What I'm Reading Now

I haven't done one of these since July when it seems I was reading a host of books. Lately, just a few, but lengthy ones. First up the book that some have called the greatest novel of the 20th century:

Including the annotations, about 1,200 pages of fairly difficult prose with occasional bits in Latin, Gaelic, French, Italian and German. A parody of all literature since Homer. Honestly, the only novel that is even vaguely like this one is Laurence Sterne's The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman that I read last year. And I have to read Ulysses again pretty soon. Wow.

Including the endnotes, just under 1,300 pages. A few years ago they released a movie with the same title about two hours long. That is a kind of aesthetic fraud--to do proper justice to this long and intricate narrative you would need a movie 50 hours long! A fine and enjoyable story of adventure and 19th century society.

At only 200 pages a mere wisp of a novel compared to the others. This is the third book by Ishiguro I have read and each one impresses with its lapidary clarity. But at the same time, I feel I have to re-read them because there is so much below the surface.

The only American novelists I really enjoy are Tom Wolfe and Ernest Hemingway. I had a terrific professor for the English Literature course in first-year university and he assigned The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber which, along with Franz Kafka's In the Penal Colony, has stuck with me ever since.

Let's have a little musical envoi. Despite all the compositions he has written in recent years, some of my favorite pieces by Leo Brouwer are the early ones like Elogio de la Danza. Here played by the young Spanish guitarist Mabel Millan. (But yes, she does end with the wrong chord!)

Passing Thoughts

There is a tendency to underrate the intellectual work of our predecessors, particularly in the 19th century--at least in some areas. Karl Marx seems to be inexplicably popular, but if you look at the five-volume book Modern Painters by John Ruskin it rather makes more recent work in the field look truncated, dwarfish and perfunctory. The same is true of the three-volume (in English translation) Johann Sebastian Bach by Philipp Spitta which, again, renders trivial our recent one-volume treatments. Recent scholarship on great artists seems to assume that no-one has much time to read and, on top of that, is not very bright. Of course the exception, in music at least, is the work of Richard Taruskin which no-one could accuse of being superficial or condensed. Here is Julia James Davis talking about Ruskin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt4Ev0R9e-c&t=291s

* * *

Here's an interesting thought: freedom is much more important than democracy. Perhaps one of the underlying problems of Canada is simply that rather than adhering to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" our motto is "peace, order and good government." Nothing about freedom there! Why have philosophers always been skeptical of democracy? Perhaps because a large, democratic jury of Athenians condemned Socrates to death in 399 BC for, well, too many questions.

* * *

Has there ever been a pianist with trills as fine as Grigory Sokolov?

* * *

Twenty-five years ago today I was visiting friends in Victoria, BC and turned on CNBC to see nothing but a cloud of smoke and dust. I'm not sure we have even now realized all the implications of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

* * *

I'm about 4/5ths of the way through Alexandre Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo, one of the most popular novels of the 19th century and over 1,200 pages. There is a 2002 movie adaptation. But really, is it even faintly legitimate to claim that a two-hour movie can in any way tell the story of a 1,200 page book? Even the Wikipedia entry gives the most perfunctory summary of the plot which is intricate beyond belief.

* * *

Oh, what the heck, let's have some more Sokolov, this time with a Haydn sonata.

The Problem of Beauty

 I am no longer a professional musician, nor am I working on creating music as a composer. But I am still someone deeply involved with music as a listener. So I find aesthetic disputes fascinating. I grew up with, on the one hand, the narrative of modernism and the music of Stravinsky and Schoenberg. On the other hand, I was completely captured by the music of J. S. Bach, Beethoven and Mozart and later on that of Monteverdi, Couperin, Rameau, Josquin and many others. Ok, so the great thread of Western music has been woven into Western culture for the last thousand years at least. That Stravinsky, Schoenberg and people like Messiaen, Shostakovich and even Steve Reich sound rather different does not mean that they are outside the great river of the art music of Western music. At least, that is how I feel.

But now we are in a kind of transitional time in which there is a movement that is looking at a lot of the current architecture and visual art and saying, sorry, this is simply crap and ideologically corrupt. Looking at some of the art one can see their point. Music that is simply silence or a construction of noises or that gives the impression of a brutal attack on ones senses seems perhaps like a mistake in the same way that displaying a urinal as a work of art or a white canvas or a goat with a spare tire around its abdomen or a skull covered with diamonds seems like, not a mistake, but some kind of aesthetic fraud.

Here are two conservative commentators taking that view (of course, Blogger refuses to embed):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9dbnjHx67Q

While sympathetic to their view, I can't quite share it. For one thing, I struggle with the whole idea that Beauty comes from God. Though I certainly share the ancient Greek view of the transcendentals, Truth, Beauty and the Good. The skepticism about some modernist approaches is not a new thing, see the book on architecture by Thomas Wolfe, From Bauhaus to Our House.

But the situation, especially as regards music, is formidably complex. Why do I want to say the the music of Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Shostakovich and others is still great music even though it is not always beautiful? I think that great art is always in some way an encounter with Reality and sometimes it can be a harsh encounter. Great art includes works like the symphonies of Shostakovich, Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky, Ulysses by James Joyce, the black paintings by Goya, the tortured canvases by Van Gogh and lots of other examples.

Here is the thing, I'm not citing recent contemporary visual art and sculpture because I don't know it well enough. I am quite sure that, especially in recent decades, there has been a lot of fraudulent art created. Some of it is obvious, all the AI pop music, for example, but a lot will only be obvious after a hundred years. This is why it is perfectly easy to identify the great music from the first quarter century of the 20th century because it was a century ago. Stravinsky's the Rite of Spring and Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire are acknowledged as great works by everyone. They confront Reality.

All genuine artistic judgements have to be on a case by case basis as each work of art, great ones at least, is unique. This is why arguments in this area often tend to become sterile and pointless. You can't generalize. And, of course, this is always what ideologues do.

Comments?

Today's Listening: Sokolov, Bach, Chaconne

 

Today's Listening: a stunning Zapateado

 

I don't know who John Davisson is, but this is about the finest recording of Rodrigo's Zapateado that I have heard.

UPDATE: as a bonus, here he is playing Yamashita's transcription of Mussorgsky, Pictures at an Exhibition and making it sound almost like guitar music.

Sorry, just the first two sections.

More Listening

I could be accused, justly, of being a classical snob, and I do find most popular music to one one-dimensional. But there is certainly non-classical music I really like. Here are three examples:

Sabicas is a great flamenco guitarist and his Bulerias is really unmatched.

Virtuoso Romanian gypsy music.

A duo from Quebec that have taken the Internet by storm. I suspect they will be touring for the next five years. The first musicians to make people love quarter-tone music.

Today's Listening: Thomas Dunford at the Concertgebouw

 I have to confess I don't actually like the way Bach is usually played on guitar. The performances typically range from technically inadequate to robotically correct. Sketchy or mono-dimensional. This is often the case on other instruments as well, just a bit worse on guitar. I have put up a few posts complaining about Bach on guitar under titles like "why do they play Bach as if they hate the music?" But there is a wonderful antidote. This all-Bach concert by Thomas Dunford in the Concertgebouw is a demonstration of how to play Bach. I don't see any reason why these musical ideas couldn't be realized on guitar. Instead of strings of technically perfect and musically meaningless ones, every note has its own direction and weight.

UPDATE: Thomas Dunford isn't the only Baroque lutenist to play Bach very well. Have a listen to Hopkinson Smith.