Peaches

I can tell it’s gotten cold again. Sure I’ve pulled my coats and jumpers out of storage, rekindled my love affair with the clanging sound my radiator makes at night, stocked up on boxes of soup. But the real indicator of the change in climate has not so much to do with the temperature, but with my lifestyle. I’ve read three books in the last seven days, symptomatic of the tendency to hibernate in my studio rather than deal with the elements outside.Feeling the impending shift in climate, I recently stopped by Three Lives Company in the West Village. Apart from being an excellent bookshop, worthy of its reputation as a lower Manhattan institution, Three Lives also takes me back to my afternoons in Ely, spent wandering around Topping and Company, perhaps the finest bookstore anywhere. The selection, the atmosphere, the staff – these two places share the ability to create an environment that encourages you to choose your next purchase carefully, to curate your own internal collection of literary experiences, books read, reread, or even discarded.

That all said, I’ve been a good boy this year. I’ve read stuff by Nabokov, Balzac, David Foster Wallace, Joan Didion, etc. the stuff I “ought” to read, dripping with either disdain or existential angst to counter the kung-pao chicken or tuna salad sandwich I might be eating concurrently. Considering the weather however, I wasn’t in the mood for something to warm my sensibilities. I wanted something juicy. I needed a beach read. Something empty, familiar and intellectually unchallenging.

Now, any self-respecting gay man will tell you that the absolute best way to find trash novels is to head to the LGBT section of a bookstore. Whether it’s yet one more account of the death of the West Village/San Francisco, a coming of age/coming out novel, autobiography, romance novel, or whatever, the book is going to be at the very least, a little… well, steamy. I generally tend to avoid this section of the bookstore, knowing full well the insipid content of many of the books. So, I consulted the Great Gay Oracle (Facebook) to get some recommendations. I got the typical suggestions: Christopher Isherwood, Michael Cunningham, Alan Hollinghurst, blah blah, yawn. I ended up going with André Aciman’s Call Me by Your Name. I wanted a beach read, but I got rather more than I bargained for. Be careful what you wish for.

This book is beyond purple, completely addictive, and totally befitting of my sensibilities. It’s perhaps the worst book I’ve read since Twilight (yes, I went there) and I could not put it down to save my life, going so far as to ditch both my shrink and physical therapist to finish the book. As this isn’t a book review, I won’t go through the formalities of explaining the style, plot, literary foibles, and what not. All you need to know is that it’s set in Italy, and describes the building of sexual tension between two young Jewish-American academics, one a musician and one a classicist. That’s right. Someone wrote an erotic novel about your college professors, got it published and won several awards for doing so.

My favorite highlights included passages…

 …on Haydn (page 9)

At dinner that evening, I sensed he was staring at me as I was explaining Haydn’s Seven Last Words of Christ, which I’d been transcribing.

I don’t know about you, but neither Haydn nor any discussions of music have ever rendered impure thoughts. Like, ever ever.

…on Bach (page 13)

I knew exactly what phrase in the piece must have stirred him the first time, and each time I played it I was sending him a little gift, because it was really dedicated to him, as a token of something very beautiful in me that would take no genius to figure out and that urged me to throw in an extra cadenza. Just for him.

We were – and he must have recognized the signs long before I did – flirting. 

(I can’t make this up).

…on Dante (page 88)

If he didn’t touch me, then I’d be the one to touch him, and if he didn’t respond, I’d let my mouth boldly go places it’d never been before. The humor of the words themselves amused me. Intergalactic slop. My Star of David, his Star of David, our two necks like one, two cut Jewish men joined together from time immemorial.

What if he didn’t like me? In the dark they say all cats… What if he doesn’t like it at all? He’ll just have to try, then. What if he gets really upset and offended? “Get out, you sick, wretched, twisted piece of shit.” The kiss was proof enough he could be pushed that way.

Amor ch’a null’amato amar perdona.

Things are heating up by this point in the book (kind of).

 …on Brahms (page 89)

I liked feeling so rested. Maybe the ancients were right: it never hurt to be bled from time to time. If i continued to feel this way, later I might try to play one or two preludes and fugues, maybe a fantasy by Brahms. I swallowed more of the yoghurt and put my leg on the chair next to mine.

Who needs a post-coital cigarette when you could just eat a Yoplait and play some Brahms?

…on Caesar (page 119)

I folded the piece of lined paper and slipped it under his door with the resigned apprehension of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. There was no turning back now. Iacta alea est, Caesar had said, the die is cast. It amused me to think that the verb “to throw,” iacere in Latin, has the same root as the verb “to ejaculate.” 

He could have stopped here. But no.

No sooner had I thought of this than I realized what I wanted was to bring him not just her scent on my fingers but, dried on my hand, the imprint of my semen.

T.M.I.

…on Ovid (page 146)

I got up and reached for one of the peaches, opened it half-way with my thumbs, pushed the pit out on my desk, and gently brought the fuzzy, blush-colored peach to my groin, and then began to press into it till the parted fruit slid down my….

I was always taught not to play with my food…

“Fuck me Elio, fuck me harder” and after a moment “Harder, I said” while I scanned my mind for images from Ovid – 

Wait, what?

wasn’t there a character who had turned into a peach, and if there wasn’t, couldn’t I make one up on the spot, say, an ill fated young man and young girl who in their peachy beauty had spurned an envious deity who had turned them into a peach tree, and only now, after a thousand years, were being given what had been so unjustly taken away from them, as they murmured , “I’ll die when you’re done, and you mustn’t be done, must never be done?”

Uh huh.

The story so aroused me that practically without warning the orgasm was almost upon me. I sensed I could just stop then and there or, with one more stroke, I could come, which I finally did, carefully, aiming the spurt into the reddened core of the open peach as if in a ritual of insemination.

. . .

I’m never eating peaches again.


Warts

For every New Yorker there are places where they’ll run into people they know, even in a city this size. For me, a handful of beanie-wearing Obies can usually be spotted stepping off the L from Williamsburg at the corner of 7th Avenue and 14th Street. On occasion, organists are seen roaming around the Museum of Modern Art before attending an evensong at St. Thomas Church. But without fail, I run into Juilliard students in Koreatown. Nestled between Broadway and 5th Avenue on 32nd Street are cheap holes-in-the-wall innumerable, catering not just to an expat community, but to twenty-somethings bearing the double burden of both the student budget and the musician lifestyle.

I ran into a couple of doctoral students last night at Woorijip, a classic K-town institution. It’s not just cheap – it’s dirt-cheap. Prices are determined by the weight of your plate after you’ve piled on a pound of japchae, bulgogi, spicy pork and a myriad of tofu-ish and crustacean hors d’oeuvres. The quality of the food is questionable, but upon your departure you will not be hungry for a solid 24 hours. It’s a reasonable way to save money and to ensure that your calorie intake doesn’t interfere with your practicing and rehearsal schedule (or your coffee imbibing routine).

I don’t mean to make it look like the life of a Juilliard student is so destitute that we’re constantly forced to cut corners when it comes to our nutritional intake. The Juilliard School provides us with a lot of scholarships, financial aid, job opportunities and even employment opportunities in school with work-study, lab orchestras and composers’ concerts. We get discounts at some local restaurants. Bed, Bath and Beyond gives us a break during orientation week. All in all we’re relatively well taken care of.

That said, a little extra cash doesn’t hurt. I mean, it’s New York City we’re talking about. It’s not cheap. In fact it’s the precise opposite. Fortunately the financial aid office at the Juilliard School constantly points us to external scholarship opportunities, be they grants, audition based awards, or bursaries of some kind. We also receive a lot information about essay contests sponsored by companies around the city. More often than not, these contests don’t pertain to music at all, but relate to some vague notion of entrepreneurship or community engagement. It’s not a bad way to try and make money actually; in exchange for 500+ words, a student could win between $750 and $1000 on average – that’s as much as two dollars a word if you’re really economical.

Before yesterday, I’ve never been too tempted to enter one of these contests. “I don’t have time/I have enough to do/I could just get a couple of gigs instead/what are the chances?” etc. the excuses pile up pretty quickly. But yesterday students at the Juilliard School received information about a truly unique essay-writing contest – so unique, that I’m genuinely tempted to enter.

             

(N.B. For those of you who may think that the following message is satirical, it is not. Students at the Juilliard School were sent information about the following essay contest by the Office of Financial Aid.)

RemoveWartFast’s $1000 Scholarship for All Students

Students at the Juilliard School were referred to the removewartsfast.com/scholarship/

We are motivated to help students who are dedicated to improving the lives of others and that’s why we hold a $1000 merit-based scholarship twice a year for students from all fields of studies.

Who Are We?

RemoveWartsFast.com is a new website designed and developed to provide information about how to remove warts, the different types of warts and their solution, what is HPV and how is it spread, and the various diseases which are caused due to HPV.

We want to spread the knowledge about Warts to millions of people who are suffering from this disease.

What is This Scholarship About?

We understand the significance of the information online and want to give a platform to students to exhibit their research and literary abilities in this area.

That’s why We have created the Student Excellence Scholarship for Undergraduate or Postgraduate students with the passion of writing and spreading knowledge to receive $1000 award.

There is NO application fee.

Eligibility

This scholarship is only for students who are presently enrolled in colleges, universities or high schools.

Students of any stream/branch of study can apply for this scholarship.

 Applicants must be above 18 years of age

Essay Topic:

Applicants have to submit a 500+ word essay on the following topic:

 10 Easiest Ways to Cure Warts Fast And Naturally Without Any Side Effects

The essay must be 100% unique.

How to Submit your Application

Step 1: Write the essay on the above mentioned topic. (Sample: Wartrol Reviews)

Step 2: Email the essay via a .doc file to lauren@removewartsfast.com

Step 3: Include the following details in your mail

Your Personal Details (Name and Address).

Your School Name.

Your Current Area of Study.

Any valid document issued by your school/college which will prove that you are a current student. 

Deadline For Submission

The last date of submission is Nov 30th, 2016.

How Will the Winners Be contacted?

The submissions will be reviewed by our editors and based on their feedback, the winner will be announced.

Winners will be contacted via email after the results are declared on 15th December.

$1,000 check will be sent directly to you once we verify your address details.

 

We look forward to reading your submissions.

 Good Luck!

             

. . .

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?


Oberlin

Organists face a problem in programming recitals, especially when they travel: every pipe organ, no matter where, is totally and completely unique. The number of keyboards can be different, as can the quantity of pipes and stops, and even the quality of their toots and squeaks. Noises that sound like the dulcet tones of muffled constipated ducks on one organ can sound like foghorns on another. The keys could be operating fully mechanically, or could be using electronic signals to tell pipes to let air pass through them. Oh, and there’s tuning as well. Any given organ could be tuned in totally equal temperament (like modern pianos) or could be based on some historical theory or treatise. What this all means is that the quantity of music that organists have to keep under their fingers can sometimes be daunting, as they have to be able to cater not just according to their own taste, but to the specificities of the instrument they’ll be playing.

And yet, despite knowledge and experience, every organist will make a fundamental miscalculation at some point in their career. Even if we get all the info, certain important details may fly by us, the information itself may be misleading or inaccurate, or in the worst-case scenario, there’s no information at all and we have to wing it. This is no more true in Europe, where a 400 year history of construction has rendered an inestimable variety of instruments. While on tour of France with King’s College Choir in 2012, I had one such case where I had to wing it. I could only find a little bit of info about the organ online and had to make an educated guess about what it would look/sound/or feel like. On the day of the concert, I arrived to play on what was supposed to be a 19th century romantic instrument, the likes of which you could play flashy virtuoso showpieces on. What I was confronted with was in fact an instrument 200 years prior, that didn’t even have enough notes on the keyboard to even try the piece I intended to play. Ooooooops.

An organist’s number one rule on the road? Always have a backup.

However, in the United States, it’s rare that organists get the pleasure to devise programs around certain historical “limitations.” Let’s be real: our country is young and there aren’t too many Gothic or Romanesque cathedrals filled with instruments built for Bach and his buds to tinker on. But increasingly, we have started to see more and more historically “inspired” instruments come around, constructed on the same principles as organs of a bygone era. Ok, so I know I’m a weirdo, but for me, designing programs for such instruments is a real treat. For my recital in Cleveland this week, I got the chance to play some of my favorite music, composed with such historical instruments in mind. The organ was tuned in temperament (meaning that it sounds “better” in certain keys and “worse” in others), the wind supply is flexible (under duress, it starts to wheeze a little, like the human breath supply) and the keys are smaller than piano keys (they don’t require the weights inside them as modern pianos do). The irony is, in playing on an instrument with these supposed limitations and defects, older music comes to life; chord changes start to take on expressive qualities as the tuning is fixed in such a way to favor certain harmonies over others. On top of that, the more notes you add, the more the organ builds in intensity and tension as the bellows to physically produce more air to push through the pipes. It’s exhilarating. You can literally feel it breathe.

I guess it’s a little ironic. Far too often we assume that what we’ve got with us today is somehow better equipped than what we’ve had in the past. (I mean have you seen how huge iPhones have gotten now? I thought they were supposed to be small. My bad.) But if I were to play Scheidt (what an unfortunate name, no?), Byrd, Sweelinck, Praetorius and other “obscure” composers on these more modern instruments, they would once again start living up to their reputation as sounding about as interesting as a discussion about your grandmother’s lace table doilies. Playing in Cleveland this week, the Richards, Fowkes & Co. organ at the Church of Covenant reminded me once again that the reliance on older instruments to perform music of our musical ancestors is not bad, but a real chance to communicate with these composers on their terms, and to learn alternate modes of expression.

The number of classical musicians even who would enthusiastically play Praetorius in any recital is slim, admittedly. Scheidt may receive a few more performances, but not many (come on! his name IS pretty hilarious, you have to admit). And yet, every year, some of America’s finest young organists transplant themselves to the cornfields of Ohio for nine months at a time to learn about these composers, their forbearers and successors and how the manner in which we humans have thought about expressing ourselves in music has always been subtle, transient and changing. In Oberlin, four large concert instruments on campus are built according to a variety of historical precepts, so students can get as close as possible to confronting music on the terms set down by those who put pen to paper. One can think of it less as an exercise in ancestor worship, but rather an exploration of empathy through music. What is more powerful than the human capacity not just to talk at one other, but to listen, understand, and talk with each other?

If you’ve ever met an Obie, you probably will have confronted the fact they cannot and will not shut up about their alma mater. Allow me to reinforce the stereotype, if you will. On Monday, I returned to Oberlin for the first time since my graduation 17 months ago. To say the experience was deep and emotional would be a pretty severe understatement – I’ll openly admit that as I drove towards the airport today, I cried uncontrollably for a solid twenty minutes. I didn’t want to leave the sight of Tappan Square, the sounds of innumerable discussions about students’ dreams for the future, tots at the Feve, coffee at Slow Train, and strolling through the Allen Art Museum. Of the places I’ve travelled to and studied, nothing hits me in the gut so hard as Oberlin.

In thinking about my visit, I suppose what I appreciated most about coming back was learning about how it is that Oberlin keeps itself transient and fresh. The libraries at Oberlin were incredible, constantly updated and stocked with the latest editions of scores and academic literature. This is a duty of libraries I suppose, but the extent to which the conservatory score collection is continually refreshing was a relatively new experience. For instance, at King’s College, Cambridge, (my undergraduate alma mater) one of the great pleasures of walking through the libraries and the archives is literally seeing your classmates of times past, displaced by as much as 80 years. As an undergrad I came across everything from some of Salman Rushdie’s notes scrawled in an edition of Shakespeare, E.M. Forster’s personal score of Handel’s Israel in Egypt, and some of Sir Andrew Davis’s markings of in editions of Messiaen. These are not kept in archives, preserved for posterity, but part of the living and breathing accumulation of knowledge of students past as well as imprints left behind by students.

On the last day of semester in 2015, I returned a score of Bach’s Goldberg Variations to the library at the Conservatory. I had performed it that same day on my master’s recital marking the completion of my degree. Perpetually low on cash while at school, I hadn’t bought my own score, instead marking and scrawling fingerings and performance instructions in a clean library copy (tut-tut, I know). In returning it to the library, I had somehow expected to be able to return to Oberlin one day and find it, reminisce, remember, even take it into a practice room.

Last night I headed to the library to look for it. It was gone. Three fresh Bärenreiter scores sat in its place. A certain sense of frustration had come over me at that point – I had spent months with that missing score. I had set alarms at all hours of day or night to practice playing individual variations at the drop of the hat. I had refused to record my own recital for fear of having any sonic record of any potential imperfections. I’d lost countless hours of sleep, going through the variations in my head every night, over and over and over again.

At first, I was sad that any physical evidence of those long practice hours at Oberlin was seemingly lost. But later, I got dragged back to reality. Still giddy about just being there, I spoke with a faculty member, flippantly mentioning how great it would be to move back, even study again at the conservatory for a post-graduate diploma. His his face fell a little, telling me “that’s not what Oberlin is about.” It’s not what I expected to hear, but he was right. Scores, recordings, notes from classes aren’t what make Oberlin manifest in the outside world. It’s the fact that we leave and take our experiences with us in whatever we do. Oberlin may be really special in that the legacy of its students lies not in what they leave behind, but what they take with them.

Returning to Oberlin was lovely, but that missing score was a real kick in the pants. It was revitalizing to be reminded that I didn’t study at Oberlin just so I could return and do it over again. I didn’t practice all those hours just to build up a memory. I didn’t spend two years reading and thinking critically simply to take pride in the act of contemplation. I went to Oberlin because a student’s passion could be preparing an organ recital, a sporting match, an anthropology essay, a computer program – whatever, it doesn’t really matter. It’s what you do with it. I remembered that I chose Oberlin over other schools because of an almost terrifying nervous energy on campus that tells students that they have to make a difference to how people communicate with one another.

On Monday, I returned to Oberlin expecting to relive memories, but what I got was better: a reminder to move on.

For more blog posts like this, visit www.harpingon.live

 


Berlioz, Binchois

Rehearsing Berlioz has been pretty fun this week, actually. I was kind of dreading it (Berlioz usually isn’t my thing), but it’s gotten me to reconsider one of Berlioz’s greater works that I had previously dismissed as relatively frivolous. The stereotype of the work as being overcooked, melodramatic and almost too illustrative is one that I confess to having bought into for a long time. But in hearing the piece over and over this week, the recurrence of the work’s main theme drew me in. The theme isn’t simply a tune, but the representation of a woman with whom Berlioz had become infatuated. In the years spent composing and compiling the Symphonie Fantastique, he suffered a depressive spell reportedly brought on by a performance of Shakespeare’s Hamlet he saw in 1827. The actress portraying Ophelia was apparently so moving and immediately striking that

I can only compare the effect of produced by her wonderful talent, or rather her dramatic genius, on my imagination and heart, with the convulsion produced on my mind by the work of the great poet she interpreted. It is impossible to say more.

(…and yet he does)

I became possessed by an intense, overpowering sense of sadness that in my then sickly nervous state produced a nervous condition, one which would require a great physiologist to adequately describe. I could not sleep, I lost my spirits, my favorite studies became tasteless to me, I could not work, and I spent my time wandering aimlessly about Paris and its environs. 

Obsession. Berlioz has gone down a rabbit hole trying to garner her attention. He puts on a concert of his music in one of the most exclusive venues in Paris to prove to her “that I too am an artist.” He claims to have met eyes with her at her own performance of Romeo and Juliet only for her to reject his advances. For five years he waited, composing the Symphonie Fantastique in that time, finally getting noticed in 1832. They were married within the year.

screen-shot-2016-09-24-at-13-46-28

The dark irony about the Symphonie Fantastique is that it truly is but a fantasy, not on Harriet Smithson, but on Berlioz’s ideal of her. Their marriage was doomed from the get go, buckling under issues of his flawed expectations and her own struggles with alcoholism and depression. The soaring line in Symphonie Fantastique, the rising sixth followed by a semitone – it’s the unmistakable sonic signifier of something physically distant. Berlioz’s symphony is composed on totally fictional encounters of his own design – all from a distance, he sees her waltzing at a ball, in a pasture, he thinks of her just before he’s executed, he even sees her in hell. No matter how negative the circumstances in which he sees her, the ability to cope, to imagine, derives itself from the distance Berlioz constantly creates in winding the theme round and round. The distance was not romantic in retrospect, but ominous. By the early 1840s they were practically estranged, bitter, resentful. The theme of Berlioz’s Symhphonie Fantastique would also be the basis for his famous La mort d’Ophélie (The Death of Ophelia). Harriet was not dead at all, but Ophelia, Berlioz’s image of her, had clearly passed.

Screen shot 2016-09-24 at 14.00.23.png

screen-shot-2016-09-24-at-14-07-49

Lost illusions, broken promises, betrayal of trust – Berlioz’s plight would be comically ironic if it wasn’t all too common in our daily lives. How often do we get addicted to that particular sensation which doesn’t really have a name: the anticipation of being nostalgic, of pressing fast forward to the point where a journey is complete; to have lived happily ever after, rather than living so now and in our lives to come. Infatuation has that effect on us, getting us to rush into things while holding onto the anticipatory sensation. I’ve been guilty of this in relationships, of wanting to somehow occupy multiple time spaces at once, feeling the excitement of anticipation, the joy of the present and the relief of retrospection – why? I wish I knew.

The total build up of frenzy in Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique contains all those elements of the roller coaster we think we want from the wild fragility of human emotion. Our conductor Mirga Gražinytė-Tyla’s approach to the piece this week has been thoroughly enthralling in getting us from the ideal into the hellish, each movement getting more and more excitable. There’s no emotional distance in her interpretation – she kind of gets to the bottom of the sensation of humans’ inability to get outside their own minds.

If there’s anything I think that Berlioz’s work lacks, it’s that it’s so easy to get wrapped up in the story itself and not focus on the sensation it renders, what it does to us, what it does to others. Maybe that’s the idea? But the manic obsession in the piece doesn’t leave much space to meditate on the feeling of obsession itself – more specifically, why we fall into it so easily and so quickly. They’re essentially emotions brought on by loneliness, and yet we want to hold onto them when the solution comes, as if to prove somehow that the new salary, the new lover, the new piece of technology really is the answer.

I know I’m probably a heretic in classical music circles, but I think there’s a downfall in “programmatic music” (that is, music that specifically tells a story without words). The notion that something without words can recount a narrative still overloads our aural senses; it’s impossible to think about the real feelings that such music evokes. Maybe it’s one of the reasons I don’t generally listen to huge amounts of Romantic era or programmatic music in my spare time, I don’t like getting caught up unnecessarily. Hearing the music live is amazing, but I have to say that I keep my iTunes stacked sounds of stasis rather than emotional frenzy.

(Nerd alert): I return again and again to the medieval chansons of Machaut, Binchois, Lescurel, etc. when I want to switch off and focus on how I’m processing something. Something about music and words to not tell a story but to simply reflect on a sensation can have a powerful effect. Plenty of classical art songs do this of course, and it’s the bread and butter of pop music, but songs like Gilles Binchois’ Triste Plaisir use so few words to describe the mental state that can lead us to do crazy things, write symphonies, abandon sleep, obsessively text, overwork, implode. The total lack of frenetic energy in Binchois reminds me of the seemingly calm and alluring quality of human obsession that tricks us into thinking we need it.

Triste plaisir et douloureuse joye,
Aspre doulceur, desconfort ennuieux,

Ris en plorant, souvenir oublieux
M’acompaignent, combien que seul je soye.

 
Embuchié sont, affin qu’on ne les voye
Dedans mon cueur, en l’ombre de mes yeux.

Triste plaisir et amoureuse joye!

C’est mon trésor, ma part et ma monoyé;
De quoy Dangier est sur moy envieux
Bien le sera s’il me voit avoir mieulx
Quant il a deuil de ce qu’Amour m’envoye.
Triste plaisir et douloureuse joye.

(Sad pleasure and grievous joy,
Bitter sweetness, painful discomfort,
Laughter in tears, forgetful memory
These are my companions so long as I am alone.

I’ve been ambushed by them, so that anyone can see them
Within my heart, in the shadows of my eyes.
Sad pleasure and lover’s joy!

This is my treasure, my portion, my money,
Because of it Love’s Threat is envious of me.
Well may he be, if he sees me gaining better,
Since he is grieved by what Love sends me now,
Sad pleasure and grievous joy.)

So often our expectations are let down, we get hurt, that we retreat into ourselves. Berlioz is unquestioning in his obsession with Harriet as he has her in his head, but not who she is in real life. For me Symphonie Fantastique is a potent reminder of the difference between true affection and puerile infatuation – it’s definitely an example of the latter. It makes me wonder whether humans are happier with their hopes than the repercussions of their expectations. We’ve still yet to solve the puzzle of whether we truly care about others because of who they are, or for who we’d like them to be.


Needles

Talking about work, school, our professions? It’s hard. We do it a lot, especially in the complaining department. Unless there’s someone who’s in our field who we can talk to at length about a project or an idea, there are times when the glazed-over look on our friends’ faces is a sign that we’re either starting to speak gibberish or we’re just whining. Getting through to someone about life at the harp bench can sometimes feels especially tricky, as most people think your life looks like this 24/7:

screen-shot-2016-09-22-at-14-27-44

There are a number of scenarios involving talking about the harp, but the most common is that of people kindly asking me about how I keep my fingers in shape. It took me long time to learn that describing the following processes tend to shut down a conversation:

(1) Short fingernails. Conversations usually start here for me, such as when I have to ask a friend to open a can of soda for me. Or remove keys from keyrings. Or take out my debit card from my wallet. (Sigh). 

(2) Building up calluses, allowing your fingers to morph into sausage-like eagle talons, complete with a thick layer of skin capable of building resistance not only the tension of harp strings, but also extremely high temperatures. Party tricks include the ability to remove cookie sheets from the oven with no mittens, holding hot mugs of tea with just my fingertips, having no discernible fingerprints (raising eyebrows at banks and airport immigration checks) and making my friends shiver by rubbing my thumb against the skin of their forearm.

(3) Excising finger blisters by sterilizing needles, poking holes onto the opposite side of the finger which first comes into the harp strings (to avoid peeling skin – see #4), and squeezing out all the glissando-wrought watery finger snot before soaking it in hydrogen peroxide.

(4) Carefully looking after peeling skin, not for the sake of the pain or any cosmetic aesthetics, but because dead skin on a harp string sounds like someone playing a mandolin with a spork (foon?). Casual chat about emery boards, pumice stones, hand crème designed for cow udders (not even kidding) are all thrown around.

(5) Traumatized cuticles (my favorite), whereby the backs of your fingers run into adjacent strings so frequently that the protective layer of skin starts to get beaten, bruised and bloody.

It’s usually at this point that my acquaintance becomes wide-eyed and is visibly queasy, as I’ve just described with surgical detail my forays into self-inflicted dermatitis. It essentially amounts to a personal problem and confirms the stereotype that all harpists are utterly masochistic. I think I’ve gotten better about talking about such things, and I’ve even stopped filing my calluses in public (turns out that little flying flaky flecks of snowy skin tend to gross people out. It also makes you look like you trousers are covered in cocaine).

Last week, my friend R asked me about how the harp was going and how my fingers were holding up. I told him it that my fingers were fine (read: my third finger is bleeding) but that I’m getting to play a pretty fun piece in orchestra at Juilliard. Hector Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique is this amazing piece, one of the first major orchestral pieces ever to use the harp (in fact, the piece uses two). When asked what was amazing about it, my initial goal was to run through the highlights and not scare him off or bore him.

https://vimeo.com/107213875

I casually informed him that it was about tripping on drugs. “What?” he asked, with an understandably puzzled look. After all, one doesn’t exactly correlate Juilliard’s pristine image with psychedelics and needles (unless you’re a harpist, of course). I continued, trying to convince him that the piece is both enjoyable and surreal, as it’s the story about the composer taking opium and dreaming about a woman he’s supposedly in love with, kind of like the Beatle’s Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

 “Ok, I could see where this is going.”

Awesome, my friend is not bored,  I can continue. “Berlioz starts plunging deeper and he winds up at this HUGE party where there’s waltzing and harps. He’s totally tripping. But then he gets tired of the party apparently and decides to look at some sheep that the girl is looking after.” At this point, my friend is clearly exerting some patience, as so far the images I’ve talked about are exactly what you might expect from an outdated, antiquated relic of nineteenth-century culture.

Fortunately, this is where things get weird for Berlioz.

“Weirder than a nineteenth-century trip involving sheep and waltzing?”

I should have taken the hint, and yet I continued. “He dreams he’s about to get executed, and the brass section of the orchestra starts playing mariachi-esque music to imitate the pep-band warming up the crowd. He gets his head chopped off, but it doesn’t end there! The orchestra plays four really short notes from the top down to the lowest string instruments to describe his head bouncing down the steps of the scaffold.”

R’s eyes are a little concerned. “That’s kind of dark…”

“But for some reason he hasn’t died yet… He’s all the sudden hiding in  a thicket of bushes watching an orgy involving some new-age-y goth types copulating to blaring heavy metal.”

” …”

“You want a ticket to the concert?”

“I’ll think about it.”

As I said, talking about work can be hard sometimes.

https://events.juilliard.edu/event/1562/mirga-grazinyte-tyla-conducts-juilliard-orchestra/


Orpheus at Juilliard

I apologize for the radio silence over the last few weeks. While the near-simultaneous arrivals of an air conditioning unit and a harpsichord have made my existence more comfortable, they’ve also enabled me to practice practice practice in my studio and not really come up for air. I’d like to say that it’s purely out of self-motivation and delight that I’m note cramming, but in reality the coming academic year is looming over my head like a Damoclean butter knife. Nobody’s life is on the line, but the stark reality that I actually have to be productive is starting to sink in (and yet I’m here on my blog?).

Summer’s end for me really fell early last week. Instead of confining myself to my studio and working on marking up orchestral excerpts, I decided to visit some friends in Philly. Drinks and pizza were followed by the successful wedging of three opera singers and a blogger (all Obies, naturally) on a single air mattress to watch Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom. The geek factor was already pretty high as we’re watching a cult film by a filmmaking icon, but it rose to another level as we realized that the entire film follows the outline of Benjamin Britten’s Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra. The opening credits commence with the unmistakable Purcellian grandeur while the closing credits begin with the sound of a single piccolo, swelling into the furious fugue that closes the work. The same furious fugue I should have been in NYC marking up… as I’m playing it for my placement audition in a few weeks… and haven’t learned it yet. At that point, my summer came to a close. Running away, while fun, was predictably futile. Procrastination always has an expiration date.

By 9:30AM the next morning, I was back on a bus to the city and situated at my harp bench by noon. The feeling was different – I could immediately tell that my jaunt to Philly was a welcome break. In sitting down to practice, I immediately got the familiar sense of escape I always get when I bury my mind in a score. Normally, the longer I practice, differences between pieces and instruments start to fade, and headspace forms in which the themes of the different pieces converge each day, forming images over the hours sat on piano stools and organ benches, waning upon my return to laundry, groceries, the mundane.

But rather than the renewed daily cycle of thoughts, there’s been a confluence over the past week. I seem to have fallen under the shadow of Orpheus, as these three pieces I’m working on play with the very themes that constitute humanity’s first parable of loss and self-betrayal. Attempting to retrieve his deceased wife, Eurydice, from the underworld, Orpheus uses the “power of music” to charm his way into the depths of the abyss. In making a pact with Hades, Orpheus is allowed to take Eurydice with him, on the condition that he does not lay eyes on her. Yet, in absence of the use of his eyes, it is Orpheus’s ears that betray him. He hears a sound and looks over his shoulder, dooming himself to an eternal damnation of loss and grief. Orpheus is now as he was at the beginning, alone not with his beloved, but with his harp.

This remarkable changelessness feels like a sensation without a name; the notion that Orpheus has only music left is neither tragedy nor compensation, but a strange in-between, like a bitter reality that one takes for granted or simply accepts. Orpheus is the musician’s musician after all, taught to play the harp by his father Apollo and given the muse’s voice by his mother Calliope. It’s no secret that music has a way of getting musicians to tussle out what’s going on upstairs in their heads. Composers from era to era have striven to get music to reflect the human experiences of love and loss. Think about it; how many times do we as humans plug in our headphones and turn on some music that reflects our mood? It’s not as if there’s a nutritional aspect to your iTunes that will make sure you’re eating enough salt or iron. Your only measure is buried somewhere in you – the gut, the soul, the heart, the psyche, etc.

As I look at the three pieces, I see that each tussles with a different aspect of the Orphic myth. Over at the organ, Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck’s Hexachord uses the six notes of the antiquarian lyre to construct a ricercar, a literal “searching out” of an idea in perpetuity. No resolution is really found in the Hexachord; there are constant false and interrupted cadences, one after another, and variations and repetitions on a theme which one could pick out on the piano with no prior knowledge of music. A Plagal cadence ends the piece, but there’s an extenuation which raises the fourth before the final chord, intentionally lending no real sense of finality.

screen-shot-2016-09-08-at-08-28-11

I’ve got some harpsichord continuo on my plate as well this weekend. In lamenting the loss of their mentor and friend Henry Purcell, composer John Blow and poet John Dryden reject the notion of returning their Orpheus to earth on his departure. In having “left no hell below” Orpheus has apparently already transformed the earth into a perfect harmony, in no need of further tuning. It is in “harmony” that his legacy remains.

screen-shot-2016-09-08-at-08-28-17

Yet in setting the words “the power of harmony” it’s ambiguous what harmonies should be played against the melody line. One could easily play seemingly conventional chords that initially match the melody, allowing the singer to create the tension with the occasional dissonances.

screen-shot-2016-09-08-at-08-57-01
Boring

On the other hand, one could play rudimentary harmonies, all in root position, which initially seem jarring but almost instantly resolve.

screen-shot-2016-09-08-at-09-00-23
Not so boring

Who is tuned to whom? Whence Purcell’s supposed perfection?

We beg not Hell, our Orpheus to restore,
Had He been there,
Their Sovereign’s fear
Had sent Him back before.
The pow’r of Harmony too well they know,
He long e’er this had Tun’d their jarring Sphere,
And left no Hell below.


(Dryden, Ode on the Death of Mr. Henry Purcell)

Elliott Carter’s Trilogy for oboe and harp retells the initial reunification of Orpheus and Eurydice in Hades, using complex relationships of rhythm and tuning to turn chaos into peace. The final notes of both the harp and oboe are the supposedly the same, unisons of several harmonics, but the sounds is anything but unified. The quietude is unnerving, as it’s not clear whether Orpheus and Eurydice really recognize each other after spending so long apart, being forced to reunite in the darkest corner of existence. Does Eurydice really wish to leave? Does Orpheus really want her anymore?

screen-shot-2016-09-08-at-08-28-24

The machine threatens all we have gained
Only so long as it is imagined, rather than obedient.
It no longer flaunts magnificent gestures of exquisite hesitation
But resolutely works the mine, and polishes the gem more precisely.  

Nowhere does it lag, that we might for a time escape it
And leave it behind in a quiet factory oiling itself, as is proper.
It has become our Life, – and best assumes this power
When with one resolve it orders, produces, demolishes.

But still our Existence enchants us; from a hundred sources
Being wells up. A play of pure energies, which
No one encounters who does not kneel and marvel. 

Words even now go forth with tenderness into the inexpressible …And music, ever new, from the most tremulous of stonesConstructs in waste spaces her deified dwelling.

(Rilke, Sonnet to Orpheus II.10)

Something doesn’t feel quite right in all of this. What is Orpheus “doing?” There’s a lot of wallowing, but there is no triumph or resolution. Monteverdi shot him into heaven in Orfeo at the end (well, in his second version at least). Author James Fenton turned Orpheus gay in Love Bomb. I’m looking for some direction. A solution.

I admit I spent a couple of days reading up on Orpheus. I had a class at Oberlin that centered on the notion of what makes Orpheus “Orpheus” or the definition of the Orphic might be. I dragged up all my notes. Apollodorus. Apollonius. Aeschylus. Plato. Hesiod. Ovid. I’m still getting nowhere. I still find account after account of Orpheus as a figure who just simply suffered a great loss and made music about it, with no sense of self-defiance or overcoming.

In frustration I leafed through Hesiod’s Theogony, reading more myths, stories of wayward gods, tales with morals shrouded by historic distance. I was looking for anything more on Orpheus, on the delivery of music, the inspiration of mortals, some epic aspect of his existence that made his music special. But in reading more about the Gods and their struggles, I realized I wasn’t hunting for Orpheus. I was looking for Prometheus.

Being the great Titan who stole fire from Zeus and granted it to humankind, Prometheus was punished sorely, chained to a mountain in the Caucuses to be eternally feasted on by an eagle (yum). Though freed by Heracles, he was to wear a chain around his neck for eternity, a reminder of his wronging Zeus. Zeus in his anger sends beautiful Pandora to earth, imprisoned by nothing except her own curiosity about a jar. Just as Heracles freed Prometheus, Pandora frees herself, opening the jar and releasing upon the earth evil, sorrow. But also hope.

Unlike Orpheus, the Promethean myth constantly flips back and forth. Earth’s darkness, Prometheus’s fire. Zeus’s punishment, the Heraclean emancipation. Anger, retribution. Pandora’s jar of sorrow, hope. On and on it goes. There’s a consequence for everything, a reflection of the importance of fire to humanity for them to survive. But why can’t Orpheus be like Prometheus? Why can’t he spite the Hades and give music to humanity to free them from his clutches, so that they too can charm the underworld? Why can’t Orpheus try again? Call upon Apollo, Calliope or his brother Linus, to embolden music into triumph? Why is Orpheus’s music so apparently aimless?

There’s a certain pressure for musicians to treat music like fire, as if it’s pertinent, necessary, vital to human existence and survival. Yesterday, students at the Juilliard School attended their first day of classes for the academic year. At 11AM in room 314, students in Professor Joel Sachs’s practicum on music in the 20th and 21st centuries were challenged to ask themselves if they thought classical music culture is thriving. Is classical music in danger? Are we going to have jobs? Are people interested in what we do? What can we do to promote new music to keep it alive, to invigorate? How can we let the audience in on what’s going on? Do they care? Do we care? You get the idea.

The philosophical fast turned to the practical as we were handed a 9 bar piece by Schoenberg and asked to identify the most important point in the piece. Easy, right? We all had different ideas, and votes were taken as to the most plausible. There was a general acknowledgement that the exercise was slightly artificial, but the undertone was explicit: what we do with music, how god-like Juilliard musical technicians bring music to humanity, will have a consequence. The material, as beautiful, inspiring, even Orphic as it may be, has to be approached with a Promethean ethic.

screen-shot-2016-09-07-at-22-27-12
Langsam from Six little Pieces for Piano, Op. 19 by Arnold Schoenberg

I suppose I’ve been beating around the bush for a little while. The pressure I have to make sense of the music in front me is this totally self-constructed; musicians are constantly worried about whether people can hear what they’re doing in real time. Philosopher Pierre Hadot drew the lines between the Orphic and the Promethean in terms of their function: Orpheus simply plays, while Prometheus delivers. Orpheus searches, discovers but Prometheus cures. Orpheus’s music remains constant, as he sings even after he is beheaded by the Maenads. Prometheus lives, but fades in and out, is imprisoned and emancipated, emboldened and punished, but ultimately exhausted.

screen-shot-2016-09-07-at-22-29-44
Prometheus Unbound from the “Brahmsfantasien,” Max Klinger 

So what are we musicians left with, if our music is supposedly forced to carry such weight and purpose. If music is our fire, do we reserve any for ourselves to charm Hades within us? The ideal of course is that we would naturally be Promethean by virtue our Orphic gifts – that somehow, it just happens.

But what if what we do naturally has an effect people’s lives? Did music only begin with us? Are we so arrogant to think that issues of articulation in Schoenberg constitute a zero-sum game? How many times do we perform and hear how people were indeed moved by our music? Do we really want to be in control of their emotions so closely that we micromanage their responses? If so, then we’re neither Orpheus nor Prometheus; we’re Zeus, alone and blind on Olympus. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather descend Parnassus to inspire, than to spend a solitary eternity on Olympus.

A god can do it. But tell me,
how can a man follow through the narrow lyre?
His mind divides. At the crossing of two heartways
stands no Temple.

Song, is not covetousness or the quest for something
one might finally obtain.
Song is being. Easy, for the god.
But when do we exist? When does he

pour the earth and the stars into us?
Young man, it’s not about love,
when your voice forces open your mouth; —


learn to forget those songs. They elapse.
True singing is a different breath.
A breath serving nothing. A gust in the god. A wind.

(Rilke, Sonnet to Orpheus I.3)

What if we revelled in the unknown of music and allowed others to make up their minds? I’m not saying that we should be indifferent or that we shouldn’t care. But if people need music as much we say they do, then surely we’ll still be here when the next crisis of classical music hits, and the one after that, and so on. What instead of focusing on the tasks, we just focus on the music? After all, isn’t that why we came to Juilliard?


H.I.P. (Hannibal’s iTunes Playlist)

As per my usual morning routine, last Wednesday I headed to my local coffee shop, magazines and laptop in tow. The coffee is always great at JOE and there’s an outdoor patio in the summer. My fellow patrons, however, are really what make it worth the visit. Floppy ears. Long tongues. Cold noses. Dogs upon dogs wait patiently outside as exhausted joggers and embittered retirees of the Upper West Side stop in for iced coffee. Over the course of the summer, I’ve tended to sit as far out on the patio as possible so I can best get my canine affection fix while I watch the Olympics or pretend to read the Economist (I’m now three weeks behind thanks to my furry friends).

I’m a total softy and there’s always one Irish Setter who brings it out in me. He’s not too bright, and tends to get on other dogs’s nerves. As soon as his human goes into the coffee shop, it starts: the whimpering, the moaning, the slobbering, urinating and nervous defecation all over the pavement, signalling to the entire street his acute separation anxiety. He’s pathetic yes, but so am I. As I rub his chin, he slops and drools all over my left hand, a liquid offering of nervous gratitude for keeping his company while his guardian callously neglects him for the sake of caffeine. The owner knows me by now, as I indulge the dog’s neuroses on every occasion, no matter how moist and sticky the situation. Each and every time, it’s clear from the expression on her face that she thinks I’m an idiot. She’s probably right. After all, I am a grown man who, without fail, is conned into lavishing attention on a creature incapable of looking after the disposal of its own fecal matter on the pavement (much less its saliva). In her eyes, her dog is manipulative, but I’m totally charmed.

But after last Wednesday, I’m fairly certain this dog owner’s suspicions about me were confirmed. I’m definitely a moron. Walking out of the coffee shop, she witnessed that same weird organist petting her dog, but giggling uncontrollably while looking at a computer screen. Her well rehearsed look of disapproval was especially stern today. “What’s so funny? What’s he done now?” she asked. I compose myself. “Hannibal Lecter has a harpsichord. It’s hysterical.” My attempt to explain myself to the dower dog dowager didn’t go down very well. She rather hastily took her dog and told me to enjoy my morning in a tone that really suggested that I should check myself into an institution (or just wash the doggy goo off my hands).

Hannibal’s Harpsichord

There’s really nothing like going on a bender and bingeing on Netflix or Amazon Prime for a few days. I usually find a show I like and slog it out as quickly as possible. Jessica Lange kicks ass in American Horror Story (even if she did mispronounce Franz Schubert: “I’m afraid shoo-bear was never your style”) and Kevin Spacey is hot in House of Cards (does anyone else remember that threesome with his wife and the secret service agent?). This week, I discovered NBC’s Hannbal. Yes, I know the show is nearly three years old, and yes, I know I live under a rock. But I don’t care. I’m hooked – the show is great.

Why? Well take look.

At Sotheby’s in New York, he purchased two excellent musical instruments, rare finds both of them. The first was a late-eighteenth-century Flemish harpsichord nearly identical to the Smithsonian’s 1745 Dulkin, with an upper manual to accommodate Bach – the instrument was a worthy successor to the gravicembalo he had in Florence. His other purchase was an early electronic instrument, a theremin, built on the 1930s by Professor Theremin himself. The theremin had long fascinated Dr. Lecter. He had built one as a child. lt is played with gestures of the empty hands in an electronic field. By gesture you evoke its voice…                                                          (Thomas Harris, Hannibal)

Forqueray1
Antoine Forqueray in all his Forquerayish elegance

That’s right. He has fucking harpsichord (and a theremin?). Dr. Lecter now rides the waves of the Historically Informed Performance movement. He’s literally HIP. He’s too refined just to eat your face while listening to the Goldberg Variations played by a pianist. No, no, no, that simply will not do. On a given summer’s evening, while he carefully ponders which recipe he’ll use to soften and purée your left kidney into a silky mousse, he’ll sit at the harpsichord and play a Sarabande by Antoine Forqueray. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Hannibal 2.0.

The show is seeping with music. All the criminals in the show love their art music. For instance you’ve got the patient who stalks Hannibal at the benefit concert of operatic arias by Handel.

 

Another uses your gut to make cello strings.

Gross, right?

I’m getting off track. The intersection of the blood/gore/feats of anatomical rearrangement and musical gimmicks are just fun. For me, it’s the Forqueray that is on another level. Hannibal Lecter isn’t pretentious. He’s selective, precise, cunning and it shows up in his iTunes selections.

Permit me to geek out momentarily. Forqueray played the viola da gamba, an instrument often though to be oddly elusive, subject to artistic treatments by the likes of Gérard Depardieu and Johannes Vermeer. Having spent a life in personal service of Louis XIV (the famous “Sun King”), Forqueray and his compositions were archetypal and symbolic in his lifetime, placed alongside the output of other funny-named gambists like St. Colombe and Marin Marais. The music is flowery and highly ornamented, basking in a series of almost simplistic emotions, meant to stir the hearts of busty aristocrats caked in foundation, lipstick and fake moles – the war paint of class warfare. But no such piece by Forqueary is more evocative of the era of the powdered wig and furry facial nevus is Lecter’s piece, a sarabande from the Fourth Suite.

Screen shot 2016-08-09 at 22.36.37

The score itself breathes a certain florid morbidity; even for those of you who don’t read music, you can see that there’s a firm skeletal structure, and then there are a ton of little markings and extra notes. Some say they’re like flower petals or something naturalistic, organic. But what it their natural affect is that of decay, like that of a corpse, or maybe the growth of a fungus or disease, such as the approach of murderous psychosis on the human mind (or stomach, in Hannibal’s case). I’m not convinced that this music is so flowery as I thought. It’s just a bit creepy sounding.

Forqueray’s son (who wrote the piece down for his father) left an instruction for the performer in the original edition:

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 09Translation: To make the piece intelligible, I have marked some little crosses that indicate that the bass should be played before the melody line; and in all the places where there are no crosses, the melody must be played before the bass.

Huh. The piece is totally micromanaged. It doesn’t sound that way when you listen to it though – it sounds almost improvised and in the moment, poetic and refined in such a way that almost sounds as if it could only be a spur of the moment inspiration. It’s because no two notes ever speak at the same time – there’s a discombobulating sensation of disorganization that comes from the dictation that your hand can’t play at the same time, But the fact that you’re told exactly how your hands are meant to trip over each other with those itty-bitty symbols males it impossible to even interpret this piece in real time. It’s a piece that is to be memorized, a strange project in reproducibility (Walter Benjamin, eat your heart out). There’s absolutely nothing spur-of the moment about it. All that mushiness is just a façade.

What’s left to the performer is the pace at which it is to be enjoyed. One has to take the time to synchronize all the big notes and little notes with near surgical perfection, but once that’s done, it’s yours for the consuming. It’s a lot like a preparation for one of Hannibal Lecter’s little feasts. You have to remove the human with extreme care and perfection as not damage it, you have to eat it soon lest it spoils, you have to prepare it delicately as human organs are so fragile. The pâté made from your local mailman may taste effortless, simple, delightful – the truth is, it takes a lot to make it.

Donna Anna

I watched some other episodes over again since last Wednesday, really listening out for the music. How often do I get to indulge in a bit of self-quizzing and dot connecting when watching a network television show? One episode really caught my attention. There were no obscure composers in this episode, such as Forqueray or any other harpsichord master. Mozart and Chopin instead illustrated Lecter’s pretty horrifying persona.

Mozart came first. Hannibal and his patient dress themselves for the day, one in a swanky apartment and the other in a psychiatric institution, mirroring each other almost perfectly as if they are the same person. It’s a consistent theme in the show, as Hannibal spends time literally trying to train up this poor patient into becoming a psychopath. But as they’re putting on their neckties and checking themselves in the mirror, an aria from Don Giovanni gently wafts through the speakers. One would expect that one of Giovanni’s arias would be used, as he’s usually considered the villain with some rather engrained psychosexual daddy issues. He’s a rapist and a murderer, whose obsession with carnal consumption verging on the demonic.

Yet it is Don Ottavio’s voice that sets the scene:

Dalla sua pace la mia dipende;                    On her peace of mind depends mine too,
Quel che a lei piace vita mi rende,              what pleases her gives life to me,
Quel che le incresce morte mi dà.                 what grieves her wounds me to the heart.
S’ella sospira, sospiro anch’io;                      If she sighs, I sigh with her;
È mia quell’ira, quel pianto è mio;              her anger and her sorrow are mine,
E non ho bene, s’ella non l’ha.                     and joy I cannot know unless she share it.

 

Ottavio is supposedly telling Donna Anna that he will avenge her father’s death, the Commendatore who killed at the hands of Don Giovanni. But notice there’s no anger in his tone. Empathy, sharing, caring – there’s some sort of affection, but really it’s just saying that he’ll do as she says. It’s would be saccharine if it weren’t so sick. George Bernard Shaw tried to flip this scene around in Man and Superman to show that Donna Anna was the real psycho, fixated in vengeance, willing to turn Ottavio into a killer to avenge her father (this is misogyny at its finest). This aria isn’t really about love – it’s about manipulation. Lecter is not like Giovanni at all – he is Donna Anna, and his patient it Ottavio. Something is so set in Ottavio, that it’s almost as if has no choice in the matter of whether to do as Donna Anna wills; he always following a musical idea set up for him, though not exactly as he would sing it. There’s no opening ritornello for his aria, introductory fare. There is merely a chord, to give him a starting note, and violas and second violins play along with him throughout the first half of the text.

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 09.57.17

In typical Mozart fashion though, there’s no need to go to a relative minor key or modulate; you just shift gears from G Major to G minor, no warning – such is the extent of Don Ottavio’s duty to Donna Anna. The strings start to play little sighs, giving him something to sigh with.

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 09.58.36

He’s totally being strung along, but his melody is so beautiful that he is blissfully unaware.

Suffocation

By the end of the episode, Lecter is alone, dealing with the ramifications of what’s he’s done. His patient whom he’s framed is trapped in a psychiatric hospital, increasingly turning his solitude into some emotion resembling guilt (we’re never sure with this guy). But here’s the thing: there’s nothing he can do. If he spills the beans, then the cat’s out of the bag and everyone will know he’s a toe munching Forqueray freak – we can’t have that. We need at least another couple of seasons worth of material.

 

That’s where Chopin comes in. For those of you who’ve seen Fifty Shades of Grey (don’t lie, you loved it really), you might recognize Chopin’s Etude no. 4 in E minor, nicknamed “Suffocation” by his companion Georges Sands. It’s depressing as hell, not because it’s emotive, washy or sweet; it’s another work set within super strict boundaries. Ice cold tension, claustrophobia, unease are there because nothing really happens in the Prelude. Even if you can’t read music in the score, you can see the repetition of patterns, looking almost completely the same for three lines of the piece (nearly half of it).

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.05.55

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.06.11

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.06.20

There is no real “hummable” theme, that you could sing to yourself in the shower; it’s just two notes, one shorter, one much longer, repeated over and over again at different pitch levels.

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.02.32

It’s almost a musical machination, as after 8 bars the repetition encloses the listeners, boxing them in. It’s hard for the pianist as well, as it says espressivo (be expressive!). But what should we express?

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.04.35

Should we wallow in the jail cell of repetition and show resignation? Or should we infer some personal experience – from what I can tell, suffocation isn’t particularly pleasant or desirable (unless of course, the work should be renamed auto-asphyxiation?). What do we do?

By the 9th bar, Chopin breaks free a little bit, and inserts a row of eight notes to get from G-sharp to F-sharp in bar 10. But it’s merely fleeting – the old melody returns, though the intervalic differential increases to a third (WHOAH!).

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.08.48

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.09.29The left hand stops. Something is wrong. The right hand loses balance, and the two little note figure speeds up by a factor of 8, descending wildly before climbing up again. In the second half of the bar, there’s a quintuplet – 5 notes taking up the space where there should only be 4 (think rush hour on the train).

 

It staggers, but eventually brings everything back into place. Before you know it, we are right where we started.

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.10.43

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.11.29.pngBut something has gotta give. Chopin starts to lose it, and in bar 16 takes off. The left hand falls off, we suddenly need help from the sustaining pedal. You can sort of tell it’s coming, as in bars 15-16, Chopin manages to use every note in the chromatic scale in just two bars, giving you the sense that he’s starting to lost his shit. Forte! Stretto! Chopin’s being pretty explicit that things should heat up.

But the climax is short lived, as with so many things in life. As soon as it starts, it seemingly starts to send, and we’re reminded of some essential destiny or truth that lives in those two notes that signal the return of the melody (if you can call it that).

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.17.00

But the ominous sense it’s all winding down doesn’t really come from the repetitious right hand, but from the bass line in the left hand. Alternating between a C and B (again, two notes right next to each other), he alternates between them, exponentially slowing down the rate at which they change:

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.12.31Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.12.42

[BB CC BBBB CCCC BBBBBBB CCCCCCCC]        (2 2 4 4 8 8)

The right melody is so slow and seemingly timeless that we don’t know that the piece is literally dying according to exact mathematical proportions, as if your heart rate is dropping and your losing consciousness (I speculate!).

But right as we expect to hear maybe 16 Bs in a row, we only get eight. Uh oh. The left hand falls off again, going to a long B-flat (the note below). A mere trifle. There is a pause, and the B returns, giving us what we’re waiting for before crushingly ending in E minor.

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.13.56

It’s all extremely calculated and weirdly planned out, so much so that it’s totally imperceptible unless you’re looking for it. Like the mind of a psychopath, the musical score shows things that we might never consciously pick up on until we look at it closely, undistracted by the beauty of listening to the melody.

This is Hannibal Lecter all over. He’s trapped. Trapped in his habits, in his need to dominate and in his own frame of logic, unable to escape or let go lest his true nature is revealed. In NBC’s Hannibal, his demeanor is frigid and indifferent, never showing signs that he has in anyway put on a plastic suit to perform a frontal lobotomy for dessert. The music he likes, the food, the art – they all look like a man with a broad palette. But nothing could be further from the truth – everything he cooks has a strict recipe and every one of his drawings, a sense of anatomical proportion and perfection. But above all, his music satisfies the need for control. There is no improvising or fooling around. There is only anatomical perfection.

Hannibal the Musician

I suppose I feel like a bit of a phony, writing about all this. Who’s to say that Chopin’s works are any more carefully constructed than any others, or that his music is in particular more fitting for Hannibal’s general aura? I don’t think I really have an answer for that. Such is the nature of analyzing music and drawing connections that after a while you start to read tea leaves, divining meaning from any details you see.

Yet there is something fundamental about Hannibal Lecter’s personality that I somehow identify with none the less. He’s got a lot going on behind the scenes, what with killing people and harvesting their organs in a meticulous manner to ensure he doesn’t get caught. He constantly has to prepare to cover his tracks, make it look easy. Musicians are in a similar position – we practice, we physically and mentally prepare to give the impression that what we do is effortless to us. Signs of strain are not applauded, as we’re told stories of Liszt who practiced with water glasses on his hands to practice keeping them still, or Bach who supposedly could stare at like a statue while improvising a fugue.

I think that’s why all these pieces seem to illustrate the show so well (as well as countless others in episode upon episode), as they’re not just about construction, but they’re about various forms of control. One has to control the hands so independently in Forqueray that there are instructions on every beat on how to do it. The control in Mozart is such that a key center around G is never left. Chopin constructs an entire piece on two notes, constantly tottering on the edge of falling off. You have to make such careful decisions about how to perform any works like this so as not to give the game away that you’re balancing two parties in opposition: your two hands, your two key centers, your two notes, your practicing and performing mentalities. In the end, it’s hard to tell which is which by the very end. You’ve spent so long working and concealing, blending the musical experiences into one thought process that there is opposition, but no dichotomy.

Screen shot 2016-08-11 at 10.13.56

So which is it? Are you the B? Or are you the C?


Clair de Lune

Harp gigging survival rule #1: Bring a book.

I tend to take novels along with me when I play gigs. There’s always spare time on the job. Arriving at the venue, I never know what physical obstacles will prevent me from getting my harp onto a stage – it’s a large instrument, after all. Nine times out of ten, there usually isn’t the need to hoist/drag/crane the harp into its necessary location, so I’m usually early. That’s a spare 30 minutes. When it comes time to come to play, there are a lot of rests to ignore between glissandos (“tacet” is my middle name). Add 20 minutes or so. Union mandated breaks between sound check and the performance are always a bit too long (usually 2+ hours) to just sit and play on your iPhone. Usually there’s no good coffee around and there are no cute stagehands to chat up, etc. You get the idea.

With so much free time, the practical harpist has to be prepared to keep oneself occupied (at least in my opinion), for the alternatives to self-entertainment are potentially dire. The break before the performance in particular raises my anxiety levels. It’s not that I’m worried about sitting in silence with nobody to talk to. I tend to worry about the opposite. I hate, hate, HATE chitchat. But on gigs, if you’re not careful you end up getting stuck in an hour the most insufferable, breeze-shooting, small talky chitchat with one or two other musicians, the likes of which could easily fill BBC daytime special. There is no direction. There is no point. But most importantly, there is no way out. “Where did you study?” “Do you know John?” “OMG I love him! We went to Aspen together when I was 4.” “OMG, gigs are such a bore.” “Is there food? Last time there was food.” “Ugh, pizza. I’m gluten free.”

Every. Single. Time.

I’ve found that books are a pretty good shield from stupidity. Reading a book is usually a good way to get people to leave you alone, right? Everyone knows that if you read books in public you don’t have friends and you don’t want any. Did high school teach us nothing? But from time to time, someone will ask you the inevitably paradoxical questions, “what are you reading?” or “what’s your book about?” (somehow missing the idea that in asking the question, they interrupt my reading, so when I answer their question I’m not in fact reading anything… except for maybe the stupid inquisitive look on their face).

Harp gigging survival rule #2: Bring a book that NOBODY wants to hear about.

Again, preparation is key. A few weeks ago, I brought Vladimir Nabokov’s Ada to the gig. A flutist (of course) with an irritatingly crooked smile casually asked me what it was about, clearly bored with her installment of Vanity Fair and her Tupperware full of kimchi. In all honesty, this would have been fine if I had any inkling that she was genuinely interested. Unfortunately, it was clear that she was attempting to use me as a tool to assuage her own boredom and poor taste in disposable literature. I mean really, how selfish could you get? “Incest,” I answered, with a grin (take that, flute girl!) The blood all but drained from her face and she immediately became slightly flustered. “Oh…” she replied, quickly returning to her magazine with unnatural determination. Crisis averted.

But when more and more people came into the green room, the noise level became such that it was impossible to concentrate on my book. At first, I was annoyed, but after a while, the inanity of the group discussion became fascinating. They were literally talking about nothing. The opportunity to interject and play along was strong, but more forceful was the instinct to gear the conversation towards the bizarre and entertaining before forcing it to come to a crashing end. If they were going to disturb my reading, there would be a price to pay. I soon joined in.

These motley musicians soon started to discuss films they had seen recently. Ghostbusters (“OMG it’s so funny cuz they’re women LOL”). Finding Dory (how has a zoologically inclined film not considered that natural selection would have bumped Dory off about 30 minutes into Finding Nemo? There is no recourse for a sequel, I’m sorry to say.) Secret Life of Pets. Hold the phone. This was my golden opportunity. I proceeded to tell them that I too saw a pet flick called Wiener-Dog, about a dachshund and his six different consecutive owners. The general initial reaction was “Aw!” or “OMG that sounds so cute! I have to see it!” That was until I started to actually tell them what the film was about and what music was used to heighten the dramatic tension.

So, a bit of background: this film is utterly terrible. It’s one of the most horrifying films I’ve ever seen. The climax of the film entails watching a Dachshund (named Cancer, because its owner has cancer) get run over by a truck. And then by a car. And another car. And again and again and again as passing traffic rolls over the splattered circle of flattened, crepe-like doggy guts. I probably could have told you this in advance, as it was recommended in the New Yorker (strike one) and was playing at Angelika Film Center (strike two), a theater in SoHo that plays high-budget independent films (including every one of Woody Allen’s cinematic travesties produced over the last 20 years). It was my own fault I suppose, but I have a certain sense of self-righteousness about the fact that I will head to the movie theaters on West Houston Street as recommended by the New Yorker to support mediums of art other than my own. Also, the films make for great conversation starters. Or conversation stoppers.

I told the other musicians about this fantastic scene in the film in which the Dachshund has explosive diarrhea after his nine-year old owner named Remi gives him a granola bar to eat. The issue of this dog’s bowels takes up nearly 10 minutes of a 93-minute film, in which time there is a rather amazing use of Claude Debussy’s “Clair de Lune:” the camera pans over a fantasia of fecal liquidity, a trail of watery dog excrement along the neighborhood pavement.

Nervous laughter spread sporadically among my colleagues. But I wanted to get through to them just how incredible the scene was. So I naturally pulled up Richard Brody’s recent New Yorker review on my iPhone (yes, I have the New Yorker app – and so should you):

Wiener-Dog gets diarrhea and it’s Remi’s fault, for feeding him with love but without knowledge. What results is shit, watery shit, and Solondz [the director] makes it the core of an ingenious sequence of paradoxical pathos. The trail of loose and smelly feces in the house is seen at first only as disgusting, but when Solondz, in a long and stately tracking shot, follows another trail of excrement in the driveway along the curb, set to Debussy’s “Clair de Lune,” it’s a lofty cinematic mark of pain—of Wiener-Dog’s illness and suffering, and of Remi’s anguished remorse and self-reproach. It sounds funny and it sounds disgusting, but Solondz’s discovery, through pure empathy and pure cinema, of the dignity in the repellent is among the treasures of his art.

There was one violist who found this all very amusing, but the violinist and the pianist were unsurprisingly a little weirded out. The flutist was having none of this and quickly changed the subject back to Finding Dory.

I know I’m painting a picture of myself as a conversational sadist. Exploration of vast realm of “T.M.I.” has rarely been a problem for me (I mean duh! You’ve read my blog, right?). That said, the use of “Claire de Lune” may have sincerely been one of the most incredible uses of classical music in a film I’d seen since my first encounter with the Goldberg Variations at the age of 12.

 

While it is unlikely that Wiener-Dog will even come even close to achieving the same stature as Silence of the Lambs, it gave me a lot to think about with regards to Debussy. The glistening trail of dog-doodie seemed to mirror the seamless shift from the placid quartet of voices, to the almost static repeated chords, to the incredible series of tertiary relations in the flowing middle section, used in film after film, time and again.

Screen shot 2016-08-04 at 14.23.56
You can see the patterns in the left hand, even if you don’t read music. Everything just keeps ascending and metamorphosing, though ultimately back into itself.

For you non musicians out there, the tertiary relations (that is, choosing three harmonies a somewhat equal distance from each other) is what gives Clair de Lune that inspiring, feel-good Hollywood glow. The end of Ocean’s Eleven is a classic example. The heist is a success. The hero takes the hit for the team. George Clooney gets Julia Roberts. Dramatic Las Vegas camera shot please.

Each of the chords that the composer chooses has one or two notes in common with chord preceding and following, creating the kaleidoscopic effect. One knows one is hearing almost identical sounds in sequence, but their positioning and slight alteration makes the brain go haywire. The kaleidoscope is a good metaphor, but another is at a set of three staircases by M.C. Escher. One can go along these staircases, constantly ascending and eventually wind up back where you started, literally having travelled nowhere if you get picky about the laws of physics and motion. That’s the point of tertiary relations – they are seemingly emotive and purposeful, and yet lead you right back to where you started, to your own reflection, even perhaps an inner light.

But there’s a particular imagery in the original poem by Paul Verlaine, the inspiration for the piece’s title. calme clair de lune is really exquisite.

Au calme clair de lune triste et beau, / The still moonlight, sad and beautiful,
Qui fait rêver les oiseaux dans les arbres  / Sets the birds softly dreaming in the trees,
Et sangloter d’extase les jets d’eau, / And makes the marbled fountains, gushing, streaming–
Les grands jets d’eau sveltes parmi les marbres. / Slender jet-fountains—sob their ecstasies.

The end of Ocean’s Eleven is a classic case where the Debussy is used to make you feel as if something has been done right, or that a justice has been accomplished. But for me, that’s not what Clair de Lune is about.  It’s the eternal stasis of returning back to the same chords in that sequence that keeps me in the moment and focused on what’s around me, and not thinking on something grand or eternal. It’s all very Buddha/Ram Dass/spiritual-somethingy, reminding of the instruction to “be here now. be now here. be nowhere.” So much of Verlaine’s poetry deals with this essence of quietude and meandering through nothingness that I can’t help but see such in Debussy’s remarkable gem. What shines through is not the moon, but its light, its reflection glistening sheen of… well, fresh poo.

I’m maybe getting really too erudite here, but there’s a brilliant essay by Susan Sontag on how music lines up with depictions of water and reflection. The essay’s title is rather unfortunate – “Wagner’s fluids.” Fortunately, she doesn’t delve into Richard Wagner’s actual bodily fluids (of which there were many due to the composer’s insistence on twice daily enemas and masturbation in women’s lingerie – purchased for him, by none other than Friedrich Nietzsche, in order to spare Wagner any professional embarrassment as a result of buying an inordinate number of panties in public. Talk about true friendship, eh?) The Nietzschean exploration is confined to the depictions of water and blood in Wagner’s operas arguing that that the very act of musically imitating liquidity and reflection lends itself to an emotional elasticity that makes music “cease to be music any longer,” according to conductor Bruno Walther. The effect is not so much heart-wrenching, but almost nihilistic, as the emotional flexibility requires a mode of ambivalence (as diametrically opposed to indifference) as a means of taking it all in. Wagner, like Debussy was another master of the tertiary relation, creating the essence of no beginnings and no endings, like a body of water moving and yet not travelling.

I’m not sure this is exactly the sensation I get when I see all variety of canine excretions on W. 69 Street every morning, but it is the sensation I got when I saw this scene in Wiener-Dog: that for a brief moment what I saw and what I heard, no matter how bizarre, seemingly aligned into something poetic. Indeed, there was a sense that I was no longer listening to Debussy, but rather pleasantly experiencing this poor dachshund’s Dantean bowel catastrophe. Despite my insistence on shocking the poor flutist last week, maybe there was a subconscious need to talk about it, to use her as the sounding board for my own ruminations on how music might have affected me. I suppose I am no better than her, wanting to share some experience of communication with someone who is a fellow musician. Even if Clair de Lune is the static reflective piece I think it is, or if Susan Sontag is right about nebulousness of Wagner, Susan Sontag still feels the need to talk about it in the same way I feel the need to talk about Wiener-Dog. It’s natural for humans to talk, even if it is about meaningless things or about meanlinglessness itself. Did I miss out on chances to reflect in the meaningless conversations, or do I just prefer to do it with authors and distant creators than with those immediately around me?

Then again, maybe it’s the flutist’s fault – she was WAY more weirded out about incest and dog feces than I was annoyed with Finding Dory. If I ever see this flutist again, I might reconsider the opportunity to make small talk, and learn to revel in something transient and meaningless.

That, or I’ll just ask her if she saw Wiener-Dog yet.


Country Music and the 1968 Election

I suppose it’s no secret that decisions on the campaign trail can seem arbitrary, obtuse and even counter-intuitive. Now more than ever, we’ve seen the Republican nominee switch back and forth on his positions, use foul language, and fundamentally drive his campaign into the abyss. It’s simply wonderful to watch, in a rather dark and cynical schadenfreude kind of way that only American politics can induce.

The message that we’ve got to “make America great again” isn’t new – Nixon’s strategy in the 1968 election was built upon notion of “bringing America back.” In early 1968, Nixon’s own Harry S. Dent (former campaign aide to Strom Thurmond) created a set of ads featuring a country music song to boost the polls around the South:

How far down the road has our country gone,
In this time of trouble and strife?
How can we bring our country back
To the good and decent life?

Our votes can bring our country back
But it’s up to everyone!
This time, this time with leadership
From Richard M. Nixon.

Dent, like Nixon, was fanatical about trying to catch up with former Alabama Governor George Wallace, whose third party ticket threatened Nixon’s majority. But it wasn’t just country singers that they bought for campaign ads, but the most famous country singers money could buy. Between Dent and Mississippi senator Fred LaRue, favors were called in to get Buck Owens, Ernest Tubb, the Wilburn Brothers, Wally Fowler, Tex Ritter and Stuart Hamblen – all stars on the Grand Ole Opry who had at various times had previously shared platforms with George Wallace.

Though keen to spread as wide a net as possible, Dent and LaRue capitalized on Stuart Hamblen the most. Hamblen wasn’t a stranger to politics in the least. In 1952, he had run as a presidential candidate for the Prohibition Party, and in 1938 ran for California’s 20th congressional district seat. But it wasn’t just Hamblen’s political experience and Okie image were vital reasons for his recruitment – he also had a campaign song up his sleeve, fitting for the times. 

Of the many tumultuous events of the year 1968, none loomed over the country so much as Bobby Kennedy’s assassination. Beloved by his party and by many working class voters across the country, his image and populist appeal represented the flipside of Wallace’s, built on a campaign of economic uplift rather than racebaiting.

In July 1968, just weeks after Bobby’s death, the Nixon campaign commenced negotiations with Hamblen Music Company, Inc. in Los Angeles for the use of a campaign song. The song was not newly composed, but in fact had been written for JFK in 1961. Entitled “What Can I Do For My Country,” Hamblen took the words from JFK’s inaugural address as the launching pad for a song. It was rejected by LBJ in 1964, and by a host of local Democratic campaigns in 1966. Hamblen offered the song to the Nixon campaign, and despite the tasteless appropriation of the Kennedy legacy so soon after Bobby’s death, it was decided that in order to court both the Catholic and working class votes across the Appalachians, the song should be used.

 

(it’s pretty terrible, right?)

But the new campaign song came at a heavy price. In discussing the details of the payment for the song, Hamblen initially made several statements in the presence of lawyers that he wished not for his song to be used for financial profit, but for a political cause. That being said, when handed the contract later that week, Hamblen rejected it on the grounds that he would not receive sufficient royalties. In correspondence following a rearrangement of the financial terms of the agreement, the Nixon campaign became aware that Hamblen was insisting on royalties 20% higher than those of Irving Berlin, who until 1968 charged the highest royalty rate of any composer in the United States.

Why is this a big deal? Well, it changed the way musicians got involved in political campaigns. Firstly, the connections between country musicians and politicians were no longer informal and based upon personal friendships as in the case of George Wallace, but required the consultation of law firms, media agencies and one artistic management representatives. Similarly, the country music industry’s involvement in politics was no longer specific to Nashville, but encompassed the emergence of a national music industry, concurrently with a national conservative political consensus. This was no longer just Nixon’s Southern Strategy, but a national strategy in recognition of how pervasive the country music industry had become in American life by the 1960s.

But lastly, it is apparent that country musicians were using campaigns to enhance their own careers just as much as they set out to support a political cause. The final point reflects a wider trend in the country music industry. Due to the expansion of country music radio, television and recording industries, country musicians were reliant upon these media, as suburbanisation saw the gradual abandonment of live performance venues in city centres across the USA. With the exception of Nashville honky-tonk bars, which by 1968 were merely tourist attractions more than local haunts, city centres had mostly seen the closure of most of their large-scale country music venues. Physically getting in front of large audiences was the not the business it used to be – it was political rallies and not concerts that had the biggest crowds.

And yet, Nashville still loomed large in the Nixon-Agnew idea of what the strategy should be. While Country Music was popular everywhere, there was no Mecca like that of the Ryman auditorium, and Wallace remained the Opry favorite. Such was the importance of Nashville and the Opry the Wallace campaigns, that journalist Paul Hemphill remarked that whilst Music Row, Printers Alley and other areas of Nashville fast became political “battle-grounds,” between Democratic Party loyalty and Wallace’s third party candidacy, the Grand Ole Opry continued to represent the “end of the rainbow” for blue collar Wallace voters and country music lovers. According to other reports, the parking lot at adjacent to the Ryman Auditorium in 1968 was often filled with cars with bumper stickers reading “Wallace for President” and more extreme slogans such as “Bluegrass is White Folks’ Music: Vote for Wallace.”

Dent and LaRue also realized the symbolic importance that Nashville retained as Music City, USA. Hence, they spared little time in recruiting Grand Ole Opry host Roy Acuff to support Nixon publicly in 1968. It was widely known around Nashville that George Wallace and Cornelia Snively (who had been a back-up singer for Acuff on the Opry), approached him in early 1968 about endorsing the Wallace campaign, but he declined on ideological grounds. From February, 1966, Acuff and Marty Robbins had already been playing duo performance as Republican Party fundraisers, and in 1968 Acuff was named head of the Citizens for Nixon-Agnew Committee. While this was an unprecedented step in the nationalization of Republican country musicians as integral activists in campaign fundraising and promotion, it also brought the sharp political contrast between Wallace and Nixon to the Opry stage: Acuff’s primary partner on the Opry stage was none other than Wallace’s most ardent supporter in Nashville, Sarah Cannon.

Ok, so we know Nixon won by a landslide and that for the most part, he took the South. In looking back at the importance of the country music industry and it’s conversion to the Republican Party, scholars and politicians alike have equated the presence of populist music with political appeal. In Harry Dent’s own assessment, the Republican party’s spots on country music radio were “great for getting through to the working man and woman, especially in the South” and Wallace aid Tom Turnipseed testified to their “devastating effect” to Wallace’s campaign. But historians, musicologists, and sociologists alike have tended take these assessments at face value without undertaking any detailed analysis of 1968 electoral results. At most, historians have only pointed to Wallace’s achievement of gaining 13.5% percent of the popular vote and winning electoral victories in some Southern states. Did all this actually make a difference?

Between 1967 and 1971, the Country Music Association undertook a survey of the location and concentration of all-country music radio stations around the United States. But electoral statistics yield quite disparate results across the United States. For example, in South Carolina, where there was a concentration of more than ten country music stations, the election results were split evenly between Wallace and Nixon. In the middle and southern sections of the state, the areas with high concentration of country music stations voted for Hubert Humphrey. In Tennessee, despite the warm reception which Wallace received in eastern TN just days before the Presidential election, the eastern half of the state appears to have voted solidly in favor of Nixon. Despite Nixon’s best efforts in middle TN, and especially Nashville, the center and western half of the state (with the exception of predominantly African-American Memphis) voted for Wallace.

Further abroad from the Southern United States, the effect of country music advertising did not yield any more consistent voting patterns. Areas with higher concentration of country music stations in fact tended to vote in favor of Hubert Humphrey. In California, where Wallace notably received support from local country music bands and won 6.72% of the vote, there again appears to be no correlation between country music advertising and electoral outcome. Wallace as in other non-southern states received no electoral votes and the contest remained between Humphrey (who did elicited very little, if any support, from the country music industry and broadcasting) and Nixon along bipartisan division.

In addition to the research undertaken by the Country Music Association, a survey of ten US cities undertaken by Pulse magazine in 1969 revealed that apart from white ethnicity, there were no concrete occupational, educational, age or financial characteristics in country music audiences across the United States. Hence, whilst the country music industry has played an important role in how candidates chose to campaign in 1968, it’s not apparent that there was any consistent correlation with the outcome of the election.

I don’t know about you, but surely it’s common sense – how likely is it that people consider their favorite music artists when they walk into a voting booth?

Yet the image of the effects of the country music industry in GOP politics remained strong from Nixon all the way through the Bush years. Great interest in the Nashville and the Opry’s relationship with high profile politicians was generated in the aftermath of the 1968 election. In 1975, Robert Altman’s film Nashville, set on Music Row against the backdrop of a major election, received critical acclaim across the United States for its satirisation of Wallace, Nixon and the recruitment of country musicians in Nashville. Since the 1970s, the country music industry has been consistently perceived as the most explicitly political of commercial music industries in the United States, despite its folky and anti-establishment overtones. In 2012, ABC drama series Nashville included a political sub-plot, showcasing the common association between the South’s political élites and country musicians.

In exploring the relationship between Nashville musicians and the nation’s politicians, the bulk of historiography has consistently turned back to Richard Nixon’s campaign as the starting point, with only sparse acknowledgement of the role played by George Wallace in third party and Democratic politics. In both cases, it is casually assumed that country music represented a cultural force for the Democrats prior to 1968 and has since been uniformly Republican.

However, it is apparent that the Nixon campaign’s strategy in relation to country music, whilst certainly inspired by George Wallace, differed in scope and scale. While Fred LaRue and Harry Dent have openly admitted that the country music strategy was meant to imitate that of George Wallace, Nixon’s association with country music was very distant and part of a larger media campaign across the United States. By contrast, Wallace’s association with country musicians, and especially Opry members, was based on personal and even familial relationships with the singers, which were maintained throughout Wallace’s life and political career. Furthermore, despite the Nixon administration’s attempts to court the country music industry, Nashville and the country music industry have never been firmly associated with the Republican Party over the course of the last fifty years. Indeed, despite Nixon’s victory in 1968, his legacy in the country music industry was still overshadowed by that of George Wallace.

Historians have often spoken of a “marriage” between country music and politics. In George Wallace’s case, the matrimony was literal as well as metaphorical. In 1969, Wallace married Cornelia Snively, a singer and guitarist who had sung and toured with Roy Acuff and the Smoky Mountain Boys as far abroad as Hawaii and Australia in 1959. Cornelia often performed at her husband’s rallies in the 1970 gubernatorial campaign and in the 1972 presidential campaign, alongside Opry members Billy Grammer and Ferlin Husky, further strengthening the Wallace’s connection with the Opry. Wallace’s third wife, Lisa Taylor came to know Wallace first during the 1968 campaign when she performed with her sister Mona as part of the Wallace Girl country-western duo, Mona and Lisa. Though she did not perform for any of Wallace’s campaigns or political rallies after 1968, her political connection with country music and the Wallace campaigns was noted upon her betrothal to Wallace, adding to the mystique of country music’s political slant.

George Wallace Jr. is still active to this day as country music songwriter and record producer, and from 1987 to 1995 served as treasurer of the state of Alabama. Wallace Jr.’s country music career took off in 1971 upon the signing of his first record deal, a highly publicized event at which his father was present. In an interview with Wallace Jr., he revealed that much of his success amongst fans and in the country music industry came from the admiration that many held for his father. Not long after the attempt on Wallace’s life in May 1972, Wallace Jr. travelled with Hank Williams Jr. In many venues, he received more applause and recognition than Williams, reflecting his father’s stature amongst country music fans.

George Wallace expressed a personal and political affinity with country music and Nashville, a city that “grew up on music” as he had. Wallace’s mother was a piano teacher and always kept the radio going in the house, and always expressed the connection between his affinity for music and associations with his mother, focusing the personal and not just political relationship that Wallace had with music, and country musicians in particular. Southern musicians continually kept up their connection with Wallace after the 1968 election. Though they never met in person until 1976 throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, Elvis Presley used to telephone Wallace on a monthly basis, out of admiration for Wallace’s political courage to campaign openly on issues that were considered too sensitive by many in the United States.

Yet despite Nixon’s more corporate approach, he went to great lengths to publicly imitate Wallace’s more intimate relationship with the country music industry. In 1970, President Nixon declared October to be Country Music Month, and invited Tex Ritter to a White House reception, at which the President was presented with a token of thanks from the Country Music Association. At a gala dinner, Tex Ritter presented an album as “our way of saying thank you for the recognition you, more than any other president, has given to country music”—country music being, in Ritter’s particular definition, “the voice of your Silent Majority.” Showing his gratitude, Ritter imparted, “May I be so bold now…to take your words and elaborate—to sort of try and prove them, and with the music of the people illustrate all you have said…[in] the speeches you have made.” Ritter proceeded to introduce each of the fifteen songs, by linking them with excerpts from Nixon’s speeches, asserting that their sentiments line up at every point, climaxing with Merle Haggard’s “Okie from Muskogee,” a famous ballad about racial backlash in the United States.

Throughout his Presidency, Nixon continued to invite country and Southern artists, including Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard to perform at the White House. Such was the media’s interest in Cash’s appearance at the White House, that questions were raised over Cash’s politics when he refused to sing Haggard’s “Okie from Muskogee” when in fact, he simply did not know the song. In December 1970, Nixon was approached by Elvis Presley to be made a “Federal Agent-at-Large” in the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. In Presley’s letter (written on an complimentary notepad from American Airlines), Presley presented his credentials and ‘in-depth of drug abuse and Communist brainwashing techniques’. Presley was indeed granted such an honor, and as a token of thanks, Nixon was presented with a series of autographed photographs and a commemorative WWII Colt 45 pistol. But more importantly, when it came to planning the 1972 election campaign song, Nixon was clear “that it should be one with country music performers.”

Nixon’s relationship with the country music industry reached its climax on March 16, 1974, just weeks after the indictment of the Watergate Seven before a grand jury, and only months before Nixon’s resignation. As a last minute attempt to gain a token of public good will, Nixon attended the first performance of the Grand Ole Opry at its new premises on the outskirts of Nashville, becoming the first US President ever to visit the Opry. Nixon was invited to come down from his box to appear on stage beside Roy Acuff. HE even performed a few songs, including accompanying himself in a rendition of “Happy Birthday,” dedicated to Pat Nixon. Acuff proclaimed him to be “a real trooper, as well as one of our best Presidents.” In turn, Nixon had his own words of praise for country music and its listeners. In a recitation of country music’s virtues, Nixon echoed Wallace’s enthusiastic pronouncements about country music from the 1968 campaign and tapped into a nostalgia intimately connected to the music’s national appeal in the late 1960s. In expressing what country music has meant to America, Nixon proclaimed:

“Country music is American. It started here. It’s ours. It isn’t something that we learned from some other nation, it isn’t something that we inherited…. It’s as native as anything American we could find. Country music also has a magnificent appeal all across the country. It’s not regional. It comes from the heart of America, because this is the heart of America, out here in Middle America. It talks about family. It talks about religion, the faith in God that is so important to our country, and particularly to our family life. And as we all know, country music radiates a love of this nation. Country music, therefore, has those combinations which are so essential to America’s character, at a time that America needs character.”

At the end of his speech, Nixon concluded:

“I wanted to take this opportunity on behalf of all the American people to thank Country Music…for what it does to make America a better country.”

But not everyone was convinced by Nixon’s performance that evening. Lifelong Democrat and Opry regular Ernest Tubb, was asked in private by fellow country star Bill Anderson, “Did you ever think you would live to see a president of the United States come to the Grand Ole Opry?” Tubb replied, “Naw, I never did. But just between me and you, I wish it had been another president.”

Despite the attention paid to Nixon, the evening’s proceedings were not without an acknowledgement country music’s wider political tradition. Upon announcing the presence of the president, Roy Acuff serenaded the crowd with “You Are My Sunshine,” the song used by Louisiana Governor Jimmie Davis in 1944. But more importantly, George Wallace was present that evening, being granted a seat of honor not in a box as Nixon was granted (at short notice) but on the front row, alongside Sarah Cannon and Jerry Clower. Whilst Nixon received much the national media’s spotlight that evening, George Wallace received just as much attention by Southern media and praise by Opry members after the show, including Ernest Tubb, Sarah Cannon, Roy Clark and Billy Grammer. Even at the event often labeled as the “apex” of presidential politics and country music, George Wallace’s importance and influence was yet pervasive.

Hence, the evening at the Opry thus paralleled the ongoing political division within the country music industry and the Southern United States. Not long after Nixon resigned, one country song in particular illustrated the South’s regret that Nixon was elected President over George Wallace. Released on June 24, 1974, just weeks after Nixon’s resignation, Lynyrd Skynrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama” quickly reached #8 in the US charts, including in its lyrics a, homage to Wallace and Nixon.

In Birmingham, they love the governor (boo boo boo)
Now we all did what we could do
Now Watergate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you?
Tell the truth
…
Sweet home Alabama, oh, sweet home baby
Where the skies are so blue and the governor’s true…