On the role of language 8.2: As an ersatz populist, my invective often alights on the aurally lacking…

 I admit that I may have tended towards hyperbole in the previous two postings, but the message is nonetheless clear: words are only empowered by the importance we place on them. A wise man (my high school A.P. English teacher, many moons ago) once remarked: “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will kill me.” For the one and only time to the best of my recollection, he was wrong. Words can kill if and only if we allow it. Make no mistake, I am not arguing for a thick-sinned populace who can no longer distinguish between the harmless and the egregiously offensive; rather, I wish for a humanity that does not take itself so seriously.

Regardless to which religion one subscribes, it is fair to say that most individuals will question at some point as to why they were put on this earth. Speaking personally, as an atheist this is a relatively simple question: I exist due to the sequencing of various amino acids to produce long protein strands that (against staggering statistics) managed to morph into my present form; as such, I feel beholden to no one’s feelings as a matter of principle. While I may choose not to present myself as a boorish lout, I do so of my own choosing. For the Christians, life is a transitory event to be endured rather than enjoyed while waiting for the ultimate prize; thus, for what reason should they concern themselves with anyone else’s opinion?

Richard Bach wrote that we are “ultimately alone with our conscience”; thus, we are beholden to ourselves as final judge and jury of our thoughts, words, and actions. If we can therefore feel comfortable with ourselves, have we caused any serious damage to humanity? Assuming we are possessed of the basic qualities of a decent citizen, I would tend to doubt that we have affected any long-term wrongdoing. All the rest is sound and fury, from which we have nothing to gain save the adulation of people we would never willingly invite into our homes for dinner.  

For the great mass of the populace, I would ask but one question: what is the purpose of life? I will not endeavor to answer that question at the present time (surely by now you can be assured that I know the answer). I would, however, submit that it is not comprised of endless kow-towing to the whim and will of morons as regards our thoughts and expressions. If you find yourself “walking on eggshells” at some point in your daily travels, allow me to make a suggestion:

Stamp your foot.

On the role of language 8.1: My perspicacity satiates a myriad of nascent intellects…

Continuing our discussion, we have ascertained that language can have a profound effect on natural rights; existence occupying a place of primacy, consider the implications of a last-minute phone call from the governor that halts an execution: by the mere employment of sequenced letters, one human being may decide the fate of another. While the illustration is undoubtedly club-like, the twin scalpels of syntax and diction fashion a much clearer image: words have power.

Having said as much, we find ourselves in the unenviable position of the audience at a particularly bad play: half-wits and pseudo-intellectuals (the buffoons and charlatans were in the first act) are using language to explain to us the need to curtail our own in the vaguely defined hope of bringing offense to none and lack of meaning to all. To over-extend the metaphor, we are fast becoming actors whose lines are written by hacks and whose scenes are envisioned by incompetents. There is, however, a solution:

Leave the theater.

When we begin to doubt the cause and content of our expressions solely out of nebular respect for the sensibilities of ill-defined cognoscenti, we abrogate our right to freedom of expression. Such surrender is unconscionable; flying in the face of our basic identities as free-thinking individuals, our self-betrayal is precursor to a much darker scenario: a Kafka-esque world in which we are on virtual trial for words we had no idea were verboten. Admittedly, this is perhaps a gross exaggeration of the current state of affairs, but it is not an entirely unforeseeable future (consider the words you used as a child which would now draw stares of shock and indignation). 

 Words are letters placed in series in order to foster effective communication; strictly speaking, they have no power in and of themselves (save the few examples illustrated earlier). Instead, it is their impact on the listener that grants them power. This puts said listener in a distinctly grandiose position…

On the role of language 8.0: My loquaciousness is compounded by my sesquipedalian nature…

Having recently had the distinct misfortune of catching up on the “news,” I noticed a comment by the president of the National Organization for Women that decried (rightly so) the attempts of some “Hollywood luminaries” to defend Roman Polanski (I will not stoop to describe his aberrancy) as “dangerous talk.” While I can agree with the spirit of her syntax, I nonetheless am puzzled by the diction: what defines “dangerous talk?” Perhaps more appropriately, who defines the phrase?

From a natural law perspective, it seems to me that speech which is utilized to deny an individual a fundamental right could be construed as dangerous, but this loose definition fosters a maelstrom of qualifiers. For example, can speech be used to deprive a person of life? If we take the right of existence as a departure point, it stands to reason that all other enumerated rights logically exist if and only if the fundamental principle that entitles all persons to life is held sacrosanct. As a further reduction, what can be used as a metric to distinguish between the direct and the implied intentions of one’s words?

The previous paragraph hinted at the deep implications of language and the philosophical underpinnings of the role of speech in society. However, we are assaulted on a daily basis by vague caterwauls from social thinkers (a term obviously used rather loosely) that attempt to steer us into their version of “proper behavior.” As a disclaimer, this will not be a discussion of the over-used phrase “politically correct” and its associated canned arguments. Rather, I would like to examine the contemporary trend in speech-modification.

It is readily apparent to even the most casual observer that both ends of the political spectrum are quick to denounce any language judged improper: the Right will jump at anything that appears to not accept Christian values as the ne plus ultra of moral philosophy, while the Left is ever on the lookout for anything that may be construed as offensive to anyone. At times, I find myself pitying those in public life: no matter what they say, someone will be quick to evaluate it as patently offensive at best and outright subversive at worst.

What bothers me the most is the adjudicating panel…

If we can be honest with ourselves, who among us truly believes that Rush Limbaugh is possessed of genius? Who feels that Joy Behar is an intellectual giant? Is there anyone who can claim Ann Coulter as one of the greatest minds of her generation? Is it possible that James Carville will be remembered as the second Einstein?

I tend to doubt it…

Music and intellect 7.2: A list, perhaps…

A guided tour of the richness of music and its associated sundries is obviously beyond the scope of the present venue. I will, however, attempt to give the dedicated listener a series of lists and emotionally analogous works that should satisfy any inner-cravings that have accrued over the last few minutes as you read my earlier posts. You will find that the works I have listed are easily found in multiple recordings; they serve as a sort of gateway to the classical realm. While the works may be well-known, their worth is not diminished by the myriad recordings thereof; my hope is that the accessibility of the works will lead the reader to an easy path of discovery. I make no assertion that the following works will speak to any and all; to be frightfully honest, such is not my intent. Rather, I believe that if I can influence one person to begin to listen to good music that I have changed the world for the better. For those of you who may be surprised at my interest in improving humanity, allow me to regain some bit of elitist equilibrium: I do not post this entry in the hopes of saving or elevating humanity (my dedicated readers will know that these emotional states and/or commitments have been beyond me for some time); instead I post it to assist in preserving the greater aspects of our culture- before they are swept away on a sea of I-phones and gaming systems…

Heart-stopping moments in music:

1.) “Aria,” J.S. Bach: The Goldberg Variations

You must listen to the Glen Gould 1956 (the later edition is not adequate for this particular aspect) version of this opening aria; there is an appoggiatura that is simply breathtaking in the opening section.

2.) “Eternal Source, from Ode for the Birthday of Queen Anne” G.F. Handel:

The Kathleen Battle/Wynton Marsalis Baroque Duet album is a masterful presentation of this piece (without a nauseatingly excessive vibrato); the first sixty seconds define what is meant by “transcendent music.”

3.) “7^th Symphony in A major, 1^st movement,” L. Beethoven

The horn call at ~ 4’25” (Kleiber recording) is distilled nobility. I would recommend the Karl Bohm recordings (unfortunately they are incredibly difficult to find), but in a pinch Herbert VonKarajan will suffice (for those of you for whom You-Tube is the end-all, look up Carlos Kleiber- this is quite possibly the best recording that exists).

4.) “Terzettino: Soave sia il vento,” W.A. Mozart: Cosi Fan Tutte

The selection of recordings is irrelevant- music this unbelievably ethereal cannot be stifled by second-rate artists; it lives and breathes of its own accord.

5.) “8^th Symphony in E-flat major, part II,” G. Mahler

The final five minutes and thirty-eight seconds are some of the most stirring musical moments ever created; Mahler touched the inner soul of genius at this point; if you are not in tears by the end of this work, you are quite simply an inhuman stain on the face of the world.

6.) “Neptune,” G. Holst: The Planets

This final movement is so far beyond the pale of standard concert-hall presentations that it routinely moves audiences to tears en masse; the female chorus at the end “might as well be angels from the heavens,” – G. B. White

 To ennoble the spirit…

1.) “1^st Symphony in D major, 4^th movement,” G. Mahler

During the final moments of this symphony, eight French-horn players are standing with their bells pointed up and blaring out the final notes…if this isn’t moving, please contact a coroner.  

2.) “Fanfare for the Common Man,” Aaron Copland

Brass, percussion, and a simple harmonic structure: is anything capable of topping this as an Olympic anthem?

Light-hearted and exuberant…

1.) “The Marriage of Figaro, Overture,” W. A. Mozart

Let’s face it: Mozart had a gift that none of us will ever come close to in a lifetime of struggle; better that we witness genius than rage against the tides of the day to proclaim our own.

2.) “4^th Symphony in A Major (Italian), 1^st movement,” F. Mendelssohn

While he has always been considered a “happy” composer, Mendelssohn outdid himself in the sheer vivaciousness and spirited wit of this unbelievably sunny composition.    

For those of a more violent nature…

1.) “Requiem, Dies Irae,” G. Verdi

While I find Verdi’s operas to be contrived, transitory, melodramatic, and boorish, I nonetheless feel that his Requiem (written for a personal friend) is an example of the man’s brilliance…that he chose to work in the opera world is a loss I  will never quite accept.

2.) “The Planets: Mars, the Bringer of War,” G. Holst

Holst managed to work the impossible: a “march” in 5/4 time. The sheer expanse and violence of this work should suffice to arouse any unmitigated barbarian inclinations that have managed to find their way into the effeminate 21^st Century Man…

 

As noted earlier, these works are easily found and supremely accessible; while I recognize that many other lesser-known works deserve their rightful place in the pantheon of great music, I chose the aforementioned in the spirit of efficiency and economy- to purchase all of these recordings will cost one no more than $100. Consider that fact: for the cost of a dinner and a movie (with popcorn, Milk Duds, and sodas, obviously) for two, a person can access the realm of the immortal…it seems to me a small price to pay, given the cost to our inner selves of the dearth of cultural awareness.

Music and intellect 7.1: And in the place thereof?…

I believe it was Forrest Gump who once remarked that “music is as music does.” While this may not be the exact quote, I obviously cannot be bothered to ascertain its veracity. As a proponent of Mr. Gump’s unique and insightful philosophy, it is difficult for me to admit that he may have over-simplified a rather profound issue: what is the value of music in contemporary society? A rather difficult question, to be sure, that holds in its stem the seeds of its own irrelevancy: in the current state of education in the United States, no value whatsoever is placed on the study and appreciation of music ergo the question is largely ignored.

Why?

What has changed in the scant thirty years since a music appreciation course was a requisite to completing a secondary education? Why do twenty-somethings (I cringe every time I use that phrase) have no idea who Rachmaninoff was, much less an inkling as to when he was an active composer? I admit that such knowledge is perhaps secondary to a primary field of study; in the same vein I would not expect a scientific type (myself excluded, obviously) to understand the implications of the imagery used in Joseph Conrad’s “The Lagoon” any more than I would ask an English major to describe neutron migration in the presence of graphite moderation. However, I would pose the following question:

With what have you replaced music appreciation?

My guess: nothing. In short, we have devalued that which uniquely identifies us as a consequential species in order to elevate the trivial and transitory pleasures of the latest electronic gadget or Aeropostale shirt. I do not lament this revelation, however; rather, I am quite amenable to its inception: I now have a singular metric available to ascertain the cultural education level (as I have previously stated, I give no credence to academic degrees in irrelevant subjects) of people with whom I am forced to speak.

What do you know of J. S. Bach? Of the Russian Five or the French Six?

I had assumed as much.

I will state at this point that I do not judge a person’s character based solely on musical criteria; instead, I simply try to discern with what they have filled their minds- the eternal or the transitory. Sound presupposes humanity: from the harmonic whirl of atomic sub-structures to the gentle oscillations of breezy summer afternoons, the noise of nature surrounds us; the only way to categorize said sounds as music is to have ears capable of perceiving them as such.

Music and intellect 7.0: An impassioned plea…

While I realize that most of the sub-humans are still agape at the death of “the king of pop” (one wonders if that phrase could well be taken as an insult) and the latest trials and tribulations of “Jon and Kate,” I thought that this next topic could be a bit more high-minded than my usual assaults on the latest drivel. As such, this week will be devoted to musical commentary of a somewhat cerebral level (I will not hold it against you for declining to read these posts as I have neither the time nor the inclination to answer any grade-school level questions). Having said so, we begin…

I sit in my living room, listening to Mozart’s 13th  piano concerto played by Mitsuko Uchida, a glass of old-vine grenache in my hand. While I am far from a religious man, I nonetheless feel blessed by my appreciation for great music. To be honest, I am slightly amazed at people who do not feel any depth of emotion for music; you have met them before: “Oh, I don’t know, I like all types…you know, whatever’s on at the time” is their typical response to a query as to their favorite type of music. These people confuse and confound me; I find myself wondering how they can say they truly enjoy living without a decent appreciation of music. I will not go so far as to say that music is the ne plus ultra of life; I recognize that the multifaceted interests of the typical human lend themselves towards emphasis in a myriad of areas. I am, however, flabbergasted by people who consider themselves educated yet know virtually nothing of music.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised…

Musical education in this country is a joke; we spend significantly more time learning more “important things” and “building consensus through teamwork” (or whatever the current laughable education theory dictates) than listening to the strains of effort by dead, white, European males. The fact that these men contributed more to the cause of enriching humanity than a thousand incarnations of Al Gore is largely irrelevant: they were not social activists and agitators who “bled green” and spent their time saving the whales or ensuring, through ridiculous protests against “globalization” (whatever they think the term means), that third-world nations retain their distinction for being afflicted with crushing poverty. In short, because these men were not annoying, they are inconsequential to modern life.

Allow me to retort…