NickV3's Comments

Chant Cafe : "Mass of Renewal": An Analysis

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:56:35 +0000

That's a very interesting essay, though I would quibble at that remark about Mozart's Ave Verum. A few of my thoughts: 1) I think the point that the category of sacred music has been "broadened to include repertoires that cannot be part of the celebration without violating the spirit and norms of the Liturgy itself." needs much repeating. I think people are simply unaware that there are other, para-liturgical services at which music which is unnecessary or inappropriate at mass would be welcome. Also, I think there is also a lack of creativity. Pick a few related pieces, learn them, give the occasion a nice title related to its theme, find a suitable date, put up some flyers, sing, discuss a little, then have some food. Amongst the many practical benefits which are too numerous/obvious to list, such might let the mass be what it needs to be, what it is, while letting you experiment elsewhere. You can use the occasions to do seasonal music, music emphasizing that Sunday's readings, or whatever. You could do Bach or use it to offload some of the hymns cut from the mass (should one have done that.) 2) I like the more technical analysis very much. I attempted a not so different analysis a couple of months ago, should you be interested: http://www.aplvblog.com/2011/09/thoughts-on-sacre... Back to this essay. The author's conclusion was subtle and specific: gebrauchtmusik. I think the word aptly describes that same curious "lack" I commented on in my own observations above. The new pieces are curiously, almost bafflingly, devoid of "movement, inspiration, savor." On the one hand we need to foster and favor a culture of creativity of sacred music, on the other we have to realize that "The liturgical norms, far from imposing constraints of an exterior and legalistic kind, thus become guarantors" of the intrinsic beauty of the mass. On the one hand we need to foster new music, on the other we have to realize there exists timeless, incomparable music that everything subsequent has if not to live up to, at least to aspire to.

Chant Cafe : The CafÃ© Never Closes

Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:45:45 +0000

Thanks for this Charles. I was hovering around similar feelings in my second post on that thread. I think a lot of the tension comes from the fact that everyone here loves music and that for one "side" 1) to sing something badly is to desecrate the idea and for the other "side" 2) to be told that you are desecrating an idea seems an outrage. (How many countless other disagreements could this describe?) Surely we all endeavor to be critical yet specific and constructive. As skeptical as I am about modern styles and practices, I can no more predict what they are capable of than Palestrina himself, if I summarized the Classical style for him, could have predicted Beethoven's Missa Solemnis. Am I expecting a new Missa Solemnis any time soon? No, but I don't want to discourage anyone from trying. For my part I love discussing the complicated aspects of aesthetics and musical practice/form, and while humans can seldom if ever say or receive anything impersonally, being specific about our complaints is a good start. (I still really don't like that trumpet part.) Maybe we should all get together and sing each other's music together? Could be revealing. Every so often we need reminders that wonderful, brilliant, kind people do disagree. Could also be WWIII. Who knows.

Chant Cafe : Question: How Did This Obtain ICEL/USCCB Approval?

Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:21:34 +0000

Well-observed, sir. For my part it seems that most here agree this is a not-so-stellar piece. On the other hand its "diversion" from the norm may or may not be significant. It would seem reasonable that at this time of change one would not want to be too liberal about making exceptions to what one hopes to be a new standard. Apparently, 1) Mr. Schutte did not think it was an egregious change, and he thought the diversion was necessary to his vision of the piece, a motive I think we all respect. 2) Whoever approved it either agreed or approved it out of a sense of ecumenism. For my part, it was the wrong piece at the wrong time. To your second (and equally good) point, I'll speak just for myself. Why is this a big deal? First, pragmatically (and as I said) now is not the time to be loose in any way with the rules. Second, though, IS that this is not such a great piece. I can live more with Haydn writing "Te laudamus" (a bigger change) in the Nelson Mass more easily than I can live with this because we gain something with Haydn. Is Haydn's change ideal? Of course not. But we gain nothing in allowing Mr. Schutte's change, and thus feel cheated. Lastly, bear in mind that many of us are passionate about music and believe that to set an idea to music is an almost sacred responsibility even if the idea is extra-liturgical. To express an idea badly in music is to debase it and such is why we often react with outright horror to certain settings. We never mean to be hurtful to our contemporary composers and value and respect their taking up this timeless and momentous duty of making the Church's music, a duty which humbles all who undertake the task.

Chant Cafe : Question: How Did This Obtain ICEL/USCCB Approval?

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:55:11 +0000

Good grief. Occasionally the schmaltz rises to mere insipidness but the tone is consistently that of a television show holiday special. I occasionally think that some composers of contemporary music are not aware that these pieces are in any style at all and that such practices, to them, are simply all they know. Then I come to my senses and realize they of course know better. I can only then conclude that they do not realize their own practices and styles are faux-sentimentality and that to express true beauty, grandeur, wonder, et cetera, they need different musical tools. Which is I guess a fancy and oblique way of saying they need to be better composers. One so often feels like they just don't know what to do. What's with that flapping trumpet figure? It's just kinda tacked on there. I guess he (reasonably) thought the instrument was appropriate in certain places so he did *something* with it. It feels coarse to say, but. . . it's hard to be charitable here.

Chant Cafe : Criticize Rutter; Lose Your Job

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:29:46 +0000

One certainly hopes the dismissal was on account of the "color" of the remarks and not simply that they were critical. Rutter's popularity (such as it is, whatever it is) has always flummoxed me. He certainly has enormous shoes to fill as an English composer and as a composer for the royal family. For my part, "This is the Day. . ." is surprisingly bland and my experience with Rutter has always led me to ask myself, "Why isn't he doing anything here?" Not to flatter the Daily Mail but I found their descriptions amusing. The piece "drew on words from five psalms" and was written in Rutter's "tuneful and approachable style." Oh my! And the Dean's reaction. By "arrange" we assume he means "arrange for," and is he really "thrilled." Allowing for the obsequiousness endemic to the political and royal realms, could the piece conceivably "thrill" anyone? It is a trifle not one of top fifty composers could have written on his worst or greenest day. (The "Influences" section of Rutter's Wikipedia page, evidently a source for the Mail's article, is likewise thrilled by several Freshman-level musical insights.) Obviously there are issues of diplomacy and courtesy at work here buy blind admiration of many of today's composers is simply inconceivable to anyone who has taken the most cursory look into the past. For my part, and though I say this as a reasonably young man, some people are incurable devotees of the contemporary.

Chant Cafe : September 4 in the USofA. Casualities?

Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:38:26 +0000

I think that is a very interesting point about motives. One ought to consider fundamentally what music is. Usually, more or less, we think it exists to develop an idea, and of course "it" really means structure, and "idea" usually means theme or motive. So then we must ask "what structure" and "what theme," of course enormous questions. It is interesting though that the word "motivic" really implies a structure, since something isn't a motive unless it's repeated. Hence the highly forward-moving, feel of through-composed pieces and [much] chant and hence its appropriateness for ideas that do not need to be "developed." Yet where in the liturgy do we really need to "develop" an idea and where do we need "simply" to pronounce it (i.e. without repetition.) Repeating anything either harmonically or motivically/thematically should coincide with a repeated idea in the text., which doesn't really happen so much as one might think. For example "developing" the "Kyrie" in a fugue seems to make sense, but breaking up the gloria and credo into smaller settings? Then there are other situations where liturgical practice takes precedent. For example, it might make sense to "develop" the idea of "Sanctus" but it needs to be said three times, not n-teen times in a fugue. Glad to hear Bolduc's setting seems to have been attentive to some of these issues.

Big Hollywood : T'was Accountability That Led the Mainstream Media to Suicide

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:51:23 +0000

"No matter your politics, people want stimulation and information, not affirmation." I think this statement should be true of news, I'm not sure whether it is. I think many people of various political persuasions don't want all of the news, they want news tailored to fit them, i.e. with the stuff they disagree with left out or made palatable, and with the news they like emphasized. Bring up the anti-war flops in this context is interesting. People have varying ideas about what art should be, e.g. whether it should be didactic or should affirm some value or sense of life. I think the anti-war movies failed because most film-goers naturally prejudge (at least a little) a movie based on what they think it is about, i.e. its premises. If they don't see the film, it is because they don't think they'll like it. I think the quasi-documentary styles of the movies was an attempt to compensate for this obvious tendency on the part of moviegoers. Ironically, I think many news programs are failing because they are the ones doing the "affirming", by means of selecting what stories to show and not show, et cetera. They wanted to gain viewership and they tried to do that by targeting their audience. They chose to reward the people tuning in who already thought Bush was evil and stupid and the wars are illegal and going badly, by showing them cherry-picked stories that affirmed their beliefs. Perverse, that the "news" programs were (as others have said) crafting the narratives and the films were presenting "reality."

Big Hollywood : D-Day for Health Care Reform?

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:21:31 +0000

"Is this the D-Day for health care or just the beginning of what will be a long, hard debate?" Both. Toward the end of the great, Patton, the general, about six months after D-Day and just before the siege of Bastogne/Battle of the Bulge, says "[My troops] realize, as I do, that we can still lose this war." I use the analogy since it is apt, but I have to say no one should be entirely comfortable using military analogies in discussing politics involving himself and his fellow countrymen. We're all Americans here, and however unAmerican some people's ideas may be, we can't lose sight of what unites us. That said, I believe we must be both relentless and logical. Cheap shots won't help us. Consistent and clear deconstructions of the arguments for the "reform" plan will serve us best. Pace Bill Maher and the Hollywood elite, Americans are not stupid. We might not all have umpteen degrees but we're hard to bamboozle and we don't like to be lied to. We also must not let them dominate the debate by adopting their euphemistic terminology. (i.e. this isn't "reform," this is statism/socialism.) We're quoting the Founding Fathers and greatest economists, they're demonstrating an inability to do basic math. We're quoting the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Federalist papers. . . and they're throwing around the usual faux-intellectual liberal twaddle. They have nothing, not one argument in their favor. Anyone who reads the bill, as Mr. DeMartini says, will see it for what it is. Such is why they wanted it pushed through ASAP. Yet we've drawn out the debate long enough for moderates to see the devils in the details, and the more consistent and clear we are in the upcoming months, I think, the better chance we have of sinking this boondoggle in toto.

Big Hollywood : Why Canât Conservatives Sign On to ObamaCare?

Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:06:40 +0000

"The entire Catholic community believes that health care for everyone is a basic human right." Please don't put words in my mouth, thank you. I won't pretend to speak for all Catholics, but please don't assume that because Catholics have some, I'll just generally call them "humanitarian," beliefs, we believe health care is a right. For me and others I know, opposing this bill is not just about abortion issues. Part of the faith is the freedom of helping someone personally, not involuntarily being taxed to help someone via a vast impersonal bureaucracy. Again not speaking for everyone, some of us believe in limited government too.

Big Hollywood : 'Taking Woodstock': Mythologizing the Worst Generation

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:50:27 +0000

Many thanks to him for his service and to your whole family. I intended no disrespect.

Big Hollywood : 'Halloween II': Bleak, Brutal and Numbing

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:40:34 +0000

"Director Rob Zombie’s biggest mistake in 2007’s remake of “Halloween“ was in his desire to “explain” Michael Myers." As much as I disagree with him politically, this is something Roger Ebert mentioned years ago in reviewing the remake of, "House of Wax." I agree it is a mistake. Obviously this may vary according to the plot and what the creator wants, but at least sometimes a pure, anonymous, elemental evil is the most terrifying. (An exception is "Freddy Kreuger" whose mythology is explained very briefly and clearly and whose mythology is nicely incorporated into the plot. (In the first movie, anyway.)) But I am thinking of the original Michael Myers, Vincent Price's character in many of his movies, Anton Chigurh in "No Country For Old Men" et cetera. They're not "troubled" or "products of a bad situation." They're evil. Period. Perhaps the best handling of this is the Joker in, "The Dark Knight." There, the Joker gives different a version of what drove him mad every time he tells the story. Does 'why he is evil' matter? He must be fought anyway. Could, perhaps, it have been anyone? Could anyone have had one of those things happen to them and gone mad? Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. The Joker is evil and is relentless. Here and now he must be dealt with. Elemental evil. Usually scarier than "trailer trash" galoots.

Big Hollywood : 'Taking Woodstock': Mythologizing the Worst Generation

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:22:50 +0000

My favorite quote about Woodstock is from Ayn Rand, who called it, "Prehistory in our own backyard." It's almost inconceivable that someone made a movie praising a group of people whose claim to fame is, as Ayn Rand said, chanting and looking sloppy.

Big Hollywood : The Narrative

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:28:53 +0000

No problem, sir! I have to say I was mighty confused, though. I also didn't mean to get into a snit, so I goofed too. :-)

Big Hollywood : Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:07:39 +0000

I am, in fact, sitting at my desk at home, near a large bust of Beethoven, analyzing the first movement of the Missa Solemnis (which is, incidentally, pretty straightforward relative to the rest of the mass.) I say this not to brag, but rather to demonstrate that my esteem for the man and love of his music could not be greater. I agree that John's analogy was unbalanced, and I myself would not have even considered using Beethoven as the vehicle for comparison. Your points are well-taken and I essentially agree. Chuck Jones to Michaelangelo is a very good similarity. I agree with John, though, that there is room for analogy, but we must be wary and specific in the nature of our comparisons, lest we do injustice to those towering artists whose work has already endured for centuries and longer. In this case, regarding the comparison in question, there is a most profound gulf in scale. That said, you are right to insist that the analogy itself inherently predisposes some sense of scale (in this case unfairly) and your forceful reaction is justified.

Big Hollywood : The Narrative

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:29:01 +0000

I'm afraid I don't understand what you've said. If by "OT" you mean off topic, I think that's all relevant. If by "OT" you mean, "over the top," and thus necessarily are referring to my opening line as somehow being "too mean," it is simply a more florid way of saying, "you've missed the point" which is not an insult but rather a statement of fact. Its degree of "meanness" may be judged only by the degree to which it is truthful. In saying said truth "artfully" (to use the word loosely) instead of literally I drew extra attention to it, (which was warranted, given the way the author misinterpreted the article) I didn't imbue it with "meanness."

Big Hollywood : The Narrative

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:35:31 +0000

Should you care to heed it, the object flitting around above your head is the point, i.e. that it is the left's selective presentation of events in an effort to impose a politically correct (i.e. Marxist) narrative over current events that Mr. Whittle is discussing. (Incidentally, the colleges to which you refer the us are the ones at which professors specialize in imposing said narratives over the past.) Again, it is the presentation and "shaping" of events that is at issue here. Also, the videos recommended at the end of the clip are good: they elaborate on the history and feature [in part] David Horowitz (a convert from the left and owner of Frontpage Magazine ) and the great Roger Kimball (editor of The New Criterion.)

Big Hollywood : Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:15:23 +0000

I thought you meant that the way Beethoven dominated the musical scene, became intimately associated with the era, brought certain forms of music to their peaks, and set precedents for his followers. . . so did Sinatra in his time and place and with his own style and material. I thought you were making an analogy of the men's enduring influence, not a qualitative comparison of their talents or a tit-for-tat allegory of their lives. One could, hypothetically, not like Sinatra (or Beethoven), or think one incomparably more brilliant, and still agree with that statement. Anyway, I thought that's what you meant.

Big Hollywood : Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:04:44 +0000

I understand your point, but mine is that Sinatra brought life, character, and feeling to preexisting songs. Shakespeare's characters are already the work of genius, and the challenge is to bring out the character, not to add. To be clear, I'm not making the same case John is, but the situation you describe (the performer/interpreter bringing something unexpected to the original work) is not unprecedented. Pianist Vladimir Horowitz performed Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto and so impressed Rachmaninoff that the composer never played it in public again.

Big Hollywood : Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:47:06 +0000

Because liberals in general love context. They wouldn't, say, edit out video to: make Sarah Palin look stupid, make David Letterman look better, obfuscate someone's race, make Cuba or Saddam-era-Iraq look like paradise, or make our soldiers look like sociopaths. They wouldn't, say, edit data to mislead people about economic trends, how many people actually pay taxes, how many people don't have health insurance, or how high the deficit is. They wouldn't avoid facts by conducting a shallow investigation of someone, perhaps like Chris Dodd. They love context.

Big Hollywood : Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:37:13 +0000

Listen to Sinatra's interpretations of, say, "Mac The Knife" or "I've Got You Under My Skin," and then someone else's and it's quite obvious Sinatra's cadences and accentuation are incomparable. They are completely different songs. Now I love, listen to, and study classical music, and while I wouldn't say Sinatra is up there with Beethoven, I must admit this: my CD library is almost all classical, except for some Jazz, Swing, and Sinatra.

NickV3's Comments

Chant Cafe : "Mass of Renewal": An Analysis

Chant Cafe : The CafÃ© Never Closes

Chant Cafe : Question: How Did This Obtain ICEL/USCCB Approval?

Chant Cafe : Question: How Did This Obtain ICEL/USCCB Approval?

Chant Cafe : Criticize Rutter; Lose Your Job

Chant Cafe : September 4 in the USofA. Casualities?

Big Hollywood : T'was Accountability That Led the Mainstream Media to Suicide

Big Hollywood : D-Day for Health Care Reform?

Big Hollywood : Why Canât Conservatives Sign On to ObamaCare?

Big Hollywood : 'Taking Woodstock': Mythologizing the Worst Generation

Big Hollywood : 'Halloween II': Bleak, Brutal and Numbing

Big Hollywood : 'Taking Woodstock': Mythologizing the Worst Generation

Big Hollywood : The Narrative

Big Hollywood : Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic

Big Hollywood : The Narrative

Big Hollywood : The Narrative

Big Hollywood : Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic

Big Hollywood : Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic

Big Hollywood : Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic

Big Hollywood : Scorsese Ready to Trash Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic

Big Hollywood : Why Canât Conservatives Sign On to ObamaCare?