Cora has a knack for coming up with questions that are really difficult to answer. She was practicing piano this evening and was having some difficulty maintaining an even tempo in the song she is working on. I played the piece for her so she could hear how she was playing it currently with the tempo. I've noticed that she doesn't really hear what she is playing because she gets so focused on getting the notes right. She can hear the problem if I imitate how she was playing it and then play the correct tempo and it seems to be helping her to be more steady with her counting.
I played the song and Cora jumped all over me for not having "spider hands" (her term for properly curved fingers). This was a legitimate complaint as I did not have spider hands when I played, but because of my arthritis I really will never have good spider hands again as I am unable to play notes with my pinkie fingers anymore if I maintain better finger position. I told her essentially that -- Mommy can't make spider hands because of her arthritis, so don't try to do the same as my hands, just listen to how it sounds. She went on with practice.
After Daphne went to bed, I was playing Sorry with Cora. Mid-game she asked a very convoluted question about "art." After I got her to give me context I realized she meant "arthritis." She wanted to know what it was. This is one of those questions that I probably should have anticipated long before she was 5 and spent a little time coming up with a good answer, unfortunately I didn't and I think I handled the whole thing a bit lamely. I told her arthritis is a disease. She said "like you are sick?" I told her it is like a sickness you have all the time that makes your bones hurt. She asked "will you still have arthritis even after you die?" Ok, didn't see that one coming at all. That question has so many layers to it I wasn't really sure what to say, so I ended up with something like "no, when you die your body is dead and doesn't really do anything anymore so it can't really be sick after you are dead." I'm not entirely sure that was even what she was asking, but she seemed relatively satisfied with the answer.
The whole conversation took me by surprise, both because I wasn't expecting the question, but also because it made me realize it never really occurred to me to bring this up at any point. I guess in retrospect she was really too little to notice when I was doing injections at home to manage the RA. I've always avoided taking her with me to rheumatologist appointments because they always take ages and involve lots of blood work and injections and wouldn't be at all fun for a child. But it is strange to me that really most of her life that she can probably remember (say 2 1/2 until the present) I've been off meds for pre-conception/pregnancy/breastfeeding reasons and the RA has been pretty unchecked and out of control, but Scott and I never bothered to mention this to her. I think that was a bad parenting move on my part. I think in general I don't bring up my RA a whole lot with most people. I don't particularly enjoy answering tons of questions about it, and I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me or try to keep me from doing things. A lot of that is just habit on my part from childhood I guess, but old habits die hard. I think really it may have been helpful for Cora if I had mentioned this before so she would have had better context for certain things. Maybe she just thinks Mommy is really incapable of simple tasks (opening certain jars, opening juice bottles, etc.) when Daddy isn't around. Or Mommy has some bizarre aversion to physical activity the day before it rains, though I'm sure she hasn't noticed enough of a pattern with that one, but then I worry now if she's just thought I don't want to take her to the playground because I'm lazy or something. I think I could have done a much better job of handling this whole thing now that I think about it. Now I need to figure out how to do a better job from here on out I guess.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Poetic decline
So I read multiple accounts of a study showing that while Americans are reading more fiction than we did a while back, we are reading less poetry. Each of the articles seemed somewhat perplexed by this finding and offered various reasons for possible decline in poetry readership.
Oddly, the articles seemed to attribute the rise in novel reading to Oprah. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe Oprah has been a big champion of Maya Angelou. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but if Oprah's Midas touch makes Americans want to read mediocre fiction she approves of, shouldn't it also make them want to read decent poems she likes?
Oprah aside, the various reasons for no love being lost on poetry were as follows:
1) We ruin poetry for people by teaching "classic" poems to high schoolers.
2) Poetry is inaccessible. (by which they mean too "hard" to read, not too hard to locate)
3) Most poetry is bad.
Point 3 seemed particularly valid to me. I think a majority of people believe they can write a poem, but a very very small minority believe they can write a novel. As such, lots of people write really really crappy poems, but far fewer people write entire novels that are terrible. Not to say there are not lots of terrible novels out there, but I bet a straw poll would show that way more Americans have written a poem at some point than written a novel. With the internet it seems even easier to publish really crappy poems. I think that was previously the realm of high school literary mags and chapbooks, but now anyone can post lousy material to a pretty broad audience. I've trolled at some poetry websites and found the general quality of submissions to be pretty terrible. This seems sort of like people looking at a Mondrian or a Pollock and thinking "hell, I could paint that" but not thinking the same thing about the Sistine Chapel.
Maybe that leads to a point about how we teach poetry. I'm not sure that teaching Shelley to high schoolers ruins poetry for them. I think Dickinson gets taught pretty universally to American teens and she's about as accessible as you can get. I guess I understand point 1 to be that we start kids on poems that are too "hard." Which sort of dovetails with point 2, no? I think this is a straw man. We don't start kids on sonnets, we start them on Seuss and Silverstein. Earliest exposure to poetry is to very accessible and age appropriate material. I don't really see how graduating to Keats in high school would be more alienating that graduating from Clifford in grade school to Fitzgerald in high school. Apparently this doesn't ruin novels for people, at least per the results of the study, so it seems a thin argument to make for ruining poetry.
Also, I think maybe inaccessibility is an issue, though physically, not intellectually. Ever tried to pick up some poetry at the airport to read on the plane? I haven't really found Simic next to Grisham on the shelf. We market novels in more of an eye candy and impulse buy kind of way. You have to go looking for poetry. Say what you will about Amazon and online book shopping, they strip away the serendipity of the brick and mortar book store. If I go into a shop I can go to the poetry section and browse and read a poem here or there and find a volume that seems worth my time. You can't really do the same online. I think poetry sales relied on serendipitous purchases far more than novels did and have been hurt by the web stores far more.
I think all of this is a bit sad since it likely means even less decent work will get published. That's a shame. I thought the inauguration would have been a nice way to get some positive press for poets, but I think Elizabeth Alexander was a pretty lame choice and she produced a dreadful poem for the occasion. Honestly, I think it is a good thing that this NEA study rated so much ink today. That's more press than poetry usually gets in the mainstream media in a year all in one day.
Oddly, the articles seemed to attribute the rise in novel reading to Oprah. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe Oprah has been a big champion of Maya Angelou. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but if Oprah's Midas touch makes Americans want to read mediocre fiction she approves of, shouldn't it also make them want to read decent poems she likes?
Oprah aside, the various reasons for no love being lost on poetry were as follows:
1) We ruin poetry for people by teaching "classic" poems to high schoolers.
2) Poetry is inaccessible. (by which they mean too "hard" to read, not too hard to locate)
3) Most poetry is bad.
Point 3 seemed particularly valid to me. I think a majority of people believe they can write a poem, but a very very small minority believe they can write a novel. As such, lots of people write really really crappy poems, but far fewer people write entire novels that are terrible. Not to say there are not lots of terrible novels out there, but I bet a straw poll would show that way more Americans have written a poem at some point than written a novel. With the internet it seems even easier to publish really crappy poems. I think that was previously the realm of high school literary mags and chapbooks, but now anyone can post lousy material to a pretty broad audience. I've trolled at some poetry websites and found the general quality of submissions to be pretty terrible. This seems sort of like people looking at a Mondrian or a Pollock and thinking "hell, I could paint that" but not thinking the same thing about the Sistine Chapel.
Maybe that leads to a point about how we teach poetry. I'm not sure that teaching Shelley to high schoolers ruins poetry for them. I think Dickinson gets taught pretty universally to American teens and she's about as accessible as you can get. I guess I understand point 1 to be that we start kids on poems that are too "hard." Which sort of dovetails with point 2, no? I think this is a straw man. We don't start kids on sonnets, we start them on Seuss and Silverstein. Earliest exposure to poetry is to very accessible and age appropriate material. I don't really see how graduating to Keats in high school would be more alienating that graduating from Clifford in grade school to Fitzgerald in high school. Apparently this doesn't ruin novels for people, at least per the results of the study, so it seems a thin argument to make for ruining poetry.
Also, I think maybe inaccessibility is an issue, though physically, not intellectually. Ever tried to pick up some poetry at the airport to read on the plane? I haven't really found Simic next to Grisham on the shelf. We market novels in more of an eye candy and impulse buy kind of way. You have to go looking for poetry. Say what you will about Amazon and online book shopping, they strip away the serendipity of the brick and mortar book store. If I go into a shop I can go to the poetry section and browse and read a poem here or there and find a volume that seems worth my time. You can't really do the same online. I think poetry sales relied on serendipitous purchases far more than novels did and have been hurt by the web stores far more.
I think all of this is a bit sad since it likely means even less decent work will get published. That's a shame. I thought the inauguration would have been a nice way to get some positive press for poets, but I think Elizabeth Alexander was a pretty lame choice and she produced a dreadful poem for the occasion. Honestly, I think it is a good thing that this NEA study rated so much ink today. That's more press than poetry usually gets in the mainstream media in a year all in one day.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Decision!
Well, the offers are in, negotiations have occurred, and we have a decision. We are moving to Maryland next year! I am crossing my fingers that this will be a permanent move for us and we can really put some roots down. Now the fun of arranging a multi-state move begins. Luckily we know the area really well so house hunting is much easier than it ever has been with our other moves.
Cora's excited to go back to Maryland and get back to the beach. Scott is excited to get back to fresh crab cakes. I am excited to get back somewhere less flat, more scenic, and closer to water. Schatzi is excited to get back to Lake Artemesia and riding shotgun all over town. Daphne has no clue what is going on, but she is a total fish so I imagine she'll enjoy the beach and the great UMD pools as well. Also, I love DC so getting back to the city will be great.
Cora's all signed up for school next year and I started the ball rolling on setting up a Daisy Scout troop for her class. Now I need to start looking for a little part-time library work, but I think I have something that is a good possibility there too. All in all, things really couldn't have ended up much better for me and the girls. I'm hoping the job ends up being really good for Scott too.
Cora's excited to go back to Maryland and get back to the beach. Scott is excited to get back to fresh crab cakes. I am excited to get back somewhere less flat, more scenic, and closer to water. Schatzi is excited to get back to Lake Artemesia and riding shotgun all over town. Daphne has no clue what is going on, but she is a total fish so I imagine she'll enjoy the beach and the great UMD pools as well. Also, I love DC so getting back to the city will be great.
Cora's all signed up for school next year and I started the ball rolling on setting up a Daisy Scout troop for her class. Now I need to start looking for a little part-time library work, but I think I have something that is a good possibility there too. All in all, things really couldn't have ended up much better for me and the girls. I'm hoping the job ends up being really good for Scott too.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Decisions and finicky babies
Scott will be getting back from Maryland late tonight and he was told he will hear from them on Tuesday. The contract from South Africa should get to us this week too so it looks like it will be decision time in the Jackson household. That feels pretty darn good.
Another decision has also been made. Cora will be going to Holy Redeemer next year if we are in Maryland. Scott visited both potential schools and it was Holy Redeemer by a nose. Scott also scoped out some potential apartments for us and we have become acutely aware of what a great deal we had with our old place in Hyattsville. The dip in the housing market certainly does not seem to have brought down rental prices in the DC area. The dip in the housing market unfortunately has brought down housing prices in Champaign, though not as badly as elsewhere, so it is not the best time to be selling a house, but it is what it is.
In yet another illustration of how very different Daphne is personality-wise from Cora (this may seem obvious but it is somewhat startling because they look exactly alike), I discovered that she is incredibly particular about pacifiers. She's chewed a couple into flattened submission this week (top teeth coming in made her a chompy monster) so I picked up some spares at Meijer. They didn't have her size in the Nuk brand she uses, so I got her the correct size in the Mam pacifiers.
She hates them. Won't even use them. Pacifier goes in mouth, she makes a face of total disapproval, spits it out and then throws it behind her. Obviously I don't use a pacifier, but they really don't seem all that different to me. Peanut's having none of it though. I guess they will go in the trash because you can't really give a used pacifier to someone else who might use it.
But boy it drove home how very different these girls are. Cora was an infinitely flexible and tolerant baby. She just went along with whatever with a smile. Peanut has opinions. About everything. A sock is on slightly askew and she can't nap. A pacifier isn't up to her standards and it will never be used. It will be interesting to see how this pans out as she grows up. One of the issues Cora has had at school is letting some of the other children run over her. She doesn't object because she doesn't want to upset anyone. She seems to be appropriately bossy with her little sister, though she does let Daphne pull her hair and pinch her and doesn't tell her no because she thinks Daphne is enjoying herself.
Another decision has also been made. Cora will be going to Holy Redeemer next year if we are in Maryland. Scott visited both potential schools and it was Holy Redeemer by a nose. Scott also scoped out some potential apartments for us and we have become acutely aware of what a great deal we had with our old place in Hyattsville. The dip in the housing market certainly does not seem to have brought down rental prices in the DC area. The dip in the housing market unfortunately has brought down housing prices in Champaign, though not as badly as elsewhere, so it is not the best time to be selling a house, but it is what it is.
In yet another illustration of how very different Daphne is personality-wise from Cora (this may seem obvious but it is somewhat startling because they look exactly alike), I discovered that she is incredibly particular about pacifiers. She's chewed a couple into flattened submission this week (top teeth coming in made her a chompy monster) so I picked up some spares at Meijer. They didn't have her size in the Nuk brand she uses, so I got her the correct size in the Mam pacifiers.
She hates them. Won't even use them. Pacifier goes in mouth, she makes a face of total disapproval, spits it out and then throws it behind her. Obviously I don't use a pacifier, but they really don't seem all that different to me. Peanut's having none of it though. I guess they will go in the trash because you can't really give a used pacifier to someone else who might use it.
But boy it drove home how very different these girls are. Cora was an infinitely flexible and tolerant baby. She just went along with whatever with a smile. Peanut has opinions. About everything. A sock is on slightly askew and she can't nap. A pacifier isn't up to her standards and it will never be used. It will be interesting to see how this pans out as she grows up. One of the issues Cora has had at school is letting some of the other children run over her. She doesn't object because she doesn't want to upset anyone. She seems to be appropriately bossy with her little sister, though she does let Daphne pull her hair and pinch her and doesn't tell her no because she thinks Daphne is enjoying herself.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Spring Cleaning
It looks like Spring may be arriving in Champaign. I think we may hit 60 today, though the gale force winds are kind of putting a damper on enjoying the weather. Scott is in College Park interviewing with CASL (cross fingers) and I am longing for the DC area, which is quite possibly the most beautiful place on earth in Spring. Right now they are predicting peak bloom for the cherry blossoms from April 3-9. This picture doesn't do it justice. It looks like the world is covered in cotton candy and snow but it is actually flowers everywhere. Anyways, I miss Maryland and I'm hopeful...
South Africa is sending the contract documents via courier, so we should know better what we are dealing with in terms of that offer very soon. I hope we will know where we are heading in the next couple of weeks. It will be good just to know.
I just finished reading Roberto Bolano's 2666. I'm not done processing yet, but this is an important book. How important is what I'm having a hard time judging. I am fairly confident it is the best novel I've read that's been written after 1980. That may not sound like it is saying a lot if you know about my distaste for most recent literature, but there have been some bright points in the last 3 decades, so it isn't a hollow compliment. By best I mean it is best as judged by a combination of writing and importance, not that it has been my favorite read. It is not a happy or light read at all, though it does read really fast for being roughly the same size as War and Peace.
Most of the critical reviews I've seen have been almost fawning. I think this is partly due to the author being dead. I think the tone might be a little more measured if the author was living. The book isn't without flaws, though I suppose that gets mitigated by the fact that this work was in draft when Bolano died.
My trouble in judging the book is coming from a combination of the style of the book itself and the author's death. So the book is actually 5 books revolving around a central location, Santa Teresa (which is a thinly veiled Ciudad Juarez). The place unifies the work, but the place itself is not really the point. While the book seems pretty place-driven, much like Under the Volcano and One Hundred Years of Solitude, which really seem to be the parents of 2666 in many ways, I don't really think the place is much other than a stand in for what the author is really focusing on. Bolano doesn't attack his central theme directly, nor does he ever explicitly articulate it. Reading the books is like examining from a distance the concentric circles that ripple in water after an object is thrown in. Part of my dilemma in judging this book is that all we have are the circles so we have to guess what it was that was thrown in. That is easy enough -- death. But I'm not positive whether it was death as a boulder and the ripples are tsunami sized or whether it was death as a pebble. I think most of the reviews I've read have taken it on faith that Bolano threw a boulder here, but I think that is because of some assumed insight or intimacy with the topic because he was dying as he wrote. I'm not really sure the book itself bears that out. I'm struggling to see what is new here, what is different, what is unique and important about whatever it was Bolano threw in. I'm not sure I'm there yet. The book bears rereading and regardless of whether it was a boulder or a pebble, this book is masterfully done and important in the canon of great works I think. I haven't decided whether it goes in my top 100 ever though. Still on the fence on that one. At any rate, I recommend it. And I'd love to chat about it with anyone else who reads it.
South Africa is sending the contract documents via courier, so we should know better what we are dealing with in terms of that offer very soon. I hope we will know where we are heading in the next couple of weeks. It will be good just to know.
I just finished reading Roberto Bolano's 2666. I'm not done processing yet, but this is an important book. How important is what I'm having a hard time judging. I am fairly confident it is the best novel I've read that's been written after 1980. That may not sound like it is saying a lot if you know about my distaste for most recent literature, but there have been some bright points in the last 3 decades, so it isn't a hollow compliment. By best I mean it is best as judged by a combination of writing and importance, not that it has been my favorite read. It is not a happy or light read at all, though it does read really fast for being roughly the same size as War and Peace.
Most of the critical reviews I've seen have been almost fawning. I think this is partly due to the author being dead. I think the tone might be a little more measured if the author was living. The book isn't without flaws, though I suppose that gets mitigated by the fact that this work was in draft when Bolano died.
My trouble in judging the book is coming from a combination of the style of the book itself and the author's death. So the book is actually 5 books revolving around a central location, Santa Teresa (which is a thinly veiled Ciudad Juarez). The place unifies the work, but the place itself is not really the point. While the book seems pretty place-driven, much like Under the Volcano and One Hundred Years of Solitude, which really seem to be the parents of 2666 in many ways, I don't really think the place is much other than a stand in for what the author is really focusing on. Bolano doesn't attack his central theme directly, nor does he ever explicitly articulate it. Reading the books is like examining from a distance the concentric circles that ripple in water after an object is thrown in. Part of my dilemma in judging this book is that all we have are the circles so we have to guess what it was that was thrown in. That is easy enough -- death. But I'm not positive whether it was death as a boulder and the ripples are tsunami sized or whether it was death as a pebble. I think most of the reviews I've read have taken it on faith that Bolano threw a boulder here, but I think that is because of some assumed insight or intimacy with the topic because he was dying as he wrote. I'm not really sure the book itself bears that out. I'm struggling to see what is new here, what is different, what is unique and important about whatever it was Bolano threw in. I'm not sure I'm there yet. The book bears rereading and regardless of whether it was a boulder or a pebble, this book is masterfully done and important in the canon of great works I think. I haven't decided whether it goes in my top 100 ever though. Still on the fence on that one. At any rate, I recommend it. And I'd love to chat about it with anyone else who reads it.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
TV anorexia
So Cora and I were watching Horseland this morning and they decided to take on the topic of anorexia. This show is pretty clearly geared to the 5-8 year old demographic so it is a little sad that they feel they need to confront eating disorders for their viewers. The in a nutshell summary: Pepper's owner Zoe is sick for a while and the other girls at the stable fail to exercise her in Zoe's absence. Pepper gains some weight. Zoe remarks on this when she gets back but says she'll get back in shape in no time. The other horses tease her about being "round" and suggest she should knock over the gates instead of trying to jump them. Pepper becomes depressed and starts hiding all the food she gets instead of eating it and exercising to excess. She loses the weight she gained and Zoe is proud of her. Then during a race she is too tired to continue and a vet tells her she has to eat properly and exercise in moderation. The other horses learn that teasing someone about their weight will give them an eating disorder.
This episode seemed to miss on a variety of levels. It doesn't seem like there are that many girls who develop eating disorders for the sole purpose of getting into better shape for an athletic event. So really Pepper's only negative effect from the eating disorder was being too tired to run in a marathon. That doesn't seem like much of a deterrent if you are not eating because you want to be thin. Also the show seemed to villify Zoe, the owner of Pepper for commenting on her weight gain at all even though her attitude was very positive and she committed to helping to get her back into shape through appropriate exercise. I guess I'm confused about what the take home is here. I think it was something like this: if you are overweight it is your parents' fault for not forcing you to exercise. (this is possibly legit, but probably not a good blanket statement to make) If they comment on it and encourage exercise they are bad people. Making fun of your friend's weight is bad. (ok, that one seems like a good message) Commenting on your child's weight = eating disorder. (that seemed bad since the "mom" owner was very healthy and positive about it) Making fun of your friend = eating disorder. (seems like eating disorders are way more complicated that this) Eating disorder = not eating and exercising too much. (sometimes) Not eating and exercising too much will make you svelte really quickly. (yikes) Eating disorders make you tired. (seems like there are way worse side effects too anorexia)
This episode seems to fit into the genre of hilarious issue episodes that tackle eating disorders in really bizarre ways. I should point out that the true irony of this episode is that the human girls in the show have legs that are toothpick sized and giant heads. This is just a guess, but it seems like drawing characters that resemble healthy body shapes might do more to prevent anorexia than awkwardly tackling it in an anorexic horse episode. Picture of anorexic horse and un-anorexic rider below.
Perhaps my favorite hilarious eating disorder episode of all time is the fantastic Full House episode called "Shape Up." It is right up there with the "I'm so excited" Saved by the Bell episode for instantly recognizable quotes -- "because they're beautiful!" and "Charlie Brown cheeks" are forever part of the TGIF vernacular. Sadly I could not find the clip I was looking for, but someone did this mashup of DJ's tumble into anorexia and around the 3 minute mark you get the quotes in all their melodramatic glory.
I don't think either of these episodes were meant to be funny, but they are. They seem to trivialize eating disorders in pretty cliche and bad ways. I'm not really sure what the alternative is, I mean showing kids eating disorder episodes of Intervention is probably inappropriate before high school. I'm not sure what the answer is on a pop-culture level. I'm just pretty sure this episode of Horseland isn't it.
This episode seemed to miss on a variety of levels. It doesn't seem like there are that many girls who develop eating disorders for the sole purpose of getting into better shape for an athletic event. So really Pepper's only negative effect from the eating disorder was being too tired to run in a marathon. That doesn't seem like much of a deterrent if you are not eating because you want to be thin. Also the show seemed to villify Zoe, the owner of Pepper for commenting on her weight gain at all even though her attitude was very positive and she committed to helping to get her back into shape through appropriate exercise. I guess I'm confused about what the take home is here. I think it was something like this: if you are overweight it is your parents' fault for not forcing you to exercise. (this is possibly legit, but probably not a good blanket statement to make) If they comment on it and encourage exercise they are bad people. Making fun of your friend's weight is bad. (ok, that one seems like a good message) Commenting on your child's weight = eating disorder. (that seemed bad since the "mom" owner was very healthy and positive about it) Making fun of your friend = eating disorder. (seems like eating disorders are way more complicated that this) Eating disorder = not eating and exercising too much. (sometimes) Not eating and exercising too much will make you svelte really quickly. (yikes) Eating disorders make you tired. (seems like there are way worse side effects too anorexia)
This episode seems to fit into the genre of hilarious issue episodes that tackle eating disorders in really bizarre ways. I should point out that the true irony of this episode is that the human girls in the show have legs that are toothpick sized and giant heads. This is just a guess, but it seems like drawing characters that resemble healthy body shapes might do more to prevent anorexia than awkwardly tackling it in an anorexic horse episode. Picture of anorexic horse and un-anorexic rider below.
Perhaps my favorite hilarious eating disorder episode of all time is the fantastic Full House episode called "Shape Up." It is right up there with the "I'm so excited" Saved by the Bell episode for instantly recognizable quotes -- "because they're beautiful!" and "Charlie Brown cheeks" are forever part of the TGIF vernacular. Sadly I could not find the clip I was looking for, but someone did this mashup of DJ's tumble into anorexia and around the 3 minute mark you get the quotes in all their melodramatic glory.
I don't think either of these episodes were meant to be funny, but they are. They seem to trivialize eating disorders in pretty cliche and bad ways. I'm not really sure what the alternative is, I mean showing kids eating disorder episodes of Intervention is probably inappropriate before high school. I'm not sure what the answer is on a pop-culture level. I'm just pretty sure this episode of Horseland isn't it.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Fancy Nancy
So in the spirit of the Fancy Nancy books, Cora and I got all dressed up last night and went to her piano teacher's concert at Krannert. The concert was the premiere of a new commissioned work by a DMA composition student here at UIUC to be played by Sam, Cora's teacher. I should say that we did not get to stay for the actual new work because the concert started at 7:30 and we left at the intermission at 9. The first half was plenty of concert for me and Cora and well worth the 4 dollars a piece admission.
The concert started with a piece called Flowergazers, written by the DMA comp guy. It was 3 separate pieces, each based on a Japanese haiku from the 17th century. Maybe I should preface this by saying I am not a huge fan of postmodern or experimental classical music. This concert pretty much confirmed my distaste. I occasionally like Phillip Glass, I think Steve Reich has done some interesting stuff, but the bulk of what I've seen at the grad school level is kind of self-indulgent John Cage ripoff stuff. (Yes, I understand the irony of using a blog - perhaps the most self-indulgent invention of the last 50 years - to complain about the self-indulgence of a genre of music) At any rate, it seems to me that this type of music frequently degenerates into an atonal mess played by a fairly random collection of instruments, but most notable for the disproportionate number of percussion players who appear to be under instructions to strike whatever they can find with mallets. At some point it does not seem particularly interesting to me to strike the frame of a harp or the case of a piano with an object when the sound it produces is pretty much exactly the same sound as striking a wood block. That just seems gimmicky and pointless to me. So in the course of 25 minutes, 3 percussion players and a guy on marimba managed to hit pretty much everything on stage with something else.
I also really objected to this composer's use of his singers. The haiku cycle had a soprano who was mostly singing in the meat of her range at full voice. However, there were several phrases that were either set so low she could not actually sing them or were meant to be spoken word. It was impossible to tell which because they were way too low for her so it was barely audible. If you're going to compose something like that, then it seems like either you should have a very rangy singer in mind whom you write it for, or you should keep the vocal parts in the fach of the singer you are selecting. If you want a lyric soprano (and this girl was almost a Soubrette) don't write something that would be better suited to the range of a mezzo or a Wagnerian soprano.
He then proceeded to abuse two male singers in a later piece which was obnoxious on several levels. He used some 14th century motets by a French composer and had a bass and baritone sing them in isolation while he had a strange ensemble (again heavy on percussion) deliberately squeaking instruments and hitting "wrong" notes (he mentioned this in the program notes), thereby producing what he referred to as a "derrangement" of the motet that held true to what the original composer wanted. Personally my guess is Monsieur de Vitry would have been rather mortified by the end result, but whatever. The first motet was actually meant for a bass and baritone, or rather probably for a bass-baritone and a low tenor voice, but the baritone was rangy and lyric and handled it fine. The rest of the piece, however was clearly written for either a boy soprano or countertenor so he had these poor men sing for 20 minutes completely in falsetto. It was painful to listen to. They did the best they could with it and honestly the baritone had a pretty nice and pure falsetto, but their voices were clearly shot by the end. It was just wrong.
So, bizarre atonal percussive disasters aside, we were treated to some truly fantastic piano playing by Sam. He played some pieces that he wrote, including some 8 hands pieces that were very charming. He also played the hell out of Liszt's Dante Sonata. I hadn't seen Sam perform before so it was a treat, but also surprising because I wouldn't have anticipated his playing style. There are a lot of variations on how pianists LOOK while they play. There are the real technical types that are very very still except for their hands and arms. Very little head or body movement. It's a very sterile sort of performance quality and I think the music tends to follow suit emotionally. Then there are the Martha Argeriches of the world who look like they are trying to beat the piano into submission every time they play. I think Lang Lang falls into this camp as well. Then there are the dancers. Sam is a dancer. They seem to be almost in a musical trance and they move with the piece in kind of strange ways. Sometimes it can be really powerful to watch, other times distracting. Then there are the people who appear to play effortlessly, Horowitz jumps to mind. He just looks very relaxed and mellow when he plays, even during really violent sections of music.
I asked Cora what she liked and didn't like about the concert. Surprisingly (to me), she said she liked the haiku pieces best. I asked her what she thought about them and she said they sounded like "people running in grass. They are playing tag but never catch each other," which is almost a haiku in itself. Apparently this guy succeeded wildly with Cora and missed completely with me. It made me marvel at how very different the experience of any music can be even for two people sitting next to each other. She fell asleep during the Liszt.
The concert started with a piece called Flowergazers, written by the DMA comp guy. It was 3 separate pieces, each based on a Japanese haiku from the 17th century. Maybe I should preface this by saying I am not a huge fan of postmodern or experimental classical music. This concert pretty much confirmed my distaste. I occasionally like Phillip Glass, I think Steve Reich has done some interesting stuff, but the bulk of what I've seen at the grad school level is kind of self-indulgent John Cage ripoff stuff. (Yes, I understand the irony of using a blog - perhaps the most self-indulgent invention of the last 50 years - to complain about the self-indulgence of a genre of music) At any rate, it seems to me that this type of music frequently degenerates into an atonal mess played by a fairly random collection of instruments, but most notable for the disproportionate number of percussion players who appear to be under instructions to strike whatever they can find with mallets. At some point it does not seem particularly interesting to me to strike the frame of a harp or the case of a piano with an object when the sound it produces is pretty much exactly the same sound as striking a wood block. That just seems gimmicky and pointless to me. So in the course of 25 minutes, 3 percussion players and a guy on marimba managed to hit pretty much everything on stage with something else.
I also really objected to this composer's use of his singers. The haiku cycle had a soprano who was mostly singing in the meat of her range at full voice. However, there were several phrases that were either set so low she could not actually sing them or were meant to be spoken word. It was impossible to tell which because they were way too low for her so it was barely audible. If you're going to compose something like that, then it seems like either you should have a very rangy singer in mind whom you write it for, or you should keep the vocal parts in the fach of the singer you are selecting. If you want a lyric soprano (and this girl was almost a Soubrette) don't write something that would be better suited to the range of a mezzo or a Wagnerian soprano.
He then proceeded to abuse two male singers in a later piece which was obnoxious on several levels. He used some 14th century motets by a French composer and had a bass and baritone sing them in isolation while he had a strange ensemble (again heavy on percussion) deliberately squeaking instruments and hitting "wrong" notes (he mentioned this in the program notes), thereby producing what he referred to as a "derrangement" of the motet that held true to what the original composer wanted. Personally my guess is Monsieur de Vitry would have been rather mortified by the end result, but whatever. The first motet was actually meant for a bass and baritone, or rather probably for a bass-baritone and a low tenor voice, but the baritone was rangy and lyric and handled it fine. The rest of the piece, however was clearly written for either a boy soprano or countertenor so he had these poor men sing for 20 minutes completely in falsetto. It was painful to listen to. They did the best they could with it and honestly the baritone had a pretty nice and pure falsetto, but their voices were clearly shot by the end. It was just wrong.
So, bizarre atonal percussive disasters aside, we were treated to some truly fantastic piano playing by Sam. He played some pieces that he wrote, including some 8 hands pieces that were very charming. He also played the hell out of Liszt's Dante Sonata. I hadn't seen Sam perform before so it was a treat, but also surprising because I wouldn't have anticipated his playing style. There are a lot of variations on how pianists LOOK while they play. There are the real technical types that are very very still except for their hands and arms. Very little head or body movement. It's a very sterile sort of performance quality and I think the music tends to follow suit emotionally. Then there are the Martha Argeriches of the world who look like they are trying to beat the piano into submission every time they play. I think Lang Lang falls into this camp as well. Then there are the dancers. Sam is a dancer. They seem to be almost in a musical trance and they move with the piece in kind of strange ways. Sometimes it can be really powerful to watch, other times distracting. Then there are the people who appear to play effortlessly, Horowitz jumps to mind. He just looks very relaxed and mellow when he plays, even during really violent sections of music.
I asked Cora what she liked and didn't like about the concert. Surprisingly (to me), she said she liked the haiku pieces best. I asked her what she thought about them and she said they sounded like "people running in grass. They are playing tag but never catch each other," which is almost a haiku in itself. Apparently this guy succeeded wildly with Cora and missed completely with me. It made me marvel at how very different the experience of any music can be even for two people sitting next to each other. She fell asleep during the Liszt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
