I welcome you to read the following article on www.newmusicbox.org. I could not keep myself from responding to Mr. Haber's thoughts, or the skewed history and anti-Catholicism which soon wound across the page. My reply can be read below the article.
http://www.newmusicbox.org/chatter/chatter.nmbx?id=5436
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
31 Nobel Laureates Killed in the Womb.
The Heisman Trophy is one of the greatest honors in the sporting world.
This year's winner -- only a sophomore -- was almost aborted in the womb.
Tim Tebow now attends the University of Florida, his 6'3, 235 lb frame a real blessing to Gator football. It is difficult to imagine that Tebow was a "risky baby," and that doctors encouraged his mother to abort him.
Carrying Tim to term could have threatened his mother's life, yet she elected to try and bring him into the world. I cannot say that I would have the strength to make such a decision myself. I only know that Mrs. Tebow is a woman of great strength and faith, and that her faith was rewarded with a gift to her family, sports fans, and pro-lifers everywhere.
Liberals and Pro-Deathers are VERY quick to cite exceptions to the rule, justifying Roe-v-Wade by bringing up instances of rape, incest, and medical concerns. They are willing to justify the slaughter -- nay, genocide -- of an entire generation, all in the name of a statistical minority. They ignore the health risks, psychological risks, and social costs of abortion, all in the name of exceptions of the rule.
Tim Tebow is the statistical minority for Pro-Lifers. From now on, whenever a Pro-Death supporter cites such exceptions to the rule, I will cite Tim Tebow.
What other great athletes, artists, scientists, and leaders have been aborted out of fear or convenience? What kind of nation can legalize and subsidize the living dismemberment of their most vulnerable citizens?
FULLY ONE-THIRD of conceived children have been aborted since 1973. Hence, my use of the word "genocide."
Fr. Thomas Eutenheuer writes:
"Dr. Brian Clowes, HLI researcher, has examined the data from the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States (most recent census data) and extrapolated the numbers of the various professions and categories of Americans who have been eliminated in the wake of nearly 49 million legalized abortions, one third of all Americans conceived since 1973. The following numbers are based on the actual government estimates of the professions represented in America. So then, who have we lost to abortion?
* 2 US Presidents
* 7 Supreme Court Justices
* 102 US Senators and 589 Congressmen
* 8,123 Federal, district and local court judges
* 31 Nobel Prize laureates
* 328 Olympic medalists including 123 Gold medalists
* 6,092 professional athletes
* 134,841 physicians and surgeons
* 392,500 registered nurses
* 70,669 priests, ministers, rabbis and imams including
* 6,852 priests and 11,010 nuns (vocations “shortage”?)
* 1,102,443 teachers (K-12)
* 553,821 truck drivers
* 224,518 maids and housekeepers
* 336,939 janitors
* 134,028 farmers and ranchers
* 109,984 police officers and sheriff’s deputies
* 39,477 firefighters
* 17,221 barbers, and
* 24,450,000…women (the gender of roughly half of all children aborted).
These numbers of course are only the tip of the iceberg. Keep in mind that we get our statistics about abortion from the abortion industry itself which has a vested interest in under-reporting the numbers. Likewise, these categories are only a few of the professions that Americans actually work in and are by no means a full portrayal of the total American workforce. What they represent, however, is the immense human toll that abortion takes on a society. Abortion-promoters present abortion as an exclusively private choice, but thirty-five years of abortion exposes the perniciousness of that lie. There is a social toll that comes from abortion which cannot easily be corrected." (From "Spirit and Life":http://www.hli.org/sl_2007-12-14.html)
Thank you, Father -- you have clearly shown that abortion is not a "personal choice," but a pariah which has drastically affected our nation. In an age where America is finding it increasingly difficult to compete and maintain her world-status, how much is abortion to blame?
Many European countries have suffered intellectual vacuum due to the mass killings of the Second World War. In America, we have thanked God for our peace and security by creating a killing field that only Stalin eclipsed during the 20th century.
The witness of Mrs. Tebow is one to be wondered at and immitated. Thank you for your strength and faith, and thank you for the witness of your son.
This year's winner -- only a sophomore -- was almost aborted in the womb.
Tim Tebow now attends the University of Florida, his 6'3, 235 lb frame a real blessing to Gator football. It is difficult to imagine that Tebow was a "risky baby," and that doctors encouraged his mother to abort him.
Carrying Tim to term could have threatened his mother's life, yet she elected to try and bring him into the world. I cannot say that I would have the strength to make such a decision myself. I only know that Mrs. Tebow is a woman of great strength and faith, and that her faith was rewarded with a gift to her family, sports fans, and pro-lifers everywhere.
Liberals and Pro-Deathers are VERY quick to cite exceptions to the rule, justifying Roe-v-Wade by bringing up instances of rape, incest, and medical concerns. They are willing to justify the slaughter -- nay, genocide -- of an entire generation, all in the name of a statistical minority. They ignore the health risks, psychological risks, and social costs of abortion, all in the name of exceptions of the rule.
Tim Tebow is the statistical minority for Pro-Lifers. From now on, whenever a Pro-Death supporter cites such exceptions to the rule, I will cite Tim Tebow.
What other great athletes, artists, scientists, and leaders have been aborted out of fear or convenience? What kind of nation can legalize and subsidize the living dismemberment of their most vulnerable citizens?
FULLY ONE-THIRD of conceived children have been aborted since 1973. Hence, my use of the word "genocide."
Fr. Thomas Eutenheuer writes:
"Dr. Brian Clowes, HLI researcher, has examined the data from the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States (most recent census data) and extrapolated the numbers of the various professions and categories of Americans who have been eliminated in the wake of nearly 49 million legalized abortions, one third of all Americans conceived since 1973. The following numbers are based on the actual government estimates of the professions represented in America. So then, who have we lost to abortion?
* 2 US Presidents
* 7 Supreme Court Justices
* 102 US Senators and 589 Congressmen
* 8,123 Federal, district and local court judges
* 31 Nobel Prize laureates
* 328 Olympic medalists including 123 Gold medalists
* 6,092 professional athletes
* 134,841 physicians and surgeons
* 392,500 registered nurses
* 70,669 priests, ministers, rabbis and imams including
* 6,852 priests and 11,010 nuns (vocations “shortage”?)
* 1,102,443 teachers (K-12)
* 553,821 truck drivers
* 224,518 maids and housekeepers
* 336,939 janitors
* 134,028 farmers and ranchers
* 109,984 police officers and sheriff’s deputies
* 39,477 firefighters
* 17,221 barbers, and
* 24,450,000…women (the gender of roughly half of all children aborted).
These numbers of course are only the tip of the iceberg. Keep in mind that we get our statistics about abortion from the abortion industry itself which has a vested interest in under-reporting the numbers. Likewise, these categories are only a few of the professions that Americans actually work in and are by no means a full portrayal of the total American workforce. What they represent, however, is the immense human toll that abortion takes on a society. Abortion-promoters present abortion as an exclusively private choice, but thirty-five years of abortion exposes the perniciousness of that lie. There is a social toll that comes from abortion which cannot easily be corrected." (From "Spirit and Life":http://www.hli.org/sl_2007-12-14.html)
Thank you, Father -- you have clearly shown that abortion is not a "personal choice," but a pariah which has drastically affected our nation. In an age where America is finding it increasingly difficult to compete and maintain her world-status, how much is abortion to blame?
Many European countries have suffered intellectual vacuum due to the mass killings of the Second World War. In America, we have thanked God for our peace and security by creating a killing field that only Stalin eclipsed during the 20th century.
The witness of Mrs. Tebow is one to be wondered at and immitated. Thank you for your strength and faith, and thank you for the witness of your son.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Ugly Babies
I could feel myself sinking deeper into my chair, the eyes of my peers boring holes into the back of my head. It wasn't going to work. I had failed. As balances went askew and music devolved, I felt that I had lost my inner-ear. My imagination had led me astray.
Or so it always seems to go, the first time you hear a creation of yours attempted by real, living people.
New music is like an ugly baby, you see.
First, it comes out a big mess, too slippery to hold on to and not even capable of uttering a painful cry. A smack on the rear, and it starts to wail, albeit not out of joy. Snip the cord (chord?), do a quick clean-up job, and suddenly you have something that resembles the offspring of adult humans.
Still, newborns generally aren't the cutest straight out of the gate. Things change quickly, however. Slowly their eyes open, slowly they begin to accept their place, and surely they grow more powerfully cute by the day.
So it was with the orchestra readings I recently experienced. The first run was completely disheartening, the second a bit better. The recordings I took home gave evidence of a possibly good piece, but I still wasn't convinced. Somehow, by the time our second day of readings was over, I had a wonderful recording of my music, and people complementing me on a job well done.
That's one quick clean-up job.
So here's to ugly newborns, new music, and the willingness to bring new things to life. I'd like to think that the effort is certainly worth it.
Or so it always seems to go, the first time you hear a creation of yours attempted by real, living people.
New music is like an ugly baby, you see.
First, it comes out a big mess, too slippery to hold on to and not even capable of uttering a painful cry. A smack on the rear, and it starts to wail, albeit not out of joy. Snip the cord (chord?), do a quick clean-up job, and suddenly you have something that resembles the offspring of adult humans.
Still, newborns generally aren't the cutest straight out of the gate. Things change quickly, however. Slowly their eyes open, slowly they begin to accept their place, and surely they grow more powerfully cute by the day.
So it was with the orchestra readings I recently experienced. The first run was completely disheartening, the second a bit better. The recordings I took home gave evidence of a possibly good piece, but I still wasn't convinced. Somehow, by the time our second day of readings was over, I had a wonderful recording of my music, and people complementing me on a job well done.
That's one quick clean-up job.
So here's to ugly newborns, new music, and the willingness to bring new things to life. I'd like to think that the effort is certainly worth it.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Radio Interview!
I had the distinct pleasure of joining composer-friends Michael Bratt and Alexandra Bryant in giving an interview on Cleveland Public Radio, regarding our recent
commission from the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.
We spoke about our work a bit, and they played excerpts from the pieces. The below link has an archived stream of the broadcast, and our segment begins at 32:30 (you can fast-forward to this spot.) The website also has links to the museum project with our bios, and a website where you can download our pieces.
Enjoy, and let me know what you think!
https://www.wcpn.org/index.php/WCPN/an/9119/
commission from the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.
We spoke about our work a bit, and they played excerpts from the pieces. The below link has an archived stream of the broadcast, and our segment begins at 32:30 (you can fast-forward to this spot.) The website also has links to the museum project with our bios, and a website where you can download our pieces.
Enjoy, and let me know what you think!
https://www.wcpn.org/index.php/WCPN/an/9119/
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
More about New Music
Are the dictates of modernism beyond repudiation, or is there room to launch an assault on the vaunted ivory towers of 20th century abstraction?
I love reading the posts concerning new music around the internet. The little bit of time that I have to keep track of "what's new" has brought me to a recent conclusion:
Musicians, especially composers, generally don't have a clue as to why they do what they do, nor do they have a clear idea of what music is.
Blame it on a shallow society. Blame it on a lack of (very necessary!) education in aesthetics. Blame it on a century of indeterminate creativity. Blame it on whatever you will, though the problem remains.
Some posit that music means nothing, without even scratching the nature of what we "mean" by "meaning." Some posters pitch the "art for art's sake" (whatever THAT means,) or the "I do it because I like it" modes of thought. (Both arguments are juvenile at best.) Others repeatedly try to justify music as a purely secular art, devoid of the necessity of any meaning or even coherent structure. I will humbly submit that such attitudes are what have alienated new music from performers and audiences.
I'll take the Beethoven-esque "artist hero" over the 20th century "invincible intellectual" composer any day of the week. Say what negative things you will about the Romantic Era's concept of the artist, but people as a whole actually liked it.
I'm not advocating that we throw out modernism as a whole. Far from it. The efforts of 20th century artists have greatly widened and matured our creative vocabulary. I only ask, for example, whether a poet who only writes with vowels would ever be taken seriously. (I know that somewhere out there, a vowel-poet must exist without a small but loyal following. I will question the sanity of such a following.)
In one of the more interesting (and rarely useful) posts on newmusicbox.org, a composer brought up a wonderful story about Moses and Schoenberg. Upon going back to the site to quote him and give credit, I discovered that the quote was gone. How sad.
Anyhow, Schoenberg said that a composer is like Moses going up to the mountain to talk to God. Upon his return, the prophet does not divulge the entirety of his divine communication, rather only giving the people what they can handle at the time. (Or, one could say, a little more than they can handle, to provide a challenge.)
In the case of Schoenberg, of course, we might be referring to another case of the Satanic verses...
Love him or hate him, I prefer Maslanka's take on music, which he divulged to us during rehearsals for the premiere of his 5th Symphony:
"Music is something from somewhere else, something that is constantly trying to batter its ways into three dimensional space. It comes, it is uttered, and it is never heard in the same way again."
Well, at least it gave ME goosebumps.
A century of agnostic politics has only given us a massive body-count. A century of agnostic art has only given us a lack of bodies to count. Is it perhaps possible to accept the grammatical expansion provided by modernism, while rejecting -- for the good of us all -- the philosophy of abstractness and relativism that comes with it?
I love reading the posts concerning new music around the internet. The little bit of time that I have to keep track of "what's new" has brought me to a recent conclusion:
Musicians, especially composers, generally don't have a clue as to why they do what they do, nor do they have a clear idea of what music is.
Blame it on a shallow society. Blame it on a lack of (very necessary!) education in aesthetics. Blame it on a century of indeterminate creativity. Blame it on whatever you will, though the problem remains.
Some posit that music means nothing, without even scratching the nature of what we "mean" by "meaning." Some posters pitch the "art for art's sake" (whatever THAT means,) or the "I do it because I like it" modes of thought. (Both arguments are juvenile at best.) Others repeatedly try to justify music as a purely secular art, devoid of the necessity of any meaning or even coherent structure. I will humbly submit that such attitudes are what have alienated new music from performers and audiences.
I'll take the Beethoven-esque "artist hero" over the 20th century "invincible intellectual" composer any day of the week. Say what negative things you will about the Romantic Era's concept of the artist, but people as a whole actually liked it.
I'm not advocating that we throw out modernism as a whole. Far from it. The efforts of 20th century artists have greatly widened and matured our creative vocabulary. I only ask, for example, whether a poet who only writes with vowels would ever be taken seriously. (I know that somewhere out there, a vowel-poet must exist without a small but loyal following. I will question the sanity of such a following.)
In one of the more interesting (and rarely useful) posts on newmusicbox.org, a composer brought up a wonderful story about Moses and Schoenberg. Upon going back to the site to quote him and give credit, I discovered that the quote was gone. How sad.
Anyhow, Schoenberg said that a composer is like Moses going up to the mountain to talk to God. Upon his return, the prophet does not divulge the entirety of his divine communication, rather only giving the people what they can handle at the time. (Or, one could say, a little more than they can handle, to provide a challenge.)
In the case of Schoenberg, of course, we might be referring to another case of the Satanic verses...
Love him or hate him, I prefer Maslanka's take on music, which he divulged to us during rehearsals for the premiere of his 5th Symphony:
"Music is something from somewhere else, something that is constantly trying to batter its ways into three dimensional space. It comes, it is uttered, and it is never heard in the same way again."
Well, at least it gave ME goosebumps.
A century of agnostic politics has only given us a massive body-count. A century of agnostic art has only given us a lack of bodies to count. Is it perhaps possible to accept the grammatical expansion provided by modernism, while rejecting -- for the good of us all -- the philosophy of abstractness and relativism that comes with it?
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
How We Fail: Choosing Second Best
What causes us to fail in life?
Most of the people I've met in this world -- even the insufferable ones -- are basically good people. Still, many-if-not-most of these "basically good people" are living blindly. In living blindly, we cannot see goodness. It only follows that we cannot pursue that which we cannot perceive.
I've come to the conclusion (for now) that the great social disease of our time is the lack of faith in our own personal dignity. This causes us to doubt ourselves, doubt our worth, and doubt whether we deserve anything great in life.
As a result, we tend to choose what is "good enough," or "practical" enough as oppossed to what is truly meant for us.
Very often, this takes the form of choosing safely, and of choosing second-best.
People choose safely and second-best in their careers, in their moral lives, and in their romantic/marital relationships, to name only a few instances. This tends to manifest itself socially as well: just look at our past two Presidential elections, in which Americans were asked to choose the lesser evil, as opposed to the best candidate for the office.
I see friends ignoring their vocation in life, trying to replace it with so-called "responsible" short-term decision-making. I see women dating lack-luster men who have no idea of the worth of their women, and men who are either far too aggressive or far too passive to know the value of their women. I see idealism under complete attack, and it frightens me deeply.
I struggle with these things every day. It is a daunting struggle, but a worthy and necessary one.
It's difficult to live to your potential, but it is essential. It is terrifying to realize and pursue a life in alignment with your own self-worth, but it is exactly the terror which must be passed-through before the dawn.
I'm still too young to speak solely from experience on this topic, but the lives of the great people before us bears witness to these truths. The great people before us were not lucky or blessed (we are ALL blessed) -- they simply realized their origin and destiny, and lived accordingly. Chances are, you know somebody who is not famous, yet who has lived in an incredible fashion. Are not these people the most inspiring witnesses to goodness in your life?
In Ignatian spirituality, the novice is asked to envision their life from the perspective of a person on their death-bed. Seen from this perspective, everything takes on a different color and hue.
This simple exercise is my only resolution for the new year, because it will make all other improvements possible.
Live in line with your dignity. That is the only wish I present to my friends in this new year.
Most of the people I've met in this world -- even the insufferable ones -- are basically good people. Still, many-if-not-most of these "basically good people" are living blindly. In living blindly, we cannot see goodness. It only follows that we cannot pursue that which we cannot perceive.
I've come to the conclusion (for now) that the great social disease of our time is the lack of faith in our own personal dignity. This causes us to doubt ourselves, doubt our worth, and doubt whether we deserve anything great in life.
As a result, we tend to choose what is "good enough," or "practical" enough as oppossed to what is truly meant for us.
Very often, this takes the form of choosing safely, and of choosing second-best.
People choose safely and second-best in their careers, in their moral lives, and in their romantic/marital relationships, to name only a few instances. This tends to manifest itself socially as well: just look at our past two Presidential elections, in which Americans were asked to choose the lesser evil, as opposed to the best candidate for the office.
I see friends ignoring their vocation in life, trying to replace it with so-called "responsible" short-term decision-making. I see women dating lack-luster men who have no idea of the worth of their women, and men who are either far too aggressive or far too passive to know the value of their women. I see idealism under complete attack, and it frightens me deeply.
I struggle with these things every day. It is a daunting struggle, but a worthy and necessary one.
It's difficult to live to your potential, but it is essential. It is terrifying to realize and pursue a life in alignment with your own self-worth, but it is exactly the terror which must be passed-through before the dawn.
I'm still too young to speak solely from experience on this topic, but the lives of the great people before us bears witness to these truths. The great people before us were not lucky or blessed (we are ALL blessed) -- they simply realized their origin and destiny, and lived accordingly. Chances are, you know somebody who is not famous, yet who has lived in an incredible fashion. Are not these people the most inspiring witnesses to goodness in your life?
In Ignatian spirituality, the novice is asked to envision their life from the perspective of a person on their death-bed. Seen from this perspective, everything takes on a different color and hue.
This simple exercise is my only resolution for the new year, because it will make all other improvements possible.
Live in line with your dignity. That is the only wish I present to my friends in this new year.
Monday, January 7, 2008
John Cage: Shitty Ear-Training Teacher.
I could not help but be amused by Mark N. Grant's recent article on newmusicbox.org. I am providing a link to the article, and my posted response is also presented below.
-Mark
***
http://www.newmusicbox.org/chatter/chatter.nmbx?id=5403
***
I fail to see -- considering his prolific output -- how John Cage's "inadequate" ear or occasional "faulty harmonic analysis" -- matters in the least. The man was a composer, after all, and not a theory professor.
I will submit that the method of listening taught in traditional ear-training courses does not necessarily correlate with the way a composers hears his own music during the process of creation.
Experience has taught me that while you can improve your ear, there is only so much you can do before you come up against the wall of natural ability.
Are the many fine composers who struggle with their ears -- or dislike the pedantic elements of theory -- simply playing the part of charlatans or impostors?
Art transcends method. Practice begets theory, not the other way around. We should work to improve our "chops," but history is witness enough that pedantry does not generally lead to great creative output.
If my response seems reactionary, it is only because I cannot help but recoil at an article which would suppose to label the deficits in a composer's "gifts," as if John Cage or Ravel had some responsibility to also be a good theorist.
-Mark
***
http://www.newmusicbox.org/chatter/chatter.nmbx?id=5403
***
I fail to see -- considering his prolific output -- how John Cage's "inadequate" ear or occasional "faulty harmonic analysis" -- matters in the least. The man was a composer, after all, and not a theory professor.
I will submit that the method of listening taught in traditional ear-training courses does not necessarily correlate with the way a composers hears his own music during the process of creation.
Experience has taught me that while you can improve your ear, there is only so much you can do before you come up against the wall of natural ability.
Are the many fine composers who struggle with their ears -- or dislike the pedantic elements of theory -- simply playing the part of charlatans or impostors?
Art transcends method. Practice begets theory, not the other way around. We should work to improve our "chops," but history is witness enough that pedantry does not generally lead to great creative output.
If my response seems reactionary, it is only because I cannot help but recoil at an article which would suppose to label the deficits in a composer's "gifts," as if John Cage or Ravel had some responsibility to also be a good theorist.
Bill Maher, Agnostic Bigot.
I received the following in my inbox this morning, and figured it was worth sharing.
In passing, I will comment that you can include me in the group of people named at the very end of Donohue's comments.
-Mark
***
BILL MAHER WANTS A BRAWL
On the January 4 edition of the NBC show “Late Night with Conan O’Brien,” Bill Maher commented on a remark about religion that was allegedly made by presidential contender Mitt Romney. In the course of his comments, Maher said the following:
“You can’t be a rational person six days of the week and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work and, on one day of the week, go to a building and think you’re drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god. That doesn’t make you a person of faith…That makes you a schizophrenic.”
O’Brien, looking a bit uneasy, then asked Maher whether anyone who is religious is schizophrenic. To which Maher replied, “Well, yes, sort of, because they have walled off a part of their mind.”
Catholic League president Bill Donohue jumped on this today:
“There is no bigger anti-Christian bigot in the entertainment business than Bill Maher; he has shown that over and over again. While he may not like any religion, he has a special place in his portfolio of hatred for Christians, especially Roman Catholics. In Maher’s twisted mind—which has long walled off rationality, to say nothing of decency—the mere mention of religion sets off a tirade against Jesus. We’ll take the backhanded compliment."
“Unlike most non-believers, who are generally content to respect the right of most Americans to believe in God, guys like Maher want a brawl. He should be careful what he wishes for because there are those who pine to deliver.”
(Memo, Catholic League.)
In passing, I will comment that you can include me in the group of people named at the very end of Donohue's comments.
-Mark
***
BILL MAHER WANTS A BRAWL
On the January 4 edition of the NBC show “Late Night with Conan O’Brien,” Bill Maher commented on a remark about religion that was allegedly made by presidential contender Mitt Romney. In the course of his comments, Maher said the following:
“You can’t be a rational person six days of the week and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work and, on one day of the week, go to a building and think you’re drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god. That doesn’t make you a person of faith…That makes you a schizophrenic.”
O’Brien, looking a bit uneasy, then asked Maher whether anyone who is religious is schizophrenic. To which Maher replied, “Well, yes, sort of, because they have walled off a part of their mind.”
Catholic League president Bill Donohue jumped on this today:
“There is no bigger anti-Christian bigot in the entertainment business than Bill Maher; he has shown that over and over again. While he may not like any religion, he has a special place in his portfolio of hatred for Christians, especially Roman Catholics. In Maher’s twisted mind—which has long walled off rationality, to say nothing of decency—the mere mention of religion sets off a tirade against Jesus. We’ll take the backhanded compliment."
“Unlike most non-believers, who are generally content to respect the right of most Americans to believe in God, guys like Maher want a brawl. He should be careful what he wishes for because there are those who pine to deliver.”
(Memo, Catholic League.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
