I have previously observed how in our capitalistic age material possessions often seem to be treated with greater care then human lives when wars break out. In the aftermath of the mayhem in Pakistan the Captivate screen in my office elevator yesterday went to the next level of materialist obsession by antropomorphizing financial intangibles with the following headline:
"Stocks Hurt by Pakistan Unrest and Economy"
Mind you, this was part of their "Today's Top Headlines" list, which somehow didn't mention the Bhutto assassination itself.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
December 30: Save the Date, Tune Your Radio
Before you forget all about 2007, on the second to last day of the still current year, the weekly BP Chicago Symphony Orchestra radio broadcast will feature what IMHO was one of Daniel Barenboim's greatest musical achievements during his tenure as the CSO's music director: his take on Schubert's "Great" C major symphony (No.9, D944). A quick browse through the online catalogue of the CSO's Rosenthal Archives suggests that this broadcast will feature one of a string of subscription concert performances from October 2004. I did not hear those particular performances (though my parents did - and were so amazed they went in for a second helping the next evening). I did, however, hear it the following year, when the CSO took this work to Carnegie Hall. What Barenboim did with that symphony was just amazing. Schubert's last symphony, with its many repeats, can often seem endless rather than "great". But Barenboim managed to inject a certain playfulness and a few unexpected lilts that at once brought the piece to life and kept you at the edge of the seat from beginning to end. Instead of seeming tedious, you just wanted it to go on. It was another great reminder of the breadth of Barenboim's musicianship. Having played Schubert's solo piano music, his chamber music and having accompanied singers in Schubert's Lieder - and all of it at the highest level - Barenboim made the links between the "Great" C major symphony and the rest of Schubert's output immediately audible and apparent. The performance I heard at Carnegie was truly "one for the ages", as they say. All sections of the CSO played marvellously, from those amazing opening trombones to the virtuoso string playing in the last movement (Barenboim started that one off at quite a clip). Don't miss this broadcast!
In the Chicago area, this performance will be broadcast on WFMT on Sunday at 1pm. A complete list of US stations broadcasting the BP CSO broadcasts can be found here. Or listen streaming from the CSO's website anytime between December 31 and January 13.
UPDATE: The CSO was a bit tardy in putting up the link to the streaming webcast, but here it is now.
In the Chicago area, this performance will be broadcast on WFMT on Sunday at 1pm. A complete list of US stations broadcasting the BP CSO broadcasts can be found here. Or listen streaming from the CSO's website anytime between December 31 and January 13.
UPDATE: The CSO was a bit tardy in putting up the link to the streaming webcast, but here it is now.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Bomb (2.0) Hits Chicago
Breaking my pattern this year of attending only final performances of a given opera's run, I went to see the premiere of John Adams's Doctor Atomic at the Lyric Opera last Friday. While the Lyric is the third opera house to host this production directed by Peter Sellars (after the San Francisco Opera and the De Nederlandse Opera), it is the first to present the new and improved version in the US, making this somewhat of major musical event.
Dr. Atomic takes us inside the proverbial sausage factory that is the Los Alamos laboratory during the last 24 hours leading up to the test of the first nuclear weapon at Alamogordo in the summer of 1945. The tragic hero of the title is J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, who must find a path between disparate forces tugging at him from all sides: the political pressure to finish the project at record speed, the need to keep the restive scientific staff motivated and focused, preserving his frayed marriage and, finally, personally coming to grips with the enormity of the moral implications of producing such a ghastly weapon for eventual use against actual human targets.
In mating Adams's minimalist score to a libretto culled from declassified government documents, diaries, the Bhagavad Gita and the Oppenheimers' favorite poetry, Adams and Sellars succeed in producing great music theater that is topical, yet timeless in its human moral dilemmas. I found the opera at its most effective in those scenes that do not follow a strict narrative plot, but instead juxtapose multiple levels of reflection and/or action. In a number of scenes, Sellars divides the stage between the home of the Oppenheimers, the control room of the Manhattan project and an open stage area inhabited by the choir and the dancers (superbly choreographed by Lucinda Childs), while "the gadget" ominously hovers over everything.
The effect is one of rendering the abstract worries and contemplations of the main characters concrete. The import of the scientists preparing for the countdown towards the test gains in meaning when confronted with the presence on stage of Oppenheimers' and their nanny's children, who would be the first generation to grow up in a nuclear age and who would also inherit a debt to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even the comic moments of the opera (such as General Groves's intemperate demands for good weather) are moments of bureaucratic absurdity rather than mere hilarity. They fit with the general theme of human moral judgment being suspended in the service of distant, impatient political masters.
What I found particularly interesting about Adams's and Sellars's achievement is how the work manages to unite many aspects of a disparate artistic tradition while being entirely genuine and original. The choir as the conscience of the piece is a concept that goes back to classic Greek tragedy. Using actual historic events as a backdrop to explore the emotional makeup of historic figures was often an element of Baroque opera (e.g. Giulio Cesare). The craggy intervals of Adams's vocal writing for his main characters suggest a direct lineage with serialism, even though American minimalism was in part born out of a rejection of the musical language of serialism.
The cast consisted to some degree of veterans of the prior production runs in San Francisco and Amsterdam who had already fully grown into their roles prior to arriving in Chicago. Gerald Finley's Oppenheimer could hardly be bettered. But I was at least as amazed by the newcomers. Meredith Arwady as the Oppenheimers' nanny Pasqualita had both a hypnotic stage presence and a magnificently controlled voice. Adams rescored Kitty Oppenheimer's part for soprano for the Chicago premiere, which was here performed by Jessica Rivera, who sang and acted the part with such conviction that one could easily believe that this change was one of Adams's best ideas in revising the score.
But as great as the singers were, it was evident that this opera is completely new territory for the orchestra musicians. Even the clear and committed direction of Robert Spano could not hide the fact that the Lyric Opera Orchestra was simply not comfortable with this music. Adams's challenging and unpredictable rhythmic shifts kept the musicians constantly on edge and made the music sound tentative and haphazard where more precise, mechanical vehemence would have been called for. Hopefully, by the time the final performance comes around mid-January, the orchestra will have become more familiar with this score and the music will have the zing that it was missing at times on Friday.
The Oppenheimer saga is a rich fount of lessons for the present age, only some of which are addressed in Doctor Atomic. The opera only traces the last few decisions that lead to the threshold of the atomic age, but not beyond. The questionable necessity of the decision to drop a second bomb on Japan, before the leadership had had reasonable time to react to Hiroshima, is not thematized. Neither is the escalation of the arms race through the pursuit of hydrogen weapons - which would turn Edward Teller and Oppenheimer into bitter antagonists and would eventually lead to the McCarthy-ite crucible surrounding the revocation of Oppenheimer's security clearance (for that we have Heinar Kipphardt's play In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer). Nor do we get to the madness of mutually assured destruction (Dr. Stragelove), or the current, often absurd, political debate surrounding non-proliferation and potential terrorist use of nuclear weapons. But no single work of music or theater ever could hope to encompass such a wide range of angles on such a thorny issue, especially no work that aspires to some artistic longevity beyond current topical relevance. But precisely because Adams and Sellars juxtapose the theoretical scientific and ethical considerations with the human lives involved in these decisions, Doctor Atomic bears repeated viewing, even outside the context of nuclear weapons.
(Photo credits: Lyric Opera)
Dr. Atomic takes us inside the proverbial sausage factory that is the Los Alamos laboratory during the last 24 hours leading up to the test of the first nuclear weapon at Alamogordo in the summer of 1945. The tragic hero of the title is J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, who must find a path between disparate forces tugging at him from all sides: the political pressure to finish the project at record speed, the need to keep the restive scientific staff motivated and focused, preserving his frayed marriage and, finally, personally coming to grips with the enormity of the moral implications of producing such a ghastly weapon for eventual use against actual human targets.
In mating Adams's minimalist score to a libretto culled from declassified government documents, diaries, the Bhagavad Gita and the Oppenheimers' favorite poetry, Adams and Sellars succeed in producing great music theater that is topical, yet timeless in its human moral dilemmas. I found the opera at its most effective in those scenes that do not follow a strict narrative plot, but instead juxtapose multiple levels of reflection and/or action. In a number of scenes, Sellars divides the stage between the home of the Oppenheimers, the control room of the Manhattan project and an open stage area inhabited by the choir and the dancers (superbly choreographed by Lucinda Childs), while "the gadget" ominously hovers over everything.
The effect is one of rendering the abstract worries and contemplations of the main characters concrete. The import of the scientists preparing for the countdown towards the test gains in meaning when confronted with the presence on stage of Oppenheimers' and their nanny's children, who would be the first generation to grow up in a nuclear age and who would also inherit a debt to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even the comic moments of the opera (such as General Groves's intemperate demands for good weather) are moments of bureaucratic absurdity rather than mere hilarity. They fit with the general theme of human moral judgment being suspended in the service of distant, impatient political masters.
What I found particularly interesting about Adams's and Sellars's achievement is how the work manages to unite many aspects of a disparate artistic tradition while being entirely genuine and original. The choir as the conscience of the piece is a concept that goes back to classic Greek tragedy. Using actual historic events as a backdrop to explore the emotional makeup of historic figures was often an element of Baroque opera (e.g. Giulio Cesare). The craggy intervals of Adams's vocal writing for his main characters suggest a direct lineage with serialism, even though American minimalism was in part born out of a rejection of the musical language of serialism.
The cast consisted to some degree of veterans of the prior production runs in San Francisco and Amsterdam who had already fully grown into their roles prior to arriving in Chicago. Gerald Finley's Oppenheimer could hardly be bettered. But I was at least as amazed by the newcomers. Meredith Arwady as the Oppenheimers' nanny Pasqualita had both a hypnotic stage presence and a magnificently controlled voice. Adams rescored Kitty Oppenheimer's part for soprano for the Chicago premiere, which was here performed by Jessica Rivera, who sang and acted the part with such conviction that one could easily believe that this change was one of Adams's best ideas in revising the score.
But as great as the singers were, it was evident that this opera is completely new territory for the orchestra musicians. Even the clear and committed direction of Robert Spano could not hide the fact that the Lyric Opera Orchestra was simply not comfortable with this music. Adams's challenging and unpredictable rhythmic shifts kept the musicians constantly on edge and made the music sound tentative and haphazard where more precise, mechanical vehemence would have been called for. Hopefully, by the time the final performance comes around mid-January, the orchestra will have become more familiar with this score and the music will have the zing that it was missing at times on Friday.
The Oppenheimer saga is a rich fount of lessons for the present age, only some of which are addressed in Doctor Atomic. The opera only traces the last few decisions that lead to the threshold of the atomic age, but not beyond. The questionable necessity of the decision to drop a second bomb on Japan, before the leadership had had reasonable time to react to Hiroshima, is not thematized. Neither is the escalation of the arms race through the pursuit of hydrogen weapons - which would turn Edward Teller and Oppenheimer into bitter antagonists and would eventually lead to the McCarthy-ite crucible surrounding the revocation of Oppenheimer's security clearance (for that we have Heinar Kipphardt's play In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer). Nor do we get to the madness of mutually assured destruction (Dr. Stragelove), or the current, often absurd, political debate surrounding non-proliferation and potential terrorist use of nuclear weapons. But no single work of music or theater ever could hope to encompass such a wide range of angles on such a thorny issue, especially no work that aspires to some artistic longevity beyond current topical relevance. But precisely because Adams and Sellars juxtapose the theoretical scientific and ethical considerations with the human lives involved in these decisions, Doctor Atomic bears repeated viewing, even outside the context of nuclear weapons.
(Photo credits: Lyric Opera)
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Earworm
Since va tacito has been stuck quite persistently on continuous loop inside my head for the past four days, I should probably mention that I managed to snag two tickets to the Lyric's sold-out final performance of Händel's Giulio Cesare last Saturday. The season's first ice storm must have kept some patrons away, resulting in a fair number of returns and empty seats.
David Daniels' singing of the title role surely represents the pinnacle of current countertenor art. It was a joy to hear his clear and secure voice in Caesar's many wonderful arias (a major factor also in causing my earworm). Many have already commented on Danielle de Niese's ability to combine great singing with convincing acting, sex appeal and dancing to liven up this production with her rendition of Cleopatra. But I must say, I was all around impressed both by the cast and the stage direction. Director David McVicar and choreographer Andrew George did a fantastic job keeping the spectator's eye occupied with narratively logical and interesting stage action, thereby overcoming the dramatically static nature of the many long and formal arias of Händel's score. Highlights included the romantic interaction between Daniels and de Niese, of course, but also, for example, the mock fighting scene between Tolomeo (Christophe Dumaux) and Achilla (Wayne Tigges), with a little slo-mo Matrix reference tossed in for good measure.
I also loved the frosty little dance between Ceasar and Tolomeo during va tacito as the two leaders sized each other up. Cornelia (Patricia Bardon) and Sesto (Maite Beaumont) killing Tolomeo three times over - first by sword, then by stabbing him with a knife and finally shooting him with a gun - was a great moment as well.
Emmanuelle Haïm's musical leadership was outstanding - crisp articulation, appropriately brisk tempos and perfect balancing of pit and stage. A thoroughly enjoyable evening that reminded me that I need to go hear Baroque opera more often.
Photo credits: Lyric Opera.
David Daniels' singing of the title role surely represents the pinnacle of current countertenor art. It was a joy to hear his clear and secure voice in Caesar's many wonderful arias (a major factor also in causing my earworm). Many have already commented on Danielle de Niese's ability to combine great singing with convincing acting, sex appeal and dancing to liven up this production with her rendition of Cleopatra. But I must say, I was all around impressed both by the cast and the stage direction. Director David McVicar and choreographer Andrew George did a fantastic job keeping the spectator's eye occupied with narratively logical and interesting stage action, thereby overcoming the dramatically static nature of the many long and formal arias of Händel's score. Highlights included the romantic interaction between Daniels and de Niese, of course, but also, for example, the mock fighting scene between Tolomeo (Christophe Dumaux) and Achilla (Wayne Tigges), with a little slo-mo Matrix reference tossed in for good measure.
I also loved the frosty little dance between Ceasar and Tolomeo during va tacito as the two leaders sized each other up. Cornelia (Patricia Bardon) and Sesto (Maite Beaumont) killing Tolomeo three times over - first by sword, then by stabbing him with a knife and finally shooting him with a gun - was a great moment as well.
Emmanuelle Haïm's musical leadership was outstanding - crisp articulation, appropriately brisk tempos and perfect balancing of pit and stage. A thoroughly enjoyable evening that reminded me that I need to go hear Baroque opera more often.
Photo credits: Lyric Opera.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Venezuela 1 : 0 Russia
You can't fool them all of the time. As the Russians rubberstamped a continuation of Vladimir Putin's neo-Tsarist/Stalinist rule, Venezuelans bravely told Hugo Chávez "¡No Más!", rejecting with a 51% majority his attempt to change the constitution to allow him to stay in office beyond constitutional term limits (among other amendments designed to entrench "Bolivarian Socialism"). The Russian voting results are of course highly suspect, reflecting only that part of the population that bothered to vote and including also the living dead, people paid to vote and stunningly improbable 99.4% of Chechens.
(BTW, this photo by Simon Romero from the New York Times wins my prize for best political photo of the year. I mean, no cartoonist could have drawn it better: a miniature constitution dwarfed by Chávez's fat head. It's like he's saying: "Watch me squash your civil rights with my left pinky finger!")
While Chávez had to subject to a popular referendum the constitutional amendment that would have allowed him unlimited rule, Putin's party now enjoys a 64% majority in the Duma, giving it the power to singlehandedly amend the constitution. We shall see in March (when Putin's nominal term as president expires) how irrelevant Putin's assurances are that he will abide by constitutional term limits. One way or another, Putin will retain power. Most likely he will initially be prime minister. I would not be surprised, though, if he were to use his majority to amend the constitution to concentrate power in the prime minister and then in turn remove term limits for the prime minister. He is already fanning flames of speculation about "instability" resulting from Kremlin infighting were he to depart, thus positioning a removal of term limits to allow him to stay in power as the only option for retaining "stability". I could imagine that in the coming weeks, Putin will permit the opposition to stage protest rallies, that he would send his own goons to incite violence, that these violent demonstrations would then be broadcast over his state-controlled media to scare the population, allowing Putin to intervene like a hero to reinstate law and order and once again marginalize the opposition as supposedly destructive elements seeking to destroy Russia. It's not like we haven't seen that somewhere before...
Dudamania and Politics
What the juxtaposition of these coincidentally simultaneous historic events in Russia and Venezuela brings into relief is that compared to Putin, Chávez is a bloody amateur. Lacking the chekist background, Chávez is not half as adept at concentrating power. Instead, Chávez wastes valuable energy engaging in inconsequential agitation like posing for photo ops with personae non gratae, such as Fidel Castro or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, just to piss off George W. Bush.
Because of his rapid rise to fame and his association with the Venezuelan state (through the Simón Bolívar Youth Orchestra), conductor Gustavo Dudamel has been getting a fair share of criticism in the classical blogosphere for not standing up against Chávez's undemocratic activities and for not distancing himself from the regime. Another perceptive blogger beat me to the point that this is really subjecting Dudamel to a double standard:
It is always easy for us bloggers, safely ensconced in London, New York or Chicago, to pontificate on what the morally correct behavior should be for a young artist in politically difficult times. But the reality of life under less-than-savory regimes is different. It is often one of compromise and calculation; of prioritizing and sometimes putting greater long-term goals ahead of making immediate political statements. I was a tad surprised that Alex Ross joined the chorus of Dudamel-critics in a recent column and a follow-up post, for his book contains several great examples why this criticism is too simplistic. In his chapter on Shostakovich in The Rest is Noise, Ross narrates, among other things, the fates of a number of Soviet musical and cultural luminaries, such as Tukhachevsky, Meyerhold and Babel, who stuck out their necks too far during the time of Stalin's terror. What would have happened if Shostakovich had not been as circumspect in navigating the confines of artistic freedom in Stalin's Russia? Moreover, what would have happened to his students? In totalitarian systems, the few who understand how to game the system are often a haven of humanity to others to whom they can spread their survival skills. So it was with Shostakovich. Ross writes:
Dudamel is no Furtwängler or Shostakovich because Chávez is no Hitler or Stalin. But the basic choice is the same: Either: 1. confront the regime and risk retaliation which may force you into exile or worse, which will cause you to lose all influence at home and risk the undoing of all your previous efforts; or 2. find a way to deal with the system so that you can build something that will outlast the regime. El Sistema is not a Chavista creation. It was there before Chávez and the hope is that it will still be around after him. José Antonio Abreu, who founded El Sistema, is now nearly 70 and is not in the best of health. Dudamel is not simply a young up-and-coming conductor, but is also in some ways considered Abreu's heir apparent who will lead El Sistema into the next era. How foolish would it be to risk the future of an organization that gives hope and a musical education to so many underprivileged children over an inconsequential confrontation with a temporary regime whose own future has been cast into serious doubt by today's brave vote? We should be far more concerned with the lack of civic society in Russia. In Venezuela, at least, it still seems to be sufficiently functional to avert the worst of Chávez's excesses.
By Her Own Logic
In other news, a new National Intelligence Estimate declared that the Iranian atomic program has been essentially frozen since 2003 (not that this fact is a big surprise to those with critical thinking skills), thereby pulling the rug out from underneath all the warmongers and their enablers who can't wait to bomb Iran. That would also include Hillary Clinton, who in her equivocating brilliance voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization". Hillary in one of the earlier Democratic presidential debates claimed that the personal attacks by Republicans and her Democratic competitors prove that she is "most effective" at conveying her message. But meanwhile, she has started attacking Obama herself, including resorting to citing from Obama's kindergarten essays. Now Hillary, let's think about that one. By your own logic, what do you think that says about you and Obama?
(BTW, this photo by Simon Romero from the New York Times wins my prize for best political photo of the year. I mean, no cartoonist could have drawn it better: a miniature constitution dwarfed by Chávez's fat head. It's like he's saying: "Watch me squash your civil rights with my left pinky finger!")
While Chávez had to subject to a popular referendum the constitutional amendment that would have allowed him unlimited rule, Putin's party now enjoys a 64% majority in the Duma, giving it the power to singlehandedly amend the constitution. We shall see in March (when Putin's nominal term as president expires) how irrelevant Putin's assurances are that he will abide by constitutional term limits. One way or another, Putin will retain power. Most likely he will initially be prime minister. I would not be surprised, though, if he were to use his majority to amend the constitution to concentrate power in the prime minister and then in turn remove term limits for the prime minister. He is already fanning flames of speculation about "instability" resulting from Kremlin infighting were he to depart, thus positioning a removal of term limits to allow him to stay in power as the only option for retaining "stability". I could imagine that in the coming weeks, Putin will permit the opposition to stage protest rallies, that he would send his own goons to incite violence, that these violent demonstrations would then be broadcast over his state-controlled media to scare the population, allowing Putin to intervene like a hero to reinstate law and order and once again marginalize the opposition as supposedly destructive elements seeking to destroy Russia. It's not like we haven't seen that somewhere before...
Dudamania and Politics
What the juxtaposition of these coincidentally simultaneous historic events in Russia and Venezuela brings into relief is that compared to Putin, Chávez is a bloody amateur. Lacking the chekist background, Chávez is not half as adept at concentrating power. Instead, Chávez wastes valuable energy engaging in inconsequential agitation like posing for photo ops with personae non gratae, such as Fidel Castro or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, just to piss off George W. Bush.
Because of his rapid rise to fame and his association with the Venezuelan state (through the Simón Bolívar Youth Orchestra), conductor Gustavo Dudamel has been getting a fair share of criticism in the classical blogosphere for not standing up against Chávez's undemocratic activities and for not distancing himself from the regime. Another perceptive blogger beat me to the point that this is really subjecting Dudamel to a double standard:
But I am also troubled by what I see as a certain double standard. It seems to me that many in the classical blogosphere are following the lead of conservative pundits in vastly inflating both Chávez's importance in the world and the extent of his antidemocratic activities. This led me to make some intemperate comments on certain threads, but I am frustrated by what looks an awful lot like hypocrisy. I am not arguing that Hugo Chávez is a good guy. He is not. But compared to, say, Vladimir Putin, he's chump change.
[...]
And who happens to have made an appearance at Carnegie Hall last night? Why, it's Valery Gergiev and the Kirov Orchestra! And what does Maestro Gergiev have to say about Putin? "But the biggest boost, says Gergiev, "comes from the sense of stability which Putin immediately brought to the country. We worked together in the most difficult years. Today the country is in better shape […]."" In this same article, we learn that Putin was personally responsible for directing $184 million worth of state funds towards the renovation of the orchestra's home, the Kirov-Mariinsky Theatre in St. Petersburg.
[...]
Have any of the critics and bloggers writing about the Kirov Orchestra's current tour mentioned how they are troubled by Gergiev's "direct line" to Putin? (Especially given the farce of a Russian election currently underway?) Has anyone asserted: "Supporting [Gergiev], his [Kirov] orchestra, and other [Russian] cultural products is akin to saying that we love the produce of a nascent dictatorship"?
It is always easy for us bloggers, safely ensconced in London, New York or Chicago, to pontificate on what the morally correct behavior should be for a young artist in politically difficult times. But the reality of life under less-than-savory regimes is different. It is often one of compromise and calculation; of prioritizing and sometimes putting greater long-term goals ahead of making immediate political statements. I was a tad surprised that Alex Ross joined the chorus of Dudamel-critics in a recent column and a follow-up post, for his book contains several great examples why this criticism is too simplistic. In his chapter on Shostakovich in The Rest is Noise, Ross narrates, among other things, the fates of a number of Soviet musical and cultural luminaries, such as Tukhachevsky, Meyerhold and Babel, who stuck out their necks too far during the time of Stalin's terror. What would have happened if Shostakovich had not been as circumspect in navigating the confines of artistic freedom in Stalin's Russia? Moreover, what would have happened to his students? In totalitarian systems, the few who understand how to game the system are often a haven of humanity to others to whom they can spread their survival skills. So it was with Shostakovich. Ross writes:
Once he had become a prominent figure in the music-education system, Shostakovich would go out of his way to help students who flailed about when confronted with the political portions of the syllabus. At one oral exam, Shostakovich found himself sitting beneath a large poster that said, " 'Art belongs to the People' - V.I. Lenin." With a helpful upward tilt of the head, he posed the question "To whom does art belong?"
Dudamel is no Furtwängler or Shostakovich because Chávez is no Hitler or Stalin. But the basic choice is the same: Either: 1. confront the regime and risk retaliation which may force you into exile or worse, which will cause you to lose all influence at home and risk the undoing of all your previous efforts; or 2. find a way to deal with the system so that you can build something that will outlast the regime. El Sistema is not a Chavista creation. It was there before Chávez and the hope is that it will still be around after him. José Antonio Abreu, who founded El Sistema, is now nearly 70 and is not in the best of health. Dudamel is not simply a young up-and-coming conductor, but is also in some ways considered Abreu's heir apparent who will lead El Sistema into the next era. How foolish would it be to risk the future of an organization that gives hope and a musical education to so many underprivileged children over an inconsequential confrontation with a temporary regime whose own future has been cast into serious doubt by today's brave vote? We should be far more concerned with the lack of civic society in Russia. In Venezuela, at least, it still seems to be sufficiently functional to avert the worst of Chávez's excesses.
By Her Own Logic
In other news, a new National Intelligence Estimate declared that the Iranian atomic program has been essentially frozen since 2003 (not that this fact is a big surprise to those with critical thinking skills), thereby pulling the rug out from underneath all the warmongers and their enablers who can't wait to bomb Iran. That would also include Hillary Clinton, who in her equivocating brilliance voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization". Hillary in one of the earlier Democratic presidential debates claimed that the personal attacks by Republicans and her Democratic competitors prove that she is "most effective" at conveying her message. But meanwhile, she has started attacking Obama herself, including resorting to citing from Obama's kindergarten essays. Now Hillary, let's think about that one. By your own logic, what do you think that says about you and Obama?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
