Christmas is getting closer and closer. Maybe not too close, but close enough. Anyway, this song reminds me of wintertime and Santa Claus, nevermind the fact that it's really not affiliated with Christmas at all, so I decided it would serve well for this post.
This particular version of Pachelbel's Canon is quite different from more traditional performances and recordings in that it's played on an electric guitar. Now if you just turned your nose up in disgust and/or sighed with a disappointed face, bear with me a little longer. The song isn't completely butchered; in fact I view it as an opportunity for two different time eras to meet each other through the greatest medium possible: art. Music, to be specific.
Can I be a truly unbiased listener when comparing this version to others? Probably not, the reason being that this recording was the first Canon that I ever heard. Nevertheless, I'll put my opinion out there that this performance is just as good as any made by some grand symphony orchestra or virtuoso pianist.
If you search "canon rock" on YouTube, lots of performances will pop up. This one is the shining star among them all. Not too heavy, not too mellow, not too long, not too short. You can listen intensely, you can listen easily. There's really no way of describing it, the piece is just beautiful. It also really lets you compare more classical, traditional styles of music with modern forms. It starts off with a soothing orchestral introduction, then slowly builds into the guitar driven body.
The combination of modern and traditional elements of music really in this piece really is what makes it interesting. I feel that it illustrates the connections that exist between all types of music; to me, musical genres simply represent differing methods of expression. I may not like all these methods, but I must be humble enough to admit that they are methods of expression.
Music has changed dramatically throughout the passage of its development. Change is not always universal; conflict is always created. What Canon Rock tries to accomplish is to tie together two differing styles of expression, two phases of music's long life. I respect that.
Canon Rock
For comparison - another, more traditional version, just as beautiful: Canon Non-Rock
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Connection: Lear and An Immature Toddler
Characters in stories like that of King Lear tend to frustrate me when I read about them. Ignorance, arrogance, and an incredibly thick skull are the things that make Lear someone I would not enjoy knowing in real life. So far throughout the story, he's demonstrated his ability to completely miss the important points of his situation while flipping out about minor, unnecessary things. He may be very old, but sometimes he gives the opposite impression.
In the very first scene of the play, he decides to judge his daughters' worthiness of receiving his inheritance by listening to them describe how much they love him... In other words, he wants them to praise him just for the sake of it. It's just like he's a little kid; he loves to hear good stuff about himself, but when someone tells it to him like it is (Cordelia), he has a temper tantrum and retaliates. The difference is that in Lear's case, he's the one in power, not the disapproving parents. Imagine putting Dudley Dursley in the seat of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Lear's stubborn refusal to go anywhere without his full contingent of knights can be viewed in different ways. There are obviously ambitions for power between Regan and Goneril, so one could argue that their trying to impose a limit on Lear's retinue is symbolic of taking away his authority. If this is the case, then his actions can be somewhat justified. However, blindly running out into a storm when you're old and weak is just stupid. It solved no problems at all and it really didn't even make him feel better either.
The Fool states at one point in the play that Lear grew old before he grew wise. I couldn't agree more. There's still a lot left to happen in the play, but so far the impression I've gotten of the king has been very negative. Perhaps the real Tragedy of King Lear his old age has only made him ignorant and rash instead of wise.
In the very first scene of the play, he decides to judge his daughters' worthiness of receiving his inheritance by listening to them describe how much they love him... In other words, he wants them to praise him just for the sake of it. It's just like he's a little kid; he loves to hear good stuff about himself, but when someone tells it to him like it is (Cordelia), he has a temper tantrum and retaliates. The difference is that in Lear's case, he's the one in power, not the disapproving parents. Imagine putting Dudley Dursley in the seat of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Lear's stubborn refusal to go anywhere without his full contingent of knights can be viewed in different ways. There are obviously ambitions for power between Regan and Goneril, so one could argue that their trying to impose a limit on Lear's retinue is symbolic of taking away his authority. If this is the case, then his actions can be somewhat justified. However, blindly running out into a storm when you're old and weak is just stupid. It solved no problems at all and it really didn't even make him feel better either.
The Fool states at one point in the play that Lear grew old before he grew wise. I couldn't agree more. There's still a lot left to happen in the play, but so far the impression I've gotten of the king has been very negative. Perhaps the real Tragedy of King Lear his old age has only made him ignorant and rash instead of wise.
Monday, November 2, 2009
360: Religion
I have walked into a house of worship once in my life. It was for a friend's bar mitzvah service and I paid more attention to the fly buzzing around my seat than the endless Hebrew litany laboriously being recited. My extremely limited experience with this phenomenon called religion makes me want to write about it.
An alien comes up to you and asks: "What is this thing you call religion?" What do you say? My first answer would most likely be "No." A complete historical look at humanity's religious habits and happenings would take far too long, so after my completely unhelpful one word answer, the alien would have to settle for a couple general statements from me.
"Religion is humanity's way of explaining, understanding, justifying, and regulating our lives and the experiences, actions, and thoughts they encompass. This is often achieved through references and beliefs in higher powers or truths. It often serves as a wellspring of morality (another concept that can be explored in profound depth) and sanctuary for those in need of it. It also has been the cause, directly or indirectly, of an immense number of human deaths because of conflicts in belief and/or doctrine."
The third and fourth statements made above were obviously put forth from very different perspectives. Both seem to isolate a certain aspect of religion, positive or negative. An examination of and attempt to compromise them would be a pretty swell thing to take the alien, and upon further thought, myself, through.
True: religion is generally a great advertiser of high moral standards, altruism, and peace. Think of famous figures related to peace, and who comes to mind? Mother Teresa, Mohandas Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama. Religion's also been a beastly cultural facilitator: there's an endless amount of wonderful art and music that's sprung up as a result of faith. Holidays are a significant part of practically all human cultures. Guess where most holidays came from?
Flip it. The Aztec religion decided that sacrificing human beings was the way to pay off our debt to the gods and keep the world in one piece. As of 2008, at least 1,121 suicide bombers have detonated themselves and their victims in not the world, but just Iraq. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, terrorist attacks justified by religious ideals. What do they all have in common? Religion, Death, and all his friends.
We took a great idea and then did what we always manage to do: disagree about it. If I only had time to tell Mr. Alien one thing about humanity before he moved on to Alpha Centauri or wherever aliens take vacations, it would be that we are a bunch of greedy, violent bastards.
Optimism or pessimism: which one should we use to view God, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, Nirvana, etc.? The cliche answer is "a little bit of both"... I'm going to be cliche. We can't label faith as a horrible concept that causes nothing but death and destruction; rational people will realize that it's far from being something so malignant. We also can't view it as a perfect concept in theory or in practice; the same rational people, Bless them, would realize that it's simply not how things are.
So. What happened? Why did a humble movement started by a certain miracle-working carpenter lead to numerous bloody military campaigns that swept across and out of Europe? Conflict. You can't tell the majority of the human race to try to explain why we exist and where we came from and what's right and what's wrong, then expect the same answer from everyone; it's not possible. Islam is often stereotyped with violence: planes flying into buildings, men in turbans whipping out their AK-47s, young martyrs blowing themselves up. Are all Muslims like that? I shouldn't need to answer, but for anyone who's feeling a little slow right now, the answer's "No." The people that you hear about on TV calling non-Muslims infidels, people to be killed, bound for hell, etc., they're just the ones who've taken an offensive attitude on faith. They lack something important. That something is called tolerance. T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E. If our mutual acquaintance of an alien decided that he could spare another minute on smelly, nasty Earth, that's what I would say: What humanity needs is tolerance.
An alien comes up to you and asks: "What is this thing you call religion?" What do you say? My first answer would most likely be "No." A complete historical look at humanity's religious habits and happenings would take far too long, so after my completely unhelpful one word answer, the alien would have to settle for a couple general statements from me.
"Religion is humanity's way of explaining, understanding, justifying, and regulating our lives and the experiences, actions, and thoughts they encompass. This is often achieved through references and beliefs in higher powers or truths. It often serves as a wellspring of morality (another concept that can be explored in profound depth) and sanctuary for those in need of it. It also has been the cause, directly or indirectly, of an immense number of human deaths because of conflicts in belief and/or doctrine."
The third and fourth statements made above were obviously put forth from very different perspectives. Both seem to isolate a certain aspect of religion, positive or negative. An examination of and attempt to compromise them would be a pretty swell thing to take the alien, and upon further thought, myself, through.
True: religion is generally a great advertiser of high moral standards, altruism, and peace. Think of famous figures related to peace, and who comes to mind? Mother Teresa, Mohandas Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama. Religion's also been a beastly cultural facilitator: there's an endless amount of wonderful art and music that's sprung up as a result of faith. Holidays are a significant part of practically all human cultures. Guess where most holidays came from?
Flip it. The Aztec religion decided that sacrificing human beings was the way to pay off our debt to the gods and keep the world in one piece. As of 2008, at least 1,121 suicide bombers have detonated themselves and their victims in not the world, but just Iraq. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, terrorist attacks justified by religious ideals. What do they all have in common? Religion, Death, and all his friends.
We took a great idea and then did what we always manage to do: disagree about it. If I only had time to tell Mr. Alien one thing about humanity before he moved on to Alpha Centauri or wherever aliens take vacations, it would be that we are a bunch of greedy, violent bastards.
Optimism or pessimism: which one should we use to view God, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, Nirvana, etc.? The cliche answer is "a little bit of both"... I'm going to be cliche. We can't label faith as a horrible concept that causes nothing but death and destruction; rational people will realize that it's far from being something so malignant. We also can't view it as a perfect concept in theory or in practice; the same rational people, Bless them, would realize that it's simply not how things are.
So. What happened? Why did a humble movement started by a certain miracle-working carpenter lead to numerous bloody military campaigns that swept across and out of Europe? Conflict. You can't tell the majority of the human race to try to explain why we exist and where we came from and what's right and what's wrong, then expect the same answer from everyone; it's not possible. Islam is often stereotyped with violence: planes flying into buildings, men in turbans whipping out their AK-47s, young martyrs blowing themselves up. Are all Muslims like that? I shouldn't need to answer, but for anyone who's feeling a little slow right now, the answer's "No." The people that you hear about on TV calling non-Muslims infidels, people to be killed, bound for hell, etc., they're just the ones who've taken an offensive attitude on faith. They lack something important. That something is called tolerance. T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E. If our mutual acquaintance of an alien decided that he could spare another minute on smelly, nasty Earth, that's what I would say: What humanity needs is tolerance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)