Wednesday, December 24, 2008

The Vigil Night, and Twelve More Days

What ever happened to the Twelve Days of Christmas?

Despite it being a thin year, I wanted to purchase at least a few gifts for those closest to me. As such, it was impossible to avoid drifting -- at least a few times -- into the commercial madness of an American Christmas.

Then it hit me: It is entirely possible -- and entirely American -- to have both the shallow and deep forms of Christmas, all wrapped up into one beneficial whole.

After all, Christmas shopping is a fundamental part of our economy: it provides jobs, encourages innovation, and affects our finances for the remainder of the year. We're a generous country, and so we give and (hopefully) benefit from our giving.

Yet when all is purchased and wrapped and prepared, what then? What is the meaning beneath the commercial hoopla?

Commercial interests desire to sell you things -- they do what must be done to turn a profit. It is not their responsibility -- or the responsibility of the media -- to confer meaning on your life. You should be smart enough to do that yourself.

We can look to the old traditions to help us bring meaning to this time of year. I don't say this to be a traditionalist or a reactionary, but out of the simple fact that traditions -- like old folk songs and Carols -- accumulate a historical baggage which gives them power.

To link with the past -- in the present -- gives us roots. It gives us power. It brings a deeper meaning into our homes. Who wouldn't want that?

Keep in mind a simple fact: despite Christmas Carols on the radio and decorations in the store, Christmas does not BEGIN until the 25th. From there, the season lasts until the celebration of three kings -- which screams in the face of those who toss their Christmas trees on the morning of the 26th.

Right now, we're still in the midst of Advent, a time of quiet, preparation, and soul-searching.

In my family, we observe the old "Vigil" (Wigilia) tradition which is still celebrated throughout Europe. Christmas Eve is a hushed time, full of candles, low lights, hummed ancient carols, and a meatless evening meal which is itself a work of art. Secular music is forbidden, patience is the byword.

The presents purchased, the secular is now shut out and the sacred brought in. The home is a panoply of smells while things boil, fry, and bake. The day is largely approached as a fast, only to be broken with the Wigilia meal when the first star appears in the sky. Before the meal, wafers are exchanged between family members, along with heartfelt words and wishes for the upcoming new year. A prayer is said, including a brief requiem for those who had departed. At every table, an empty plate is set for the possible wayward traveler -- or the family member far away.

It's all so darn anti-modern that I can't help but write about it each and every year. Ther eis meaning here, and there isn't a telemarketer or shopping mall that can diminish it on this particularly sacred evening.

Things wind down into the night, people drift off to sleep, candles flicker slowly. Then, somehow, rousing one last burst of strength, the house erupts into activity as everyone prepares to depart for the midnight Mass. After Mass, with Christmas fully in-swing, we never hit the sack before a few glasses of rum-laced egg-nog are consumed.

I'm not saying everyone should celebrate our kind of Vigilia. I am saying, however, that there is no reason to make this a "bowling night," or a time for Chinese Food and rented movies. This is the most sacred night of the year, and our family traditions should reflect this.

Keep your trees up until the feast of Three Kings, if you can. Keep the lights burning, and the carols playing. Christmas goes until the 6th of January, after all! Why shouldn't we celebrate the entire time?

It's deep. It's edifying. It brings meaning to the season. And it's a heck of a lot of fun.

...And so I wish you all a silent night, a holy night, and an evening where all is calm and bright.
I'd write more, but I have to go help in the kitchen.... :)

Friday, December 19, 2008

Left-Wing Agenda Erasing our History

Can you erase history to justify an agenda?

Today, I am profoundly frightened. You see, generally, when you mention anything about a "left-wing agenda," you're brushed off as a loony conspiracy theorist. Yet it's all around us. A few weeks back, a friend in Poland tipped me off to an amazing story which I have since sat on, wondering if the American or even the English press would pick up on it.

Nope.

So here it is: The new Oxford Junior Dictionary no longer has references for words like "monk," "chapel," "bishop," or "nun." When this incredible bout of anti-Christian censorship was discovered, a representative countered by citing things such a "dropping Church attendance in the UK."

Mind you, I'm not surprised. I'm fully aware of the leftist agenda, and I know that it's a short step between historical revision, legal acceptance, and the future financial ruin of Churches one day being sued for "hate speech" or something of the like. It's a slow and steady progression, an agenda which has been codified and in motion since the 1960's.

Open your eyes.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

John Paul II -- What You May Not Have Known (Or Heard...)

I intend this article for Catholics, and hope that you read it with the great earnestness required of such a pivotal subject regarding our faith.

Did John Paul the Second want rock or pop music in our Churches? Certainly, he showed great joy at the love and outpouring he received at various public rallies and Masses.

If any image of the late-great John Paul II has come to the forefront since his passing into glory, it is the image of a "people's champion" in Papal garb. And he certainly was that, make no mistake.

Yet such imagery, as well as the frequent misinterpretation of the dictates of the Second Vatican Council, have been used as a Devilish (yes, capital D) opportunity to rob our generation of Catholics of the true aesthetic riches of our faith.

Most of us, stepping into Churches, find ourselves the victims of the "creative thinking" of the 60's as opposed to the teachings of the Church we claim to believe in. Some Catholics are now entering their gray years without having any idea of what a Church is supposed to SOUND like.

Personally, as a cradle Catholic, I had no idea what Palestrina or Sacred Polyphony sounded like until I heard it in a college-level Music History Course. I didn't hear Chant -- sung live -- until my mid-20's. I didn't see a Mass done with an actual MASS composition until also in my mid-20's. What a sad, bitterly sad commentary on what our Churches have become!

John Paul the Second, despite his love of popular forms of faith expression, did not want our Churches to sound like rock concerts. He did not want the top-40 music from Christian radio played during Communion, nor did he approve of bad choirs and poorly-written "songs" echoing pathetically from the Choir loft.

Nor did the previous Popes. Nor does our current Pope. Such expressions, while fine outside of Church, are simply not worthy of the sacrifice of the Mass, nor can they stand on equal footing with the music already present in the deposit of the faith.

This is why Pope Benedict has banned such music from the Vatican. Yup: banned.

It may be a bitter pill for many to swallow, but so is most truth. Read it and weep, from JP2's own hand:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20031203_musica-sacra_en.html

Now don't get me wrong: popular Christian songs and forms of devotion and "praise" played a great part in my own reversion story. Yet, technically speaking, they cannot fully express Sacredness using melodic formulas and musical forms reserved for hip-shaking rock concerts or dance halls. It simply doesn't work, any more than placing Chant music inside of a rave is anything but cheap appropriation -- or pure vulgarity.

In my own life, I remain a great fan of rock and heavy metal music. This being said, I recognize that it cannot be held in the same light of spiritual quality as the music written in the accepted spiritual forms. This is not an opinion of mine, nor is it some misguided dogma: it's a doctrine, and one which I must humbly accept (whether I like it or not.)

Read, for instance, to what JP2 writes in this excerpt from the above linked document:

"The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple"
[33]. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy[34].


To give another example: anyone who has given up television for a while comes to know a simple truth: television is generally loud, vulgar, patronizing, numbing, and quite often very bad for the soul. Not only that, but it is a waste of time.

Anyone who has taken a silent retreat has been forced to confront the multiplicity of noise in his/her head. In such cases, one comes face-to-face with a startling fact of life: much like food, in art, we become what we consume.

Nor would Andy Warhol's work belong next to an Altar any more than a modern billboard.

As a Catholic, you may despair at such news, you may feel the urge to rebel. Yet remember that you do so at the expense of many great living artists -- as well as the Church's own wishes.

Or, as I'll tell people often enough: "If you'd rather hear top-40 expressions over Palestrina in your Mass, it's not an issue of differing opinion. It's a personal problem which needs to be corrected, no different than the many other things we struggle with in our faith walk."

Encourage your Priests to become educated on the right kinds of art and music -- pressure them to improve the quality of sights and sounds at your Church. If you can sing, then do it! If you're in a position to donate, then nothing bring about change more than a financially-endowed bullish reformer. The change is trickling in, and you can make it a much-needed torrent.

Lastly, if you happen to live anywhere near Chicago, do yourself the favor of hearing and seeing Mass at St. John Cantius, on the Near-north side, this Christmas Eve. The choral concert begins at 11, while the Mass-proper begins at Midnight. It is, quite simply, the way a Mass is meant to be. (http://www.cantius.org)

As a Buddhist professor once told me: "If you make your Churches beautiful, then people will come of their own accord."

The 1960's popular experimentation has failed, and devastatingly so. We turn again to the Magisterium, seeking guidance in forms both ancient and new...

I'm providing three links to help you start the journey. The first is a blog detailing the Sacred Music revival in the Church -- the right-hand-side has several fascinating Papal writings on the subject. The second is the Church Music Association of America. The third is the group I work with, the wonderful Foundation for Sacred Arts.

http://authenticupdate.blogspot.com/2008/02/tim-mcdonnel-speaks-to-priests-and.html

http://www.musicasacra.com/

http://thesacredarts.org/

Sunday, December 7, 2008

"Shall we reinstate Slavery, then?"

***The following is an excerpt from a recent debate between two prominent politicians. Congressman Smith is a noted liberal, while Senator James is a prominent Secular Humanist.***

Congressman Smith: "Shall we reinstate slavery, then? Is that really what you're suggesting?"

Senator James:
"Absolutely! It's my distinct opinion, Congressman Smith, that abolitionism inflicts upon my rights as an American consumer. After all, if you don't want slaves, then don't own one!"

CS: "Well, that's purely ridiculous. You are actually seeking to enslave other human beings? You have no right to do that to other people!"

SJ: "Their being "people," Mr. Smith, and therefore afforded Constitutional rights, is merely your opinion. Despite the outward appearances and biological viability, I tend to believe them to be no more than animals."

CS: "But how can you say that? Just look at them! They're human!"

SJ: "It's no more than your opinion vs. mine, and America provides us both with the right to our opinion, does it not?"

CS: "That's ludicrous!"

SJ: "No more, sir, than your position on abortion."

CS: "Well, that's a hot topic of great debate. Women must have a choice."

SJ: "And I want my choice of slaves, then. If you choose to parse and label humanity for your own convenience, than I shall do the same."

Moderator: "Clearly we have reached the limit of this topic. Let's move on to sexual ethics. Senator James, you've been accused of pedophilia for your alleged involvement with a seventeen year old girl. How do you plead?"

SJ: "Well, sir, first of all, there was no intercourse involved.. And if there was, what of it? She's as adult a girl as I've known, intellectually stronger than most women I know."

CS: "I can't believe my ears. First you argue in favor of slavery, and now for pedophilia?"

SJ: "Why is it pedophilia? She is a sexually viable woman, mature enough to make her own decisions. If two such consenting adults decide to be together, what business is it of yours?"

CS: "But she's not an adult! She's only seventeen!"

JS: "Now you're quibbling with legal labels, sir. Such a law is a gross generalization, and cannot apply to all young women. After all, great kings and nobles of the past have had wives who were barely old enough to qualify as teenagers!"

CS: "But that is not our American standard! We know better than to do such things! It's simply wrong!"

SJ: "Stay out of my bedroom, Congressman."

CS: "What you are doing is clearly wrong, and such thinking is very dangerous."

SJ: "Oh really, Congressman? What about natural law? What about God's implied viewpoint on the issue?"

CS: "Such things do not concern me, Senator James. I'm merely concerned about upholding the law."

SJ: "As am I, Congressman. In this case, I call your laws subjective and immoral. I feel that if the social standard be the only one, then your beliefs are infringing upon my beliefs. The Constitution urges me to oppose immoral leadership!"

CS: "Yet what you are doing continues to be illegal."

SJ: "If you choose to apply subjective labels to what is -- or is not -- carnally acceptable in this nation, then I will do the same. I hereby propose an amendment to redefine marriage as being possible between a man and a woman as young as fifteen. In doing so, I not only liberate young women, but follow in the tradition of our ancestors. I also challenge the dominant hegemony, who I feel wrongly assert their sexual morality upon the rest of us!"

CS: "That's absurd!"

SJ: "Is it, Congressman? How about your own husband in Massachusetts? How is such an alternative lifestyle legally possible?"

CS: "That is unfair. We are two consenting adults, living a peaceful and agreeable life together. It is our right to do so."

SJ: "Well, then you and I disagree on the legal meaning of the word "marriage." In which case, I would also like to disagree on the legal meaning of the word "adult," as so many States already do. I will take my seventeen year-old mistress to Georgia, where we shall be legally bound, despite your bigoted and heterophobic protests."

CS: "You're bordering on the ludicrous, Senator James."

SJ: "Am I? I've only used your own logic and beliefs under a different pretense... If your way of looking at the world is the correct one, then it makes no difference that we disagree, even on such fundamental issues..."

***
I of course in no way support slavery or pedophilia, but have merely tried to make a point that so many otherwise intelligent people seem so unwilling to grasp: there ARE objective standards to consider when human rights come into play. They are the objective standards of the natural law invoked by the very same document that justified American Independence. If morality is merely a social dictate, then anything can ultimately become legal if enough people support it.

There is a reason that the opening statement by Senator James is absurd, and it has nothing to do with your personal opinion.

Yet, looking at it a second time, the entire debate is absurd, because it merely hinges on opinions and legal quibbling. America has worked, up until now, because our laws and viewpoints had a deeper source. We abandon the source at our peril, risking that the above discussion become a political reality...


Friday, November 28, 2008

America, God, and the Necessity of Natural Law

Church and state, so much hate...

Recently in an online debate concerning Prop-8, I suggested -- without stating my own thoughts on the issue -- that both sides, regardless of belief, should examine both prevalent scientific research on the topic, as well as the common-sense conclusions of Natural Law, before agreeing to legislate one way or the other. Two of the numerous vitriolic responses were telling:

"You need to keep your archaic religious beliefs out of this."
--and--
"Take your Natural Law and go live in the forest -- you'll be more comfortable there."

Ouch. But funny, considering -- in the first case -- that I had never brought religion into the issue, and -- in the second case -- that this person clearly did not know what Natural Law is.

It occurs to me that in order to justify the existence of the American experiment, both God and the Natural Law must be assumed as a measuring stick. You are free to be an atheist, of course, but you cannot request that "God be removed from the public sphere" without burning both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as well.

The foundation of the American experiment, and the very justification of our revolution, stems from Natural Law. (For those unfamiliar, a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)

For instance, take the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence:
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

"Laws of Nature, and Nature's God," you say?

How, in a public debate free of any mention of God, could the resulting relativistic morass agree that any truths are "self-evident?" The answer is simple: they couldn't. Nor would any self-respecting liberal agree that the last sentence above invalidates abortion-on-demand, but that's another debate.

And now we move to the first amendment of the Constitution, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redres of grievances.

The phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the document. Our Founding Fathers assumed that religious belief -- as a key forming element of every educated man's conscience -- would enter into the public debate. This is not to say that Congress should -- or even can -- debate theology. It is to say that the very human dignity which our elected representatives are sworn to uphold and consider cannot be fully justified outside of the theistic realm. End of story. No absolute truth, such as human dignity or freedom, is ultimately possible without an absolute referrant. To see the alternative, I refer you to the "people's" French revolution, or the experiments of 20th century communism.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but you must acknowledge certain basic facts about the American experiment, or become party to its unraveling.

You may not believe in God, or you may not be sure of what you believe... but be glad that other brave men of belief have made your disbelief a safe and legal possibility.

Natural Law is part of the Foundation of America, and we have no right to eliminate her source, nor to pass laws which go contrary to her common-sense dictates.

Don't like it? Move to China and have your relativism.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Being Nice.

I am eternally thankful for my courageous friends.

For every mercy I have received in life, none have been greater than those which have helped to correct or curb whatever fatal flaws I may have. Some friends have courageously plucked me up and chastised me for whatever stupidity I might be engaging in. Others have lived by an example so powerful that I could not help but be impressed -- and inspired to emulate. (It's an ongoing process...)

Some I have met in the flesh -- others have spoken to me through the decades (or the ages) via great books and wise words and beautiful music.

One truth rings out at me daily: that I am my brother's keeper. Had others not believed this simple truth, I'd be in a much sorrier state in life, be it my moral life or professional career. If they had the courage to live this creed on my behalf, then I would be a coward to do otherwise.

I recently lost a friend. This person chose to remove their person from my life because I happen to state "contentious" opinions in a written forum. Despite every kindness and patience I had shown this person in reality, they found my "crazy" and "illogical" opinions on such issues as abortion to be too much to deal with (even though we never once debated them personally.) They had to "remove such negativity" from their lives.

In sorrowing over this lost friendship, I was reminded by a friend that "anger is often the first response to truth." In listening to a talk by Fr. Corapi today -- a great warrior in his own right -- I was reminded that "I am my brother's keeper." Fr. Corapi reminded me that losing a friendship is not as painful as losing self-respect, or as painful as sitting idly by why insanity reigns, or as painful as losing my very soul.

Why do I blog? Well, partly -- and to be honest -- it helps relieve inner frustrations, all while getting the creative juices flowing for composition. Before blogging existed, I had saved many pages of commentaries, all necessary venting before the deeper expression. (Yes, for better or worse, I've been critiquing society and writing commentaries since the first grade.)

Yet I've discovered that such simple public postings go much deeper. We all have particularly keen abilities and viewpoints, "angles on truth" if you will. We have them in order to share them, and in sharing them, I have found immense blessings in return.

What is our greatest calling in life? To be our brother's keeper. C.S. Lewis reminds us that there are only two paths in life -- that to eternal glory, or eternal horror. Our every interaction with another person, be it trivial or otherwise, pushes them in one of two directions. When all is said and done, even those straddling the fence will be blown in only one direction. (Think of that the next time you cut somebody off in busy traffic!)

It is a painful reality, and one that we all sense in some level of our being. Some embrace it and live accordingly, others run and deny for as long as they have breath. Yet one thing has become clear to me:

Being nice -- or "tolerant" -- earns no points in eternity. Absolutely none.

Martin Luther King Jr wasn't "nice" or tolerant. He was a brilliant firebrand. Gandhi may have been passive, but he wasn't tolerant -- he fought evil with the fierce fire of peace. None of the great preachers or prophets were "nice guys."

In fact, as Father Corapi reminds us, most Churches would send a modern-day Jesus Christ into sensitivity training. In seeking to emulate the greats -- as we should -- we soon learn that niceness and tolerance don't go very far. Only goodness reigns, and goodness can be difficult.

Our initial brushes with Truth (capital T) reveal a cold, hard reality. There is no tolerance for "interpretations," no room for semantics, no expectations of niceness. There is only the necessity for change, the need to let go, and, in the end, only...

Joy.

A friend once reminded me that "nice guys don't go to heaven. But good men do." Being "good" necessarily entails that you live courageously (even when you're afraid), and virtually guaruntees that you'll ruffle some feathers along the way. Do it anyways, and trust in posterity to correct the collateral damage.

When I write, I don't do it to ruffle feathers, or to express egotism, or to alienate friends. I do it to humbly pass along the wisdom which has found itself at my doorstep, the very same wisdom that I struggle daily to accumulate into my very flawed life. If there is fire to my words, it is because I also do it in defiance of an age where opinion has trumped reason, while belief is eroniously held to be a private matter.

I do it because I am my brother's keeper, whether I like it or not.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Was Modern Music a Slavic Age?

(Warning: potentially contentious statement later in this article...)

Last month's issue of Classical FM magazine dealt beautifully with the subject of modern Russian music. Reading over the roster of names -- many of whom did their work in the 20th century -- got me to thinking:

Which nation or geographic region had the greatest effect on the course of 20th century music?

While this may seem like a loaded question, music history texts have no problem pointing to various eras where styles and trends were dominated by Italy, France, or Germany. Indeed, the Germans seem to take the crown historically, providing us with more geniuses from the Classical era than any other nation.

It was a supremacy they fought hard to keep. Arnold Schoenberg predicted -- with the typical Tuetonic flair of that unfortunate era -- that he had "discovered something that will guarantee the supremacy of German music for the next hundred years." (Thankfully both him and that other Aryan supremacist war-mongering occultist intellectual dictator were both wrong in their grand predictions. You could call me bitter, but I'm not exxagerating.)

I will celebrate this 11/11 -- the 90th anniversary of Polish independence from her less-friendly neighbors -- by making a potentially contentious statement:

Where music is concerned, the 20th century was a Slavic Century. While I know this is a personally biased statement, it nevertheless has great historical weight. I firmly believe that when leveled in the perspective of (non-Boulezian) history (assuming certain racial stereotypes in music are perhaps dulled or forgotten), students will one day learn about the powerful Slavic turn of 20th century music.

I also believe that it is the Slavic composers who saved modern composition, at least as far as audiences are concerned. The 19th century folk-tinged rumblings of Chopin, Dvorak, and the Russian Five led to a veritable musical explosion in Central and Eastern Europe. A brief survey of names includes: Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Lutoslawski, Glazunov, Gorecki, Scriabin, Penderecki, Schnittke, Janacek, Ligeti, Gubaidulina, Part, Kurtag, Rachmaninov, Szymanowski, and of course Bartok. (This was a list off the top of my head -- feel free to add your favorites.) Then there was the mighty teacher, Nadia Boulanger -- Catholic, half-Russian, and deeply aware of both.

While western Europe blazed a trail of largely soulless music, Stravinsky (bolstered by his mentor Boulanger) brought another version of musical modernity into being. The echoes of the rite still reverberate through our concert halls and conservatories.

Where Schoenberg & Co. codified atonality and paved the way to musical modernism, it seems that it is the composers of Eastern and Central Europe -- always placing the demands of expressionism over the demands of craft -- that gave modernism a soul.

Then there are the quasi-folk musings of Janacek and Bartok, who stooped classical high-browery back to the earth, unleashing tremendous expressive possibilities which are still being explored across numerous cultures today.

A glimpse back to the Russian five may give us the roots of this cultural success. These men were concerned with music for its spiritual and expressive properties, rather than any numerical interest it might engender. They were certainly under-trained as musicians and composers (or, perhaps, unhampered by over-training?) They were humanists first, seeking an expressive nationalistic vision for their resurgent nation. They also recognized the inherent power of folk music. This began a trend which would carry through most of the following century.

I am particularly proud of Poland, where modernism both found a soul -- and a way out. Long before his neo-romantic musings, Penderecki was at the head of the avante-gard in composition. Most of us are too young to remember the extreme cultural impacts of his Threnody and St. Matthew Passion. In all fairness, we can thank the Germans for embracing -- and funding -- most of Penderecki's international successes.

In Estonia, Arvo Part began his career by writing some of the most expressive serial music ever penned, before realizing the limitations of such a musical language and withdrawing to reconsider his craft.

1976 will likely be considered a magical year in future music history texts. It was in this year that Gorecki penned his magnanimous Third Symphony. After the premiere, one member of the modernist hegemony was said to decry that "Gorecki has abandoned 200 years of musical progress with a single piece." Yet it has become the best-selling recording of modern music in history, inspiring countless composers to return to a new simplicity. (It is also the piece that saved my young compositional life.)

In that very same year, Arvo Part emerged from his long self-imposed silence with a new musical language, blending ancient religiosity with a stark modern simplicity. In the end, the very nations that either resisted abstract modernism -- or gave it a soul -- also provided composers that -- along with the American minimalists -- showed a way out of the cultural morass of modern music.

In short, it was these men who maximized the modern, while later giving us permission to dream a different musical dream. Faced with the bleakness of a secular, mathematical century, the "Kyries" and "Agnus Dei's" poured forth once more. The end of the Slavic century presented a fitting musical gift, turning our hard-headed art back to more basic human needs.

It is curious, then, and perhaps even a bit xenophobic, when music schools require German or Italian from their musicology students. Should not Polish and Russian be added to the list?
Often impossible to analyze, often too simple for academic prose, the music of the Slavic century may have more than cultural biases to overcome in order to assume a proper historical prominence.

It's still too early to say where the new century will lead us. Will it, by virtue of our continued melting-pot status, become the American century? Will the Chinese seize cultural dominance? Or will the rise of communications technology make it the first truly international era of music?

Contrary to popular belief, classical music has never been stronger or more widespread then it is now, despite the lack of (generally pessimistic) major-media coverage. Out of the political darkness of the 20th century, we've been handed a battered baton of hard-earned progress from the Slavic greats. It is a baton covered with the sweat of the politically-hounded and the blood of freedom fighters, emerging from a modern history stranger (and more brutal) than fiction. Where will we run with it?

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

A Life in Music

What does it mean to live a life in music?

I remember having completed my first year of study on my Masters degree in Composition. I was in a wonderful and supportive environment at the University of Colorado. My teachers were exceptional, my program dedicated, and I had developed the friends and support system to see me through. In truth, my time at Colorado is the standard by which all other academic (and professional) experiences will be measured. Many institutions could learn a great deal from the way CU runs her music program...

Yet I was profoundly unsure of what I was doing. I was exploding with creativity, yet my craft remained weak, and I had felt battered by opposing viewpoints on aesthetics since beginning my undergrad years. Somehow, regardless of intellectual realization, I was unable to accept pure modernism and abstract art on a soul level. My body rejected it like bad food, which left me utterly confused. Something was not right, and I began to doubt whether or not the musical world had a place for me.

As I entered that second year of graduate study, I knew that my resolve -- and my career -- hung in the balance. I sought guidance on the issue, and prayed feverishly for a clear path forward. As always, answers come from unexpected places.

At the end of a long and exhausting week, ready to go home, my friend Trudy asked if I would volunteer at a conference about Nadia Boulanger. She promised great networking opportunities, lunch, and a free concert of sacred music, so I flippantly agreed. The experience would change my life.

In to the U-of-C poured over 200 of Nadia Boulanger's former students, and the school was suddenly awash in a new kind of energy. I met one of Nadia's last students, now teaching in San Fransisco. I met a sweet old nun who studied with her in the 1930's, and was partly responsible for her conversion.

Nadia Boulanger's students, regardless of their religion, were united in the belief that music was a fundamentally important and fundamentally human excercise. They made no apologies for their rejection of much modernism as mere intellectual drivel, and their music -- as well as the force of their personalities -- all testified to the strength of their position.

I learned of Nadia and Lili Boulanger, and how Lili's death silenced Nadia's compositional voice while unleashing her love of pedagogy. I learned of Nadia's influence on over 1200 musicians, including Lenny Bernstein, Carter, Piston, Thompson, and a certain Igor Stravinsky (pictured above.) I learned of her reversion to Catholicism, her attendance of daily mass, and her incredible piety.

Boulanger, it seems, was a secular nun of music, chaste and faithful, and rigorously demanding of her students.

Truth be told, I don't know if my rather fragile demeanor at the time would have fared well under her strict tutelage. Truth be told, I don't think I would have had the musicianship to last two days in her studio. Yet I remain grateful for the fact that she existed.

"Ye shall judge the tree by its fruit."
From the centerpoint of Nadia Boulanger sprang much of the greatest music of the 20th century. Being surrounded by her students, I found myself reinvigorated about both music and humanity in general.

Most shockingly, the name of God and his desire for us was invoked repeatedly by various composers of various beliefs. These people were convinced not only that music was good, but that God wants us to write more of it. As a person of belief, I was honestly shocked to hear such a thing spoken aloud, at a liberal University, by a gathering of composers no less. Yet it pointed to the key missing ingredient in my creative search.

It was a great weekend, and it may have saved my life, let alone my career.
While I hate to write this, I am afraid that if the weekend had consisted of a gathering of former Schoenberg students, I would have likely quit.

What does it mean to live a life in music? Perhaps when I'm 70, I'll have a coherent answer to this question. Yet I'm quite sure I know what such a life is not meant to be, and by knowing the negative, the positive can begin to reveal itself.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Princeton Professor Skewers Pro-Choicers

As Americans, we have the freedom to hold a diversity of opinions. We have the freedom to disagree, and the expectation to do so civilly.

Certain issues, however, do not hinge on opinion. Certain issues, when examined in a full and honest light, pull only in one direction. Such is the so-called "debate" on abortion and human life. There is only one right answer. Which is why I continue to write and post articles on the subject, working in the hope that viewpoints may be illuminated and cleared of intellectual filth and clutter.

Take Princeton Professor Robert P. George's essay, "Obama's Abortion Extremism." The following is a quote in which he compares the abortion argument to the slavery argument:


"Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as "pro-choice"? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were "personally opposed" to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were "unnecessary," or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said "Against slavery? Don't own one." We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited." (taken from article.)

If you're curious, head over to the Witherspoon Institute's website for the entire article. Kudos to Professor George!
http://thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

Monday, September 8, 2008

Stravinsky's Crawl

"You know, I can tell when you're just composing to compose, and when it really means something."

...So said the punctually wise fellow-composer Michael Bratt to me one week, after I had just been criticized during a particularly unsuccessful group composition lesson.

My own inner-voice told me: "You know, if you had to stand there and explain what you were after, it doesn't work."

Yeah. I get it now. And Mike's words have made all the difference.

I could easily turn this into a commentary on words. Words have power, after all, and we should never underestimate the power of a personal statement. I can easily list the handful of personal and courageous statements which have changed the course of my life.

That being said, I'd like to talk about notes.

I'm generally full of theories as to why so much modern music doesn't work, yet given the nature of art, I'm willing to admit that often it's nothing more than opinionated grasping at aesthetic straws.

As to why certain music does work, however, things are far less mysterious in nature. There are really two levels of musical intent, and modern classical music seems to often miss the boat on both counts.

The first, as my good friend Mike expressed to me, has to do with personal meaning. Clearly, I'm an expressionist. When I acted on such things first and foremost, my work resonated with others. When I didn't, it fell flat.

I can follow this line of thought: clearly, all of our greatest musical expressions, be they the impossibly controlled fugues of Bach or the ripping-raw energy of my favorite Metallica song, all are works of deep personal expression.

I've received two kinds of post-concert handshakes. The first is the polite, contrite "I liked your piece" greeting. The second is the full-grinned and enthusiastic acknowledgment of a deeper connection. For me, there is nothing more gratifying.

I was shocked, when at ISU for the premiere of my Aevum, a woman came up to me after the concert. She said: "I'm a pianist I loved your piece. It grabbed me, and seemed to describe the very turmoils I've gone through this year. Thank you."

Wow. I was speechless. More often, after new music concerts, I'll hear things like "that piece was neat" --or-- "where did you derive your pitches from?" Ouch. I know what kind of comments I prefer.

How much serialism is concerned primarily with deep human expression and connection, as opposed to the extended expression of technique?

Reading the composer posts on www.newmusicbox.org, one can quickly identify the "self-conscious ipod listening-lists" given by so many, as if to prove they can feel as well as think. (For instance, it seems that every instance of Boulez must be balanced by the mention of a punk band. Fascinating.)

Where does such an implication come from? Has new music stopped being primarily concerned with expression? If so, what's the point of writing it?

Yet there is a second and more powerful element, though it is more rarely (in modern times) spoken of. This is the deific element in music, and the lack of it is the main reason that so much modernism falls flat.

When Kandinsky wanted an icon in his workspace, he asked for a solid black portrait. (I'll spare you the details of Kandinsky's and Schoenberg's mutual occult associations, though I'll give a special prize to the first person who can identify the mass-murdering dictator who followed the same philosophical principles!) John Cage, despite all of his ingenuity, ultimately embraced and propagated a relativistic and anti-humanistic philosophy in his life and work. Schoenberg may have been searching for new levels of meaning, but Boulez took his numbers and ran to a place of stifling formalism and seemingly meaningless abstraction.

This is not to say that these artists did not produce instances of haunting, beautiful, and deeply expressive work. It's to say that on the whole, something was certainly missing.

The reason so much modern art and music falls flat is simply because of the direction it points -- which is so often either nowhere, or to the figure of the artist.

Beethoven, for all of his supposed megalomania, never lost sight of his place in the universe, his music consequently pointed from the human creator to the one who created him. When I see Boulez conduct great music, I see a revelry which is ultimately self-contained (though brilliant nevertheless.) When I saw a tape of Boulez conducting his own music, I perceived a joy taken in human ingenuity.

Yet it went no further. The creator was present, but he did not acknowledge his place, only his own ingenuity. It was beautiful, in a way, but ultimately meaningless.

(Not to pick on Pierre: he's merely the great talent by which all of my statements can be tested.)

Take by contrast the (relative) soaring popularity of the "new spiritualists" in Gorecki, Tavener, Part & co. Certainly their compositional chops do not approach that of a Boulez or Ades, nor are they technical innovators. Yet their music rings clearly in places far deeper and lasting than the halls of academia.

I was told a story -- by a nun who once studied with Nadia Boulanger -- of Igor Stravinsky's attitude towards God. He and Nadia (a daily communicant) entered an Orthodox cathedral together one afternoon. Nadia sat to the side, while Igor slowly moved forward to the altar to pray. The closer he got, the more bent he became, as if a giant hand were pressing down upon him. He veritably crawled on all fours to the altar to grovel before his lord. When the entire display was done, the two went merrily on their way, thinking nothing of it. (Think of this the next time you listen to the Symphony of Psalms.)

Stravinsky knew his place.

In fact, if you compare the students of Boulanger to the students of Schoenberg & Co., you have a startling study in musical purpose. While I admire the technique and ingenuity of one side, my heart flutters to the music of the other.

...for a tree is judged by its fruit...

An analogy is perhaps helpful here. I was once told that an artist is like a small child, drawing a picture or doing a dance for their parent. To the parent's refined sensibilities, even the greatest effort of the child will fall artistically short. Yet the parent takes delight in the child's effort, praise, and love.

Some truths, while difficult to prove logically, resonate clearly in the realms of analogy, anecdote, and metaphor. So it is with music.

Regardless of your line of work, one should frequently ask: Are you the joyful child dancing for the love of your parent, giving forth your best effort out of the intuitive knowledge that it is good?

Or are you the selfish child, dancing only for yourself?

If we want to strengthen and build new audiences for modern art, there is only one sure way:

"Soli Deo Gloria."

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Convenient Thinking

Robert Reilly, writing on the "Culture of Vice," speaks of self-justifying rationalization. Or, in simpler terms, the art of convincing yourself something is right even when you realize that it isn't (or denying that you are really unsure in the matter.)

This is akin to what George Orwell called "double-think", and what others more simply term "self deception" or "lack of formation." Granted, most liberals -- minor insanities aside -- are responsible and compassionate Americans. Many are my dear friends. One tolerates their idiosyncratic beliefs, hoping that time equates into wisdom. After all, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

It's been pointed out to me that I've spent an inordinate amount of time railing against a certain Obama, and not enough time defending "my candidate." To those who have claimed as much, I do believe that you're missing the point.

No, the point is not that I have yet to firmly decide on a candidate (if any.) The point is that the single most illogical and extremist portion of our society -- the far left -- has found a poster-child in Obama. This, despite the fact that he is a professing Christian. I find this fascinating, and as an amateur commentator, I am enjoying publicly dissecting and trying to understand Obamamania.

We live in a reactionary culture. We live in an environment which eschews feelings over reason, and self-justifying rationalization over the pursuit of an objective truth.

Rather than rail more about Obama today, I thought I would contemplate the extreme-left mentality instead. Extreme liberals are like extreme conservatives, save one major failing: extreme conservatives tend to have belief systems that are internally consistent. The far left, on the other hand, rides the high-horse of emotion and rhetoric, because they have little else to offer us. Sprinkle this with some bumper-sticker ideology and soundbite philosophy, and you're ready to vote for Nader.

I mentioned Robert Reilly before. He is the "chairman of the Committee for Western Civilization and a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council." It is educational to read his thoughts on the matter, as they are far superior to what I could muster at this time. Are our leaders engaging in such a high level of thought?

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/ReillyCultureVice.php

The Pope Opines on Music, Art, and Aesthetics

Whenever I read something like this, I am giddily happy to be a Catholic. The following transcript was sent to me today; it is an excerpt of an open forum between the Holy Father and seminarians. Speaking off the top of his head, the Holy Father demonstrates not only a razor-sharp intellect, but also a deep consideration of aesthetic issues, as well as how the aesthetic realm can both augment and exceed the theological one. Brilliant, and worth a read (or three.)

***
Fr Willibald Hopfgartner, O.F.M.: Holy Father, my name is Willibald Hopfgartner, I am a Franciscan and I work in a school and in various areas of guidance of my Order. In your Discourse at Regensberg you stressed the substantial link between the divine Spirit and human reason. On the other hand, you also always underlined the importance of art and beauty, of aesthetics. Consequently, should not the aesthetic experience of faith in the context of the Church, for proclamation and for the Liturgy be ceaselessly reaffirmed alongside the conceptual dialogue about God (in theology)?

Pope Benedict XVI:

Thank you. Yes, I think these two things go hand in hand: reason, precision, honesty in the reflection on the truth - and beauty. Reason that intended to strip itself of beauty would be halved, it would be a blinded reason. It is only when they are united that both these things form the whole, and precisely for faith this union is important. Faith must continuously face the challenges of thought in this epoch, so that it does not seem a sort of irrational legend that we keep alive but which really is a response to the great questions, and not merely a habit but the truth - as Tertullian once said. In his First Letter, St Peter wrote the phrase that medieval theologians took as a legitimation, as it were, a responsibility for their theological task: "Always be prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" - an apologetic for the logos of hope, that is, a transformation of the logos, the reason for hope in apologetics, in response to men. He was obviously convinced of the fact that the faith was the logos, that it was a reason, a light that came from creative Reason rather than a wonderful concoction, a fruit of our thought. And this is why it is universal and for this reason can be communicated to all.

Yet, precisely this creative logos is not only a technical logos - we shall return to this aspect with another answer - it is broad, it is a logos that is love, hence such as to be expressed in beauty and in good. Also, I did once say that to me art and the Saints are the greatest apologetic for our faith. The arguments contributed by reason are unquestionably important and indispensable, but then there is always dissent somewhere. On the other hand, if we look at the Saints, this great luminous trail on which God passed through history, we see that there truly is a force of good which resists the millennia; there truly is the light of light. Likewise, if we contemplate the beauties created by faith, they are simply, I would say, the living proof of faith. If I look at this beautiful cathedral - it is a living proclamation! It speaks to us itself, and on the basis of the cathedral's beauty, we succeed in visibly proclaiming God, Christ and all his mysteries: here they have acquired a form and look at us. All the great works of art, cathedrals - the Gothic cathedrals and the splendid Baroque churches - they are all a luminous sign of God and therefore truly a manifestation, an epiphany of God. And in Christianity it is precisely a matter of this epiphany: that God became a veiled Epiphany - he appears and is resplendent. We have just heard the organ in its full splendour. I think the great music born in the Church makes the truth of our faith audible and perceivable: from Gregorian chant to the music of the cathedrals, to Palestrina and his epoch, to Bach and hence to Mozart and Bruckner and so forth. In listening to all these works - the Passions of Bach, his Mass in B flat, and the great spiritual compositions of 16th-century polyphony, of the Viennese School, of all music, even that of minor composers - we suddenly understand: it is true! Wherever such things are born, the Truth is there. Without an intuition that discovers the true creative centre of the world such beauty cannot be born. For this reason I think we should always ensure that the two things are together; we should bring them together. When, in our epoch, we discuss the reasonableness of faith, we discuss precisely the fact that reason does not end where experimental discoveries end - it does not finish in positivism; the theory of evolution sees the truth but sees only half the truth: it does not see that behind it is the Spirit of the Creation. We are fighting to expand reason, and hence for a reason which, precisely, is also open to the beautiful and does not have to set it aside as something quite different and unreasonable. Christian art is a rational art - let us think of Gothic art or of the great music or even, precisely, of our own Baroque art - but it is the artistic expression of a greatly expanded reason, in which heart and reason encounter each other. This is the point. I believe that in a certain way this is proof of the truth of Christianity: heart and reason encounter one another, beauty and truth converge, and the more that we ourselves succeed in living in the beauty of truth, the more that faith will be able to return to being creative in our time too, and to express itself in a convincing form of art.

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Dawkins Debunked.... Far too Easily.

Is Richard Dawkins an intellectual charlatan? How about a psychological terrorist?

A friend recently posted the following video. While I've been railing against Dawkins for quite a while now, I will share the video before I debunk it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTnbtSvjAQc

With all complete respect to intelligent atheists, I present this as a counter-argument, and not a personal attack.

All religions -- including atheism -- have a claim to ultimate truth or reality.

Having read Dawkins, I realize the philosophical errors he is prone to. This video is no different. His main thesis tends towards the idea of "religion leads to hate and death." He fails to address how atheist regimes such as the Soviet Union -- free of a absolute reference point for ideas such as freedom or human dignity -- have slaughtered people and amassed body-counts large enough to make the crusades look
like a cub-scout outing.

The very first person Dawkins interviews in this video brings up this very point. Dawkins ignores the query, instead labeling the man as a religious "fundamentalist." In doing so he avoids the question which is devastating to his entire argument. Hate-monger or not, the very first person Dawkins interviews in this video is capable of demolishing him in a public debate: it is fortunate for Dawkins that he controlled the editing of this video.

Dawkins also fails to recognize the begged-for question: how are atheist fundamentalists any better than religious fundamentalists? Aren't both working on philosophically-supported faith? Aren't both as historically prone to mass carnage?

This is why guys like Dawkins infuriate me -- they present themselves as de-bunking scholars and "clear-thinkers," while time and time again failing to address the most basic points regarding their so-called world view. A sophomore philosophy major could demolish most of their arguments.

Dawkins' chosen vocabulary is suspect. Words such as "beauty" and "goodness" and "evil", let alone "right" or "wrong" have no real basis outside of individual opinion when an absolute position -- God -- is denied.

"Freedom," for instance -- and the American revolution to gain it -- were justified as a basic right which comes from God. Take away God, and America will fall. The philosophical reason is simple: if nothing exists -- if nothing is absolute -- then all concrete ideas such as "freedom" become untenable.

For instance: Dawkins says that "killing for God is not only hideous murder, but also totally ridiculous."

I agree with Dawkins whole-heartedly, but I agree BECAUSE of religion, not in spite of it. I can justify my belief: Dawkins cannot.

Lastly, words such as "hideous" cannot be used, the idea of the immorality of "murder" becomes questionable, and even the idea of what is or is not "ridiculous" cannot be upheld without an absolute reference point.

I am reminded of the pro-pedophile from New Zealand who I heard publicly criticize the "hardline American perspective" on youth sexuality. Deny absolutes, and anything else is possible.

Dawkins says: "unlike religion, science does not pretend to have all of the answers."

Really, Mr. Dawkins, can you honestly name a religious system which claims to know everything? My experience with religion rather admits to a lack of knowledge, encouraging personal humbleness in the face of what we don't know -- and will never know -- in our current reality.

In his "teapot" argument, he commits an error of equivocation in both his philosophical and historical arguments, all complete with nicely-filmed visuals.

Can it be any clearer?

Atheism has no reference point. It has no ultimate goal. It merely stares into an empty and indifferent cosmos, unsure of how to proceed beyond the realm of personal opinion.

Dawkins ultimately presents us with this bleak world-view while ultimately failing to justify his beliefs. He is therefore no better than a believer who cannot justify his belief. He is just as guilty of "faith" as the Christians and Muslims he lambasts.

Dawkins and his kind are no better than the charlatan Christian cult leaders and Muslim hate-mongers who hijack the trappings of faith to manipulate the vulnerable and uninformed. I would like to say that both types are equally dangerous, but history has already demonstrated the far-greater threat of relativism and atheism.

In short: While atheism has had admirable defenders, men like Dawkins or Hitchens are not in their company.

For my part, I'd rather be a part of something prone to error, as opposed to destined for it.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Media Misses Major International Event

So what would you say about a media that missed an event that fulfilled the following qualifications?

1.) Largest international event in months
2.) Largest event ever hosted by Australia
3.) Event which attracted people and major names from every continent
4.) Over 200,000 young people gathered in one place, without drugs or violence or rock-music festivals a part of the equation?

Such was World Youth Day 2008, and the media was blatantly biased in not covering the event. As I watched and read the news throughout the week, any brief mention of the event focused on the minor presence of protesters on the outskirts.

That's right: 200,000 people gathered in the name of peace and love, and the only thing the media could focus on was the guy standing on the sidelines dressed like a giant condom.

Truth was proclaimed from the rooftops, and the media predictably stuck their fingers in their ears and said "no no no... I'm not listening!"

Such slighting only confirms one thing: contemporary culture is not ambivalent towards the Church: it is afraid of it.

How is this for a headline?
"Over 200,000 gather to discuss and celebrate Truth while protesters exchange empty and unsupported slogans on the outskirts."

As a Catholic, I draw great pride from every protester, dissenter, cynic, and uninformed (so-called) atheist who criticizes or (attempts to) ignore my Church. After all, if we weren't on to something important -- and if we weren't a major international power -- they wouldn't be wasting so much energy on us.

Back to world youth day -- a wonderful article describing the event was written by Sophie Caldecott with Zenit. Enjoy.

http://www.zenit.org/article-23391?l=english

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Greed Reversed: A Tale of Sports Redemption

How do you take a hated name in a big-city sports environment and turn it completely around -- making it a byword for success and drive -- all in under 12 months?

Make his first name Rocky.

I know, I know.. I'm supposed to be on vacation. But I couldn't help quickly commenting on this one.

The name of William Wirtz was a byword for hate in Chicago, with the vitriol against the Wirtz name growing deeper and harsher with each passing season. This went well beyond a bumbling franchise (the Cubs have been bumblers for the better part of a century): this was a reaction of common fans against a man who would give everything away -- including his own good name -- offering it all at the altar of greed.

It even led a former lawyer to write a book titled "Career Misconduct" - in which he cites and supports numerous arrogant and sometimes downright illegal activities by the Wirtz family. Talk about negative press...

With WWW's passing, his youngest son Rocky was tapped to take over the operations of the Blackhawks.

Rocky's story is worth mentioning whether or not you concern yourself with sports, because his business-savvy and personal approach are a model for any person.

At the end of last season, despite narrowly missing the playoffs yet AGAIN, Rocky Wirtz was likely surprised to receive the thunderous cheer of "Rocky, Rocky!" from Blackhawks fans.

The reasons for his success are rather simple, and they merit imitation in any field.

First, Rocky delegated. He brought in -- and continues to bring in with today's signing of Scotty Bowman -- the best people to do the job.

Second, Rocky reached out to his constituents. He took the pulse of what fans were left, balanced it against sound market research, and went to work accordingly.

Third, Rocky seems to understand that gains cannot be made without initial patience, sacrifice, and investment. For three decades, Hawks fans were only given patience. Now with sacrifice and investment added in, a real buzz is brewing.

Fourth, Rocky cleaned house. From top management down to bench-warmers, all the dead skin has been cut away. Sometimes you have to bleed a bit before the healing can begin.

Lastly, Rocky is simply positioning himself as the quiet head of a dynamic and forward-looking organization. He's provided a vision, all while providing the means to achieve this vision.

One almost wishes he would run for public office.

We can all stand to learn a thing or two from Rocky Wirtz, regardless of our position in life. Let's hope that his initial success blossoms into a real and well-deserved hockey dynasty for Chicago.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Professor Myers: Professional Bigot?

Professor Myers, I hope you're reading this.

For the other folks who read my blog: have you heard of Professor Myers?

I'm speaking of the "educator" at the U of Minnesota who has sought to entertain his readers on the seeming nonsense of religion.

In his blog posting "It's just a Frackin Cracker," Myers writes:

There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion.

That's funny, Professor, because those were my exact thoughts as I read your blog.

I won't post a link: I don't want anything of mine linking to this guy's blog. Google it if you wish.

I will spare you the rest of his jagged and awkward prose, his obscenities, and in general his complete demonstration of intolerance and ignorance. To summarize, he ridicules first Catholicism and then religious belief in general, attacking anyone who would even remotely defend "the frackin' cracker."

Seeking to prove a point, Myers asked for and received a consecrated host from a Catholic Mass.

Being an equal-opportunity bigot, Myers ended up desecrating the Eucharist by putting a rusty nail through it, also putting a nail through a page of the Koran. He threw the items into his trash, covering them with his coffee grounds and a rotten banana peel.

Classy, Professor Myers, classy. Not only are you a sad, unfortunate, and hateful person, you are also historically ignorant and religiously bigoted. To rephrase your very own words: you are stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid.
It was also quite anti-climactic: after days of promising some sort of grant desecration, you managed only this? The great heretics of old are rolling in their graves and ash-pits.

Does it bother you, Myers, that you're being forgiven? That thousands -- perhaps even millions -- of believers worldwide are now praying for you? Does it bother you that we worry about the state of your soul? That people are fasting for you even now?

Does it bother you that we have answered your hate with love?

***

People can be forgiven. Institutions, however, are another story. Proceeding right along then, we'll take a few well-deserved swipes at the University of Minnesota.

In a press release today, University President Jacqueline Johnson repudiated Myers' actions, admitting that he was in violation of the University's conduct policy for Professors. Despite this, she will decline to punish him, chiefly because she feels his actions fall under the umbrella of "academic freedom."

Excuse me, Ms. Johnson, but is Myers a professor of Religion? Or perhaps Philosophy? Considering that he is a scientist, what experiment, class, or academically-related activity did his actions fall under? How is it, exactly, that he is protected by academic freedom in this case?

Not to mention the deep irony that academic freedom is a CATHOLIC concept. In resurrecting the ancient model of the University during medieval times, it was the Catholic Church which protected Universities from the outside interference of politics and royalty. (We must note that significant dissidence has historically been tolerated amongst Church intellectuals and hierarchy. This is why Myers is small-fry in comparison.)

We can deepen the irony in suggesting that institutionalized science is also a Catholic legacy (not without its faults), and the Vatican remains a large public supporter of the sciences, even inviting known atheists such as Stephen Hawking to come share their views AT THE VATICAN itself.

Many questions, both spiritual and temporal, arise from this incident. First of all, why is Myers -- typical of so many atheists I have known -- so virulent in his hate of religion? In a largely secularized United States, are there not bigger fish to fry? Are there not more appropriate targets for his energies? What about those who steal from the homeless? Or the guys who raise taxes on oil?

Or what about the guys who call you in the middle of dinner, trying to sell you swampland in Florida? Man, THOSE guys REALLY boil my blood. If you want to desecrate a cold-call list, Myers, I'll do it with you.

What mysterious energy animates the hate that so-called atheists often manifest towards religion and religious thinkers?

If Myers really, truly believes that it's "just a frackin' cracker," then it wouldn't have him so worked up. I believe that something deeper is happening here.

If you really want a reaction, Myers, go into an African American neighborhood, and repeat the same stunt near a Mosque. The words "just a frackin' cracker" will take on an entirely new meaning to you.

Most of Myers' public supporters, commenting on his antics, revel gleefully in his actions. One can't help but be reminded of ancient pictures of witches and devils spinning gleefully around a fire, ecstatic in their sacrilege.

Ultimately, Myers and his kind will be fortunate to even become a footnote in the great history of the Catholic Church. Myers is small-fry compared to the terrible international tyrants who have raged against the Church with fire and sword.

A wonderful Priest I once knew described us as sheep, meandering around, not entirely cognizant of our shortcomings, mewing pathetically as we pass through life.

And so it is, Myers. Stupid, mewing sheep. Baaaaaa. And no amount of desecration will change that. Thankfully, some sheep are smarter than others.

I know, I know: I contradict myself by wasting so many words on you. I'm only human, however, and prone to my own flashes of temper. That, and you make an easy target for satire.

As to all the Muslims you've no doubt pissed off -- well, buddy, you're on your own with that one.

Iraq Booted From Olympics: What a Shame.

The following story on CNN.COM simply breaks my heart:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/24/iraq.olympics/index.html

To anyone who has given their all only to be thwarted by an inept bureaucratic decision, you know how painful this is.

These athletes should not be punished for the ineptitude of their leaders, and certainly some sort of valid compromise should have been found considering the great implications even a decent showing in the Olympics would have on the poor nation of Iraq.

Leave it to an administration to fawn over rules and regulations, and lose the spirit of the whole thing. Consider that there are few countries in the world who could stand to gain more from an Olympic appearance now.

Let's hope both sides get their acts together, and keep technicalities and corruption from preventing something great from happening.

Hopefully, come August, the whole world will be cheering for Iraqi athletes.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

John Adams

The most recent film to come up in my Netflix Queue was the opening installment of the HBO miniseries "John Adams." To say that I'm surprised by this film is an understatement.

To say that it should be required viewing during this election season is also an understatement.

I couldn't help but wonder at HBO -- hardly a conservative network -- selling a more well-thought out and non-liberal version of American history.

All Hollywood-ization aside, the most fascinating aspects of the series so far are the orations and debates in the original continental Congress. Despite being men of varying beliefs and persuasions (hardly less religiously and philosophically diverse than our modern congress) -- despite being liberals, conservatives, AND proud moderates (Ben Franklin) -- they discussed the issues before them with an intellectual rigor and clarity which should shame our modern politicians.

Would the various political, economic, and moral issues of our time -- not to mention certain social "reforms" -- stand the intellectual rigor of our founding fathers?

Who among the political candidates running for office could stand a cross-examination by the minds which founded our country?

And since I've gone "there" -- has there been a single Presidential candidate in the past two decades who was worthy of the title, let alone the office?

Oh, there were worthy leaders in our midst, but we've passed too many of them by. A culture fed by pop-philosophy and blinded by the light of the idiot-tube is hardly in any state to sustain a democracy, and we're starting to prove this with terrifying consistency.

This film has inspired me to dig deeper into the words and deeds of the first Americans. Despite their failings, I wonder if we couldn't find the guidance there to once again right this aimless ship of a country.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Heartwarming: Another View on Women

I know that many of you will scoff at the notion of purity, but I ask you for a moment to step aside from our contemporary attitudes and consider the following article. In a culture filled to the brim with wounded femininity, are the following words not in the least bit meaningful?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1823930,00.html?cnn=yes

I wonder how many women, given the choice, would exchange their modern so-called personal "freedoms" to live in a culture where they were pursued, protected, and cherished?

A Priest once told me that it is the duty of Fathers and Brothers to protect the dignity of the young women in their family until they are married. At the time, I found it to be an antiquated ideal, a relic of a bygone era.

Yet as I grow a bit older and learn the stories of more and more women, I can't help but be swayed back to such "antiquated" views.

"By their fruits you shall judge them."

Judging by the fruits of their labors, certainly our elders had more than a few things right?

Monday, July 7, 2008

What We Believe

Do you know The Secret?

Have you ate, prayed, and loved enough?

What do we say about a nation which is more likely to accept spiritual advice from Ellen Degeneres than the Pope?

At the 1952 Emmy awards, the award for most outstanding television personality went to an Archbishop in traditional garb, beating out the likes of Lucille Ball and Edward Murrow.

Keep in mind that in the 1950's, American was even less favorably disposed to "Papists" then it is today, nor was it the over-religious backwater some liberals have made it out to be.

The Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen's top-rated television showed, "Life is Worth Living," was a commercial free half-hour of lecture, leading from general topics into the deeper realms of philosophy and theology. The subject matter was often thick and complex, but never anything but intellectually demanding and honest. It was a learned effort, and a far-cry from the neo-spiritual filth so common on program such as Oprah in our times. How far we have fallen, indeed.

Leftists will often hold up the 1950's as a time representative of sexual oppression. They conveniently ignore the fact that it was also an era where common Americans still cared to think deeply about the issues that mattered in life. The fact is, for every fault of the 1950's, there was at least one equal and parallel virtue. I'm not sure that the 1960's could claim as much.

Watching Sheen's show with a modern perspective, one can't help but be struck about how many of our current social ills were predicted by Sheen in the early 1950's. Watching today, one cannot help but be struck by the continued contemporary relevance and power of his words.

Sheen was interested in truth: and truth does not change, regardless of popular notions.

Considering their prophetic nature, Sheen's words may be even more relevant today than in his own time. In a society eager to discuss Nostradamus and various other so-called visionaries and prophets, we should be eager to watch the taped statements of a man who truly was a teller of the future.

In the Chicago Sun-Times today, an excerpt was published from columnist Richard Roeper's new book, "Debunked." This particular excerpt brilliantly demolishes the key tenets of "The Secret," a spiritual sham if ever there was one.

While it's not often I find something to cheer about in the major daily papers, Roepers excerpt is to be praised, as is his scorn of major public figures such as Larry King and Oprah, who shamelessly promote the book. Such charlatans are inflating their financial portfolios at the personal expense of millions.

The popularity of such books as 'The Secret' and 'Eat, Pray, Love' are only indicators that Americans who have cast-off traditional belief systems remain deeply hungry for spiritual sustenance and guidance. One of the reasons that Atheism will never become a truly popular front is that human beings are wired for spirituality: we NEED such things in our lives.

Still, it says something when otherwise educated people are more likely to listen to Oprah than the Pope. It says something when we are both ignorant and self-centered enough to fall for every new spiritual sham.

Not that Christians aren't partly to blame: the plastic edifice of much Evangelical Christianity coupled with the neon-glow of televangelists such as Joel Olsteen have cheapened religion while cheapening the name and message of Christ. For their part, Catholic and Orthodox leaders -- the inheritors of the unbroken line of tradition back to Christ himself -- have made numerous blunders while often refusing to publicly defend and promote the faith. Nor have I heard a single homily denouncing the social ills which Richard Roeper is tackling: so much for educating the faithful. Then there are politicians on both sides of the aisle, hijacking religion to gain even a sliver of additional votes in their next campaigns.

I repeat: truth remains truth, no matter Oprah may tell you. Truth remains truth, even when pro-life Republicans hijack it and pro-choice Obama contradicts his own belief in it. Truth remains truth even when evangelists cheapen it, Bishops fear it, and people misunderstand it.

The Pagan societies of antiquity sought truth, and sought it fiercely. For all of our historical arrogance, it is humbling to know that their Godless Pagan philosophies were more logical and developed than the sham pop-philosophies of the 21st century. The ancient Greeks certainly had sham pop-philosophies to combat the wisdom of their great teachers, but they didn't have MTV, Borders books, and the Oprah show to help them propagate such idiocy.

We have reached the end of an age of deconstruction: eager to cast off the evils of past generations, we have simultaneously discarded their wisdom as well. Here we are, at the dawn of the most educated and technologically advanced society in human history, beginning our philosophical and metaphysical quest anew. Despite having the easiest access to information in human history, we choose to remain ignorant, raising questions that were answered correctly several millenia ago, instead trying to fit new and ever more-inventive answers into the gaps left by our destructive irreverence for our heritage of wisdom.

Freshman philosophy majors would cringe at the propositions and self-contradictions contained in books like The Secret, yet most of us remain all too eager to be led astray.

The ever-growing self-help and metaphysics sections in our local bookstore are clear indicators that people are yearning for spiritual food and guidance. For both good and evil men, this is an opportunity to reap an incredible reward.

We can only work hard, and hope that the truth wins out.

Thursday, July 3, 2008

What's Wrong with America, Fireworks Style.

It took fireworks and the fourth of July to remind me what is wrong with America.

I believe firmly that the problems in any society reveal themselves gradually, rearing their ugly heads in unexpected places.

Every year I look forward to watching the Independence Day fireworks in Chicago, whether in person or on television. Accompanied by the Grant Park Orchestra, the fireworks are a well-coordinated multimedia work of art, not to mention a great statement of Patriotism.

Despite our many problems, concerns, and divisions, America is still something to celebrate.

Why then, instead of the Grant Park Orchestra playing patriotic music, were television viewers instead treated to snippets of shallow top-40 fare?

Instead of America the Beautiful, I heard Gwen Stefani. Instead of the triumphant strains of the 1812 overture (patriotic even if it WAS written by a Russian composer), I heard Kanye West. Instead of the traditional fireworks closer of the Stars and Stripes Forever, poor Mr. Sousa was replaced with Matchbox 20. Not only that, but the Matchbox 20 song was quite literally about the collapse of the world.

Yup. Nothing like some apocalyptic Emo music to ring in the fourth of July festivities.

If you're not bothered, you're not listening. Do we do away with tradition -- as well as the meaning of our greatest national holiday -- to raise ratings?

If Kanye West raises ratings INSTEAD of Sousa on the fourth of July, then what is wrong with America? Have we really become so shallow and stupid? (I will not even address what such thinking says about our national musical intelligence.)

In the end, the Matchbox 20 lyrics were right. "How far have we come?" Do we really care enough about America to actually clap along to the Stars and Stripes, let alone to work to fix her problems in such crucial times?

Let's hope this is the first and last time such a thing occurs. Tomorrow, I'm writing letters to all of the local newspapers. If you want to play pop music, at least play patriotic pop music. Save the party tunes for New Years Eve.

Monday, June 23, 2008

MusicX 2008

The silence is deafening. After seven days of activity, fourteen concerts, numerous masterclasses, and nightly mingling over German beer, I can hardly handle the sound of a quiet evening.

While it is difficult to summarize such a frenetic week of activity, highlights definitely come to mind. First, the inevitable negatives: Personally, I quickly drank my fill of Rzewski's crotchety anti-Americanism, and was ready to assign one man the Indian name of "Dances with Trombones." Jack Body drew the controversy of the week with his seemingly pro-nambla antics. The week certainly was designed to move on an upswing, however, and any early disillusionment I was feeling quickly melted into wonderful experience.

I happened to draw the most inspiration not from the music of the professional composers present, but from listening to the works of my peers. A generational comparison certainly convinced me that new music may once again be moving in the right direction.

Performance highlights included a very strong and moving piano trio exhibition by brothers Duccio and Vittorio Ceccanti and pianist Emanuele Arciuli. Arciuli would return later in the week to give a solo recital including an impeccable rendition of Charles Ives' Concord Sonata. Steve Reich's visit to the festival was certainly momentous, as was hearing a live performance of his Music for Eighteen Musicians, all while surrounded by talented youth and luminaries in the field. Surrounded by an enthusiastic audience (including the members of eighth blackbird), the atmosphere was absolutely electric.

eighth blackbird gave their performance of "the only moving thing," drawing varied reactions from dismay to (positively) overwhelmed emotions. From my perspective, having seen the program twice now, I found the concert to be musically satisfying and very moving. It certainly pushed boundaries, but definitely gave me a joyous listening experience.

After most evening concerts, all those involved (from the youngest to the oldest, from famous folks to unknowns) gravitated towards the local German pub. While I hesitate to say it, these social activities were perhaps the most valuable part of the week: connections were made, friendships were formed, and a good time was certainly had by all. Personally, I brushed up on how to give toasts in numerous languages, dominated the cornhole competition, planned future collaborations, and made plenty of new friends.


For many of us, MusicX was likely an artistic right of passage. I truly hope that the festival can continue into the future. Many thanks to Hermes for suggesting that I apply, to my generous host Jennifer, my congenial roommate Max, and all of the incredible people I met throughout the week.

May our new ties be strong, and remain far into the future.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

The Sacred Arts

I'm at a festival this week, so sadly I have little time to stir the online pot... that being said, the Foundation for Sacred Arts recently posted their utterly wonderful new website. It is definitely worth visiting!

thesacredarts.org

Enjoy!

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

A little inspiration from the Big Apple

Walking through Front Tryon Park, it is difficult to remember that the bustling streets of North Manhattan are mere blocks away. The river winds lazily to a distant ocean, and soon you find yourself in the monastery-like building known as The Cloisters, which houses a lovely collection of medieval art from around Europe.
Why mention a medieval art gallery in blog about new music? The answer is quite simple, requiring only one word: perspective. The Cloisters is a triumph of civic vision and artistic patronage, a literal step back into time in the middle of one of the world's busiest cities. Whether or not it intends to, it stands as a powerful testament to the golden age of Sacred Art, dominated almost entirely by works related to the Catholic Church. Walking through the Cloisters, it is difficult to believe in the skewed modern vision of medieval Europe as an ignorant and oppressed backwater, as ignorant and oppressed people do not produce soaring works of sacred art.
The final bit of perspective I have to share comes in the form of a question you can pose to yourself. If ever you find an opportunity, explore the Cloisters on a calm afternoon, realizing that you are viewing a mere sliver of the religious art of the great medieval age. Realize the brilliance of expression, the powerful naivity of faith and the human condition which is all wound-up in such beautiful art from a difficult time. Ask yourself: If arts patrons in New York City were to assemble a similar museum, several centuries from now, dedicated to (what is now for us) modern art, how would the patrons view our contributions? What would the works reveal about our social order, or our view of God? Would the works now glorified as masterworks be part of this collection, or would centuries of scholarship and the litmus test of historical taste reveal an entirely different set of (currently ignored) masterpieces? The religious art of old Europe seems to hold a particular grip on our imaginations: had medieval Europe been a secular age, would the works be as luminous or inspiring to us?
While it is true that it can be paralyzing for an artist to view his work in the light of the past masters, it can also serve as a catalyst to pursue ever higher grounds of creativity. As an artist, I took profound inspiriation away from my visit to the Cloisters. I will visit again in the future, seeking a deeper link with the past and a sensible road to the future.

Friday, June 6, 2008

College Drop-out Gives Stanford Commencement Address

So what happens when a college drop-out gives the commencement address at Stanford University?

Monday, June 2, 2008

Eighth Blackbird Concert Review

This past Thursday, I was privileged enough to be in the audience for Eighth Blackbird's "The Only Moving Thing." Having received rave reviews nationwide, I was anticipating this latest dose of blackbird quite eagerly.

The opening work was the Chicago premiere of Steve Reich's Double Sextet. Seeing the length of the piece listed at 22 minutes, I settled in for a typical Steve Reich trance-ride. While I genuinely enjoyed the work, it presented nothing truly special to my ears. The use of tape seemed almost superfluous to me, as it did not seem to achieve anything that a different orchestration could not have accomplished.

The highlight of the evening was "The Only Moving Thing," composed by the Bang-on-a-Can trio of Lang/Wolfe/Gordon. The work was clever, moving, and genuinely Mahlerian in how it seemed to confuse the audience's emotional responses. For instance: in one of the slow movements, clarinetist Michael Maccaferri was loaded down with various metal and percussive objects. He stood there uncomfortably, a pleading face directed towards the audience as a poignant flute and vibraphone ostinato tolled pathetically behind him. Slowly, the objects fell from his arms, clattering loudly to the floor in counterpoint with the pathetic sounds behind him. At first the audience laughed, then the laught diminished and turned sympathetic, and finally a general sense of sadness permeated the hall. It was a brilliant musical moment.

After all of the emotional movement of the work, the final movement (composed by Lang) presented the best of what the composer could offer, uplifting the listener with post-minimalist groove and ending in a resounding cut-off which seemed to resonate dramatically with all those assembled.

The evening was brilliant, and Eighth Blackbird certainly continued their tradition of presenting a difficult music in a way which is cool, energetic, and completely relevant. Of all the new music offerings I have seen, Blackbird remain my first choice for taking an "uninitiated" listener to their first new-music experience. Bravo!

Friday, May 30, 2008

Why "Sex and the City" hurts.

Yes, it's well-written. Yes, it's clever. Yes, it's entertaining. That being said, "Sex and the City" has done absolutely nothing good for our culture.

As if we haven't been polluted enough, the entertainment refuse otherwise known as "Sex and the City" is now a hit movie. The fact that so many women are flocking enthusiastically to this movie should give us serious excuse to pause and consider this situation.

It has long been commented that rather than reflect the lives of real women, Sex and the City -- written by gay men -- accurately reflects the lifestyle of the gay subculture.

I'm not being bigoted or homophobic here -- I am merely concerned when women begin to imitate a subculture which couldn't stop its rampant promiscuity even when it was being decimated by a sexually spread plague. I have many gay friends who are embarrassed of this aspect of their subculture, preferring to keep such "habits" out of the social eye. When we look at the practices of this subculture, we have to ask ourselves: are these the sort of people that America's women should be imitating?

For the womanizers reading, the answer is an enthusiastic "yes!"

For the rest of us who actually care about womanhood, it is time to look seriously and honestly at the situation.

As a social critic, I would list this show among the five most damaging things to happen to society in the past decade. Sex and the city hurts, and while the laughs are short-lived, the social damage has already created countless deep scars.

I can hear the objections already: "but it's JUST a movie", and "it's JUST a television show!" The people that make such excuses just as quickly proclaim the transforming power of media when their critics are looking the other way. Rock music was full of the same contradiction: they told their critics that they were "overreacting," while simultaneously rejoicing in their power to shape culture. Televisions show like "sex and the city" are no different.

What would the great feminist warriors of the past century say about this social phenomenon? Feminists of the past fought for the right to have an education, the right to vote, and the right to a career. Modern feminists, as represented by the SITC girls, fight for the right to sleep with as many men as possible while candidly sharing anal-sex experiences casually over lunch. As a cadence, they shop Gucci, as if filthy people could somehow be ennobled by fancy clothing. (Whitewashed tombs, anyone?)

Many men support the show, of course, and why wouldn't they? Being the weak creatures that we are, a society of loose women certainly appeals to our baser desires. On one side of the aisle, we have the "Man show" and "Bud Light" version of manhood, and on the other side we have the SITC girls. How absolutely sad.

So swallow it all, ladies: the male pigs in the aisles are applauding. They are ready and waiting to accept your newly liberated womanhood. In fact, they've never had it so easy.