Music from the pen of God

While many composers of "classical" music succeeded in producing absolutely brilliant music, only a small number of them achieved a truly special stature: to have not composed music, but to have merely acted as a writing instrument for something that has existed in nature for thousands of years (if not millions, or even eternity), to have simply been a conduit for something that is both deeply spiritual as well as firmly rooted in the very fabric that holds the universe together.

When listening to such music, there are sequences in which the listener simply knows where the music is going, the listener knows there is no other way for the music to progress - the way it progressis is the only way it could ever progress. The listener is a second or two ahead of the performers because the music was written (or, rather, discovered) by the composer in such a manner that there really is no other logical progression of the music other than what the composer committed to paper - and what the performers ultimately play to the world.

This phenomenom is perhaps most recognized and experienced by musicians themselves. They are closest to the tensions and releases experienced by the physics that is music. Often a particularly well written sequence of tension followed by delayed release provides such a level of anticipation of the release event, and, ultimately, of physical pleasure, that the performer really does have a transcendental experience, a feeling of euphoria. I have no doubt that such musical passages induce the release of endorphins.

For such musical opuses, the worst thing a person can do is to tarnish their experience by reading or listening to any earthly interpretations of the work. to do so, one forever tarnishes his/her transcendental/spiritual/other-worldly experiences of the music. Do not read liner notes!

Having been a member of various music ensembles over the years, I speak from experience. Often, it manifests itself in the form of an established chord progression that is particularly well framed and voiced - our minds yearn to resolve the progression in only one possible manner - and the composer indeed resolves the progression in just the manner our minds anticipate.

This can be experienced in many forms. For me, it is typically is in the form of harmonic progressions (eg, II-V7-I or, simply, IV-I), or in the form of temporal progressions.

The most perfect example (both of composition and performance) of temporal progression is, in my mind, undoubtedly that of Schubert's Quintet in C, as performed by the Julliard Quartet w/Bernard Greenhouse (recorded 1986 at Concordia College). The constant push and pull of the tempo is several orders of magnitude beyond simple showmanship. Rather, they they cradle the listener through an epic journey of constant emotional push/pull and tension/release. The performers of this recording vary the tempo not where Schubert desired, but, rather, where the Natural Universe dictated them to.

When the progression is over, we are exhausted and the only thoughts we have are: 1) how it was composed and performed was the *perfect, and only* way in which that passage could have been composed and performed - that it existed in that form for eternity, the composer was nothing more than Nature's writing implement; and 2) thank you, God, for letting me experience this moment of perfection, it was truly a spiritual moment.

Perhaps even more so than Schubert, Beethoven reigns in this category of Nature's writing implements (eg, piano sonatas, as well as Symphony Nr. 9)

Bach, in his cello sonatas (although Mvmt 1 of Cello Sonata Nr. 1 is relentlessly overplayed and overexposed, and, because of this, is no longer a joy to listen to)

Vivaldi, in many of his works, reaches this stature. Again, avoid the overplayed works (e.g., The Seasons) which have been tarnished (if not soiled) by the incessant overexposure.

Some other transcendentalists:

Gladys Knight
Chet Baker
Ruby Braff
Don Ellis' Autumn


One thing that REALLY PEEVES ME is when a movie overtakes a song, and from that moment in your life and forward, a particular song brings you back to that movie, rather than to the place the composer (or, in some cases, God) intended you to go. Who can listen to the Ride of the Valkyries without remembering Apocalypse Now? Or, Adagio for Strings without thinking of Platoon? But perhaps the most criminal of these acts of rape (for they are nothing less) is when the movie Carrington utterly desicrated Schubert's Quintet in C. Whoever decided to put this unadulterated, unblemished opus into a dirty, commercial representation of an uholy relationship should find a special place in Hell. I hope this person dies a painful death. It took me 18 years to be able to listen to Schubert's Quintet in C without my mind going back to that movie, which, artistically, is only about 10 orders of magnitude under Schubert's opus.

[So, thanks fuckwad - whoever you are - for raping one of God's perfect works of art. Those of us who watched your pathetic movie which you sadly tried to elevate by riding on the back of natural perfection now have to revisit your patheticness every time we try to listen to that most holy of holy works of art. Was your ego was sufficiently stroked by your act of rape when your decided to defoliate this PURE work of art?]

Gladys

Will I *ever* tire of listening to Gladys Knight? I think not. She is truly holy - and I hate to use that word (tarnished as it is by the scandals of organized religion). Yet I struggle to find the perfect word to characterize her singing.

Her voice is indisputably other-worldly, rising so many levels above the over-reaching, forced emotion of her contemporaries. Only Gladys brings the subtle, yet raw, emotion that others feign. Only Gladys - and none other - succeeds in touching those hearts that are willing to be touched by a tender, caring hand.

She is THE PERFECT singer of popular music, in my mind, of all time. All the other great singers of her ilk - Ella Fitzgerald, Aretha Franklin, Dinah Washington, Billie Holliday, Sarah Vaughn) all fell short of the one God-given perfection of Gladys .. her subtle, yet pure, emotion that pierces your heart. I want pure and authentic - yet controled, subtle, and never overstated - emotion. I want a woman who cries - cries into my shoulder. Not a woman who forces a cry on my television screen for millions to watch and expects me to dutifully buy a forced, over-the-top, pseudo-emotional, yet platinum album.

If you're one of the few wise ones, I suggest you purchase a quality set of headphones and then listen to the following interpretations of God's perfection:

Neither One of Us
You're the Best Thing
Midnight Train to Georgia
Where Peaceful Waters Flow
You're the Best Thing that Ever Happened to Me
et. al.

OK - so there is one other in the same universe as Gladys .. and she is the one and only Sarah Vaughn. She had the same subtlety and emotion (& impecibly flawless technique, to boot).

Nevertheless, no matter how much I truly enjoy Sassy's work, Gladys, for some reason, always wins out for me. While Sarah's voice was flawless technically, as well as excellent at communicating emotion and warmth, Gladys has all that and one thing more - she has an absolutely SEXY voice!

Compared to current divas (e.g., Mariah Carey), Gladys is simply in another universe. BTW Mariah is the one of the biggest frauds of all pop music - her nausiating, gyrating hand motions and similarly oscilating voice are nothing but technique and misguided showmanship. She jack-hammers the emotions (if any) of her songs into the listener, whether they want it or not.

Gladys, on the other hand, is pure and unadulterated, and understands (& communicates) the emotions of her songs in a way that is unequaled.

For example, when one listens to Where Peaceful Waters Flow, you feel as if you've curled up on a comfy bed in a fetal position and Gladys is stroking her gentle hands on your back or against your temples, soothing you and taking you beyond the mundaneness of daily life, transporting you to someplace she really thinks is the best place in the history of the Universe for you at that moment; and she really wants you to go there. And, on top of it all, she has one of the most sexiest voices of all time, which only magnifies where she brings you - by a factor of tenfold, at least!

God, I love Gladys Knight!

Facing the Music

George the Liar is having to eat crow. FWIW I doubt Hannity ever discussed this.

U.S. not winning war, Gates testifies

By Peter Spiegel
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published December 6, 2006

"Mr. Gates, do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?" asked Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who will become chairman of the Armed Services Committee when Democrats take over Congress in January.

"No, sir," Gates replied, without elaboration.

He later said he agreed with Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently said, "We are not winning, but we are not losing."

Gates' assessment, markedly more dismal than any advanced by the administration, conflicted with Bush's own claim as recently as six weeks ago at a White House news conference that "absolutely we're winning."

Gates diverged from administration positions on several occasions during five hours of questioning. He said the U.S. did not use enough troops to stabilize Iraq after the 2003 invasion, erred in liquidating the Iraqi military after its defeat and went too far in removing Baath Party officials from government--three key administration moves blamed for allowing violence and disorder to spread through the country.

Gates, a supporter of the war in 2003, declined to answer a question from Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) whether he now thinks the invasion itself was a good idea.

"Frankly, senator, I think that's a judgment that the historians are going to have to make," Gates said. "Was the decision to go in right? I think it's too soon to tell."

Gates' testimony put the White House on the defensive, forcing the administration to insist that Gates shares Bush's views on the importance of building an Iraqi government that can sustain and defend itself.

"I know that you want to pit a fight between Bob Gates and the president," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It doesn't exist."