin didn't you?

Yes, but don't change the subject. This is about daring to ask why on every level imaginable and having the right to ask why when the obvious truths are right there in front of us, more and more on a daily basis. The reason that Luisa Piccarreta's work has come to the fore is for some ulterior and political reason; they want people to become willing slaves of this or that new doctrine so they will accept repression easier.

So that's the other shoe that drops here.

If this “seer” for whatever reasons is a fraud misrepresenting Jesus, then who does this fraud help?

There are more questions than just why.

Of course, but they are all summarized by why. Their lies are easily discovered by the bare facts. Why are they lying to us? Why are they trying to cover up things? Then of course why pursue a course of action that is known not to work? Isn't that a definition of insanity? And then of course under what camouflage of authority is whose alleged interest being protected against the people's rightful interests? You see a lot of things happen when you start asking why. Maybe if they can't explain it they don't really know. Maybe if facts do not support their theory then their theroy is … mistaken. Maybe if they can't explain, they are really hiding things. Why? Whose purposes are being served by any of this?

Pull back the curtains, eh?

(nodding) There are people out there in the fields of religion and politics who want no questions asked by anyone, just blind loyalty and thoughtless servitude. For what? Why? In the case of Christianity, does this kind of blind submission have anything to do with Jesus?

You aren't going to answer that, are you?

Why should I? Maybe some of the followers of other religions need to start asking why too: it's not for me to decide. It's a personal matter for each of us to ask and do our own investigations. After all Jesus told us to seek and find, etc. not to be blindly submissive.

You wanted me to bring this up too, a friend of yours said that the biggest problems facing America today were caused by people who believe in God.

Yeah, and I agreed.

Why?

I was just waiting for you to ask (laughs) and my answer isn't going to be too surprising; it's because most of them don't really believe in God else they would behave differently. No, they're clearly just playing another game, this one called Let's Believe in God (LBG). It's ideological, has teams, has cheers and jeers, ways of making scores, etc. but it's just a game. Most people's idea of God is the bellhop in the sky, Santa Claus, or their local concierge who will take care of everything for them. Rather than accepting their problems as learning experiences where the real God may be the teacher, they prefer to complain. Most tend to connect their game of LBG with some political ideology the historical bases of which have been conveniently covered up so they are operating in a land of illusions that never existed quite the way they imagine.  Meanwhile other less religious, more candidly political game players play games like, King of the Hill (KOH) in which the goal is to keep everyone else below their line of vision, figuratively and literally. But it's just a game. Some people, maybe most people as Dr. Berne said, are perfectly happy playing their games. But they're built on deceit, every single one of them, and the worst part of it is that if we as a body of sentient creatures on this earth don't get with something a whole lot better than playing games, and that includes the KOH game devised by the current world leadership, then we don't stand much of a chance of survival long term, certainly not with some of the odious technology we now have to play with.

Yes, I see that.

Well, you don't really have to …

No, I get it. Why now? What's the biggest problem you see on the horizon?

War.

Yes.

Total war. The games people play shall lead to the End Game.

Yes.

So, you see we have to keep asking questions, just as little children would. But little children are still people the same as so called grown ups. The greatest issue between grown ups and children has never been stated better than Jesus did; be as little children, inquisitive and innocent in the sense that they are not yet poisoned by game playing to achieve ends by ulterior means. Grown ups need to catch themselves playing games and try and achieve awareness, spontaneity (which has nothing to do with spur of the moment compulsions at all) and maybe even intimacy. Berne was right though, most people can't handle it.

So you think they'd better?

Right now, the stakes couldn't be much higher.

FINIS

Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope

(originally written around July, 1998)

[Despite my preference not to post anything of a political or religious nature on my blog, I found this recently and thought it appropriate for posting here at this time. It was a sort of book report I wrote for a former employer who had me read this large book. Of the many books I have read, I found this one to offer some very important information which actually could re-orient the world in a more hopeful direction. This is not an endorsement of Quigley's views as in many respects my opinions differ significantly from his; for example I happen to view certain things that are currently neglected or looked down upon as essential to life while other pursuits as either beneath contempt or a waste of one's time.]

Professor Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) was Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown. In 1966 he published his massive 1,310 page one volume history of the 20th century, Tragedy and Hope.  It's mostly tragedy.  I haven't gotten to the hope part yet except that he feels mankind was lucky to have survived the decade between 1953-1963, the height of the atomic bomb testing, etc.

Quigley has many surprises in this book. He says that communism is basically bunk and was used only as a pretense by some very unscrupulous  people, to take power over certain nations and peoples.  He says that Castro only embraced communism because he wanted to stay in power as long as possible, basically he's no better than Hitler, or any other dictator, all spoiled little boys.  He says that worldwide financial empires have helped create situations which have led to war.  He says that Great Britain isn't really a democracy at all.  He says that Russia has always been a separate civilization from Western Europe and of course from America.  He says that most American foreign policy has been mistaken.  But then again he sees British foreign policy in most respects as more devious still.  He views what happened to Germany as a tragedy that they largely brought on themselves, although he blames Britain as well.  He has more sympathy for the French positions than most.  He has high praise for Israel and for Japan.  But he describes a lot of the world as part of what he calls the Pakistani-Peruvian axis.  And the problem of the human race as Quigley sees it boils down to what he calls "outlook".

The Pakistani-Peruvian axis or the "Arabic" outlook as described by Carroll Quigley; "They were warlike, patriarchal, extremist, violent, intolerant and xenophobic" (Tragedy and Hope p. 1,116). Regarding the males raised in such societies, "usually they are spoiled, undisciplined, self-indulgent and unprincipled.  Their whims are commands, their urges are laws." (Ibid. p. 1,118). The Pakistani-Peruvian axis runs from Pakistan westward through the Middle East (except Israel) and then across the Atlantic and includes Latin America, all of it from Mexico south.  Pakistan and India just got the A bomb.  Are you scared yet?

Contrast this with what Quigley says about the salaried middle classes of Japan, they are "ambitious, hard working, loyal, reliable, very adaptable to bureaucratic organization, scientific training and rationalizing processes, they are suspicious of ideologies or extremist doctrines of any kind." (Ibid. p 1,151).  Quigley credits this outlook with the reason for Japan's success.  He could have said the same about the post war Germans, whom he similarly characterizes, although among Europeans, Quigley says that the French are the most civilized.

Quigley is very clear about the necessity for good leadership and often finds it lacking. He admired Kennedy's handling of the Cuban missile crisis. Although I think it's probably fair to assume he'd prefer the Democrats to the Republicans, he is not in favor of redistribution of wealth or disturbing the power and prestige of the rich.  He'd much rather see them take on a more constructive role than they usually do in the affairs of the rest of the world.  He is very realistic.

I recommend this book to any serious student of contemporary history.  They would soon discover a lot about economics and who really runs the world and why they have to. [Somewhat Swedish way to end a sentence, perhaps from my ancestors.]

FINIS

The Maturity of an Audience for Classical Music and Other Concerns

“I believe in God, Mozart and Beethoven,

and likewise their disciples and apostles;

I believe in the Holy Spirit and the truth of the one, indivisible Art;

I believe that this Art proceeds from God,

and lives within the hearts of all illumined men;

I believe that he who once has bathed in the sublime delights of this high Art,

is consecrated to Her for ever, and never can deny Her;

I believe that through Art all men are saved.” 

Richard Wagner (1813-1883)

A friend of mine from the city went to a piano recital a few weeks ago. The program was devoted to the three last piano sonatas of Beethoven. The pianist, interpreter, his name not known to me, apparently had quite a respectful following. The performances were, as expected, both technically polished and emotionally probing. But that's not the phrase that I remembered most from her description of the concert. She said that everyone in the audience probably knew the music before they entered the theatre, some knew this music very well, had decided to attend this concert because they knew these particular pieces and loved them, perhaps even a few in this audience were pianists themselves and may have had the same sonatas committed to memory and most importantly, everyone behaved reverentially toward each other, relatively quiet yet intensely joyful.

This audience's special quality included the reality of the ageing and aged as a significant percentage. And why not? Why wouldn't that be just what one should expect? There is much adverse comment about this these days, as if the perpetual pursuit of unattainable eternal youth must pervade even these precincts, and this specie of criticism really needs to be rebutted and its relevance refuted with the following points:

1) This music known under the moniker of “classical” is mature, serious, and intended to last forever. There is no other music like it, none with the distinctiveness, the uniqueness of any of its great works, intended for a serious and mature audience, not for emotional adolescents or those whose only interest in music is as to serve as a prop for other pastimes.

2) The people who originally sponsored this music were serious and had considerable resources at stake for its production and promotion. It was intended from its inception to be deployed only among a select few. This did not mean then and does not mean today, that interest in it is restricted by any overt signs suggesting that certain people may not apply. Application is available to anyone in theory. Nevertheless it is axiomatic that what this music demands of its performers and audiences alike, necessarily means that its appeal will be to the self selecting few.

3) This music is not intended to be exclusive, yet it selects those who are interested in it. Those who aren't interested today may become so in future as their emotions and outlook on life mature or perhaps they never will become interested in it. There are quite a few who just don't see the point to classical music and they have a right to their opinions. But anyway, exclusive it always was from the very beginning and such shall it likely be for the foreseeable future.

4) Classical music is a kind of “straight and narrow way” and such is why on finding it, as many describe their first recognition of this music, that it is in its unique way very like encountering a religion with its own saints, martyrs (we'll highlight one here), savants, and other people who are held in as much reverence as those men and women whom humanity have called holy. There is a sincere and unique reverence accorded classical musicians by their audiences that is really unlike that of the celebrities or the superstars of other musical genres.

5) Its concerts, even when they are the highlights of informal parties in people's homes, have many of the same almost liturgical elements as a religious service. There are traditional programs, some extensions of these for more modern works to be presented, or for “early music” which is still in the purview of what is known as “classical music”, etc. Sometimes there are intermissions dividing a concert into two parts, other times music is presented with minimum interruption. Those who attend enough concerts begin to see the patterns. It may be difficult for some of us to believe it now, but these concerts, where some of the greatest of the classics were first premièred included food and drink as integral elements, beer and sandwiches being about the most common refreshments, although we are aware of certain venues that included wine punches, cakes and pastries as well as the usual fare of sausages and pickles.

6) The survival of this music is certainly not guaranteed, but it will not survive being watered down by “crossovers” from music that is other than itself, of different intent, for a different audience, not intended to be the focus of conscious attention but merely as … props for other pastimes. Its devotees can examine, in some ways similar to the ways people describe theological or moral ideas in their churches or synagogues, the various ways classical music has succeeded and where it has failed. Our analysis cannot fail but to acknowledge that classical music owes much to its ties with academic institutions, particularly its conservatories. One of the ways this music survives is by its being taught to future generations: basic musical pedagogy is and always has been crucial. In this regard it is unfortunate that classical music had to rely on state sponsorship through public schools because in that regard its practitioners became lazy and did not seek out sponsorship from the interested themselves. And it can be argued with considerable evidence, that the greatest composers may not have been produced through these schools of music or systems of pedagogy. Some of the greatest composers had little formal musical education and seem to have grown into their art as if by a primary natural means, Mozart and Chopin among them. Discussions should concern as much why certain musical talent was allowed to suffer and even languish in obscurity only to be recognized by future musicologists, as Mendelssohn is credited having rescued Bach from obscurity for future generations.

This same friend recommended a certain documentary to me, After the Storm, The American Exile of Béla Bartók. It is a very sad story, one which demonstrated somewhat as Richard Wagner is known to have said to some of his potential sponsors, that he held them and society in general responsible for ignoring Mozart and others of supreme musical talent and letting them die in obscurity, those who intended their creation to last forever and were fated to live amidst the inattentiveness of their fellows. Yet in order for anything to last, it not only must be kept in someone's memory and passed along to the next generation, it must be LOVED and cherished, held in esteem in a place by itself, a hallowed place in the human heart, a place accessible to each individual and yet a place as universal as to encompass all of humanity, to be truly universal in its message and appeal. In order for this to happen, a music must say something about the reality of the human condition, its highs, its lows, its poignancy, the contributions made by nature all around us, and even more things than can ever be described by mere words alone.

Such was my reaction upon seeing this documentary on the last years of Béla Bartók (1881-1945). Yes, we can say that in 1881, the fateful year that Brahms premièred his magnificent second piano concerto or the year after that great symphony of Hans Rott appeared, the world was blessed by the birth of Béla Bartók, arguably Hungary's greatest composer and one of the greatest of the 20^th century. But what of composers? No, So What of Composers?  The New York City of the 1940's which offered Bartók a refuge and even more the sumptuousness for this particular and peculiar man to have access to the great folk music collections at Columbia University, nevertheless never really understood him. How could two so very different beings possibly get along: the sickly Hungarian composer who was a kind of austere ascetic anyway, and the spirit of the huge humdrum city of a still young nation, full of noise, full of its own common cares, without a consciousness of any culture or excuses for such niceties as fine art music?

It can always be said that were it not for what was offered Bartók, the commission which produced the Concerto for Orchestra (1942-1945), for which the conductor Serge Koussevitzky, wasn't even willing to take the composer's directions seriously, we might not have had the Third Piano Concerto (1945) or the Viola Concerto (1945) and Bartók might even have died earlier as he was a sick man anyway. We are also indebted to Bartók's disciple, Tibor Serly, who like Mozart's disciple Hummel, never equaled his master.  We will probably never know what the crucible of life required of Bartók to create what he did.  We are lucky to have these last works as they are among his very best.

Whether you decide to get this documentary and view it yourself or not, we can ask ourselves what of other Bartóks out there waiting to be discovered?  They wont be the same as he was nor will their music be like his.  What if their natural gifts are smothered by too much teaching, what if their lives are made too easy by too much fawning recognition received too easily?  What portion of the crucible of life is required to produce the pearls of a creative genius like Bartók?  We don't even begin to know the right formulas for any of this. Mostly we're probably too timid to be asking. And how much does it cost, how much should it be worth, etc.?  Are we any better at pricing the value of the invaluable today than we might have been able to in 1945?  Was the Concerto for Orchestra worth a mere $1,000 in 1940's money, which the composer was reluctant to take anyway as he wasn't sure he'd live long enough to complete the assignment?  In an earlier posting, I brought the case of that unfortunate young man Hans Rott to attention. Today I bring that of Béla Bartók to similar attention.  But as I said above, the numbers of those who could and would possibly care have always been small and maybe that's the way it must be, “the straight and narrow way which leads to salvation” in the deepest sense of finding meaning in life that few people ever find anywhere else.

FINIS