A couple of nights ago, I went to hear the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, who are on a tour of the West Coast with their music director Riccardo Muti. The performance was wonderful, with two Brahms symphonies (the Second and Third), and an encore from Schubert's Rosamunde. I followed articles on the tour, which got raves throughout, although the oddest review came from the Los Angeles Times critic Mark Swed when he wrote about the concert in Santa Barbara a few nights they reached L.A.. In fact, it was one of the strangest reviews I've read, in which he was seemingly enthusiastic about the performance, writing things like, "The homogeneity of instrumental texture he achieved couldn’t be beat. Liquid winds marvelously blended with stirring brass. Fabulous strings played as one." And later added, "Muti allowed all the time in the world for us to take this all in. He drew out every pause, pregnant with meaning. He painstakingly ascended to glorious, heaven-opening climaxes and faded slowly, oh so slowly, to heart-stopping black, a black so empty it felt like sensory deprivation." Indeed, he even tossed in a "perfect", noting that, "After all, in this unflappably perfect world, the 'Unfinished,' its two movements drawn out to nearly a half-hour, overwhelms with an unstoppable effusion of lyricism, each unfolding inner line with its own story to tell." So, he must have been utterly overjoyed by such magnificence, right? I mean, after all, it had a texture that "couldn't be beat." It was "marvelous" and "fabulous" with "heaven-opening climaxes." And as "heart-stopping" and "perfect." But -- somehow he managed to find a way to rag on it. "There is, though, a price to such awe," he wrote. Absolutely a price, of course, because, like, eww, who really wanted to be awed, for goodness sake?! Who indeed, because "...but where was the articulation, the sense of saying something?" he asked. Yes, where, oh, where? Silly me, I had thought it was found when he wrote that conductor Muti "drew out every pause, pregnant with meaning." And when Muti showed "each unfolding inner line with its own story to tell." Yes, oh, heavens where would that blasted "sense of saying something" possibly be?? How odd was this review? Even within one paragraph, critic Swed found a way to rave about the orchestra being so masterful that you couldn't even argue with it -- after finding a way to have argued with it. "It was too powerful, too masterful, too big to fail. You don’t argue with performances like that. They’re not about you. Right or wrong, you submit." And for all this music so heaven-opening to which you couldn't help but submit, he somehow impressively was able to complain about what wasn't even there. "For some clueless reason," Swed wrote, "Muti, who has admirably championed several progressive young composers in Chicago, left off a recent CSO commission by the orchestra’s current composer-in-residence, Elizabeth Ogonek, from the Southern California portion of the tour." And that was sort of the foundation of all his criticism, despite his raving of ethereal perfection. The core of his full article seemed to be complaining that for some "clueless reason” they only played standard fare, and not adventurous new music. Seriously, dude? First, I think it’s odd to review anyone what for they didn’t do because it's not what you want, not for what they actually did. And second, I don’t think the reason is “clueless” in the slightest but rather seemingly obvious – when you tour, after all, since audiences can only hear you once, on that single night and then you're gone, I’m guessing that those in attendance mostly want to hear you do what you are famous for that brought them there -- and also want to hear the familiar so that they can compare you to what they know. That seems pretty basic and hard not to grasp in the slightest, contrary to being "clueless." (By the way, next week the Israeli Philharmonic is in town. They’ll be playing the Beethoven Piano Concerto #3 and Schubert Symphony #9. I wonder if critic Swed will chide them for their choice…) Anyway, overall it actually was a very positive rave, just the oddest one I’ve ever seen. And we might as well have a bit of the CSO and Muti here, as well. This is the "Jupiter" segment from Gustav Holst's The Planets. You'll likely recognize it. If that's okay...
0 Comments
This is a particularly fascinating "Not My Job" episode of NPR's quiz show Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me! The guest is Brian May, co-founder and lead guitarist of the rock group, Queen. But what leaps out in host Peter Sagal's interview is discovering that he -- actually, really, truly -- has a PhD in astrophysics! Honest. And the story of how he got it, after some roadblocks, is all the more fun. As are the panelists' fascination with it all, and their greater-involvement in the questions than usual, filled with Queen references. Along with the discussion of his passion for 3-D photography. It's all charming, remarkable and great fun.
As readers of these pages have long-since figured out, I absolutely love Anthony Rizzo, first baseman for the Chicago Cubs. I've written about him often, most notably here about overcoming Hodgkins lymphoma at the age of 18 to become a major league All Star -- while being an all-around wonderful guy, regularly visiting hospitals and sick children, and raising money for cancer through charity events. And most recently, this August piece about him donating $3.5 million to a family center from his Rizzo Family Foundation. And then a month later, his foundation pledged another $650,000 to the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System.
Happily, I get to write about The Rizz once again. Because yesterday, Major League Baseball honored Anthony Rizzo as this year's recipient of the Roberto Clemente Award. It's presented to the player who "best represents the game of baseball through extraordinary character, community involvement, philanthropy and positive contributions, both on and off the field." Hey, as I always say, I tries nots to steers ya wrong. "To win this is amazing," Rizzo said. "That's the impact we want to make. A lot of organizations do amazing work, and we want to impact families directly, and this foundation, that's what the staple is. "It's insane over the last few years how many people have come up to me and said how we've helped someone's friend of a friend of a friend, and it gets back to me. To touch lives like that, it's something you can't explain." It doesn't come without a tinge of sadness, when this is the sort of charity work you do. Only two days early, a little girl, Mia, who Rizzo had met when he started his foundation and stayed close with the family, passed away. And Rizzo addressed it with his normal grace.
"Every time I saw her, she was a breath of fresh air," Rizzo said. "The last time I saw her was at Wrigley [Field], and she wasn't looking too good, she was in a wheelchair. But I remember her smiling at me. Losing her is tough, because she was close to the foundation.
"Going through this now for five, six years and visiting kids, there's been a lot of positives that we do and help with the families. But when you lose kids who become close to the foundation and are basically a staple of the foundation, it's not easy," Rizzo said. "That's part of doing this. You have lives you're saving, and then you lose some, and when you lose some, it's not easy to deal with." I am absolutely sure that all the finalists for the Roberto Clemente Award are wonderful people and would have been highly deserving if they'd been the recipient. But I'm just really pleased to see Anthony Rizzo get recognized, because I think he's a gem. In 2011, Daniel Radcliffe starred on Broadway In a revival of the musical How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying, with a score by Frank Loesser. For better or worse, whenever the show presented a number on TV, it was usually the lively production, "Brotherhood of Man." A very enjoyable song, but after a while, I really would have liked to have seen something else. This video will not change that, it's the same song But -- there's a very good reason for posting it. This comes from its presentation at the 2012 Tony Awards. And what makes it special is that introducing the number are the two men who starred in the show in its original production in 1961 and 1995 revival. That would be Robert Morse and Matthew Broderick. The number itself is enthusiastic fun. The introduction is a job, and a touch of theater history. Yesterday, a very politically-savvy friend called me up, sounding bewildered. "You have to explain something to me that I don't understand," he said. "I've been really busy lately and have missed a lot of the news. What am I missing about this story that some Democrats with the Clinton campaign funded the Trump dossier that makes it a scandal?"
Before I answered him, I said I had to clarify something. First and importantly, I said, this isn't a case of Democrats with the Clinton campaign funding the dossier. It was an opposition research project started by a Republican during the GOP primary. And it was continued to be funded by a Republican. When Trump won the GOP nomination, the Republicans who were funding the project dropped out. And so, these Democrats took over the already-existing protject. Okay, that was clear to him. But he was still confused. "What I don't understand," he repeated, "is what am I missing about this story that is a scandal?" It was the easiest political discussion I've ever had with this fellow. Nothing. You're missing nothing. It's not a scandal, I continued. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what was done. It was normal, perfectly legal opposition research when the Republicans began the project. And it was normal, perfectly legal opposition research when the Democrats took it over. It's normal. Legal. Not a scandal. You're missing nothing. He was still confused, though, because he is such an otherwise-savvy political guy and couldn't figure out why he wasn't seeing what so many Republicans were yelping about. "But is there something fishy with the company that put together the dossier??" he asked. "Are they tied to a foreign government or have a sleazy reputation or something?? Is that why it's a scandal?" No, I told him again. It's not a scandal. The company is Fusion GPS, and they're a normal, perfectly legal company that puts together research reports. They're not a foreign government. They're a company. There's nothing wrong with them. There is no scandal. None. You're not missing anything. You don't see the scandal because there isn't one. It's just a case of the Republicans concerned about the mere existence of the dossier and concerned about the things in it that have been already confirmed, and concerned about anything else that might get confirmed in it which could be even more damaging. And so, they're trying to send up smoke screens and distract people and discredit the dossier, which is normal and perfectly legal. There's nothing wrong with it. There's no scandal. "So, I'm not missing anything. There's no scandal. At all." No. None. There is no scandal. This is nothing more than picking up a normal, perfectly legal opposition research project that Republicans themselves funded but then dropped out, and continuing to fund it. And the sad, pathetic part is that there are die-hard Trump supporters who will believe that there is a scandal, because they need to believe it and will believe anything. If my actually politically-savvy friend could have been even slightly bewildered on this, merely because he'd been distracted for a week, I can only imagine how it will be embraced by die-hard Trump supporters who seemingly have been willfully distracted for a lifetime.. There is only one thing that actually matters with the dossier. One. That is the contents of what's in it. And thus far, much of what's in it has already been confirmed as true. There is, at least, one funny thing to come from all this, though funny is a numbing, head-banging way. And that's that for all the Republicans squealing like stuck pigs here about opposition research -- these are the very same people who were defending "opposition research" as the reason Don Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort all met with Russian government officials. The only difference is that meeting like that with Russian government officials is not just conspiring with a foreign government (not to mention one that is our enemy) but it's really illegal. Which when you get down to it is a Really Big difference. Not to worry, though. As soon as they figure out what Republican initiated the dossier and first funded it, those of you who love the squealing sound of stuck pigs will get your hearts' content. This is a little different from the "First Drafts of Rock 'n' Roll" videos I've posted from The Tonight Show, but it's a cousin. It does come from the show, and features Jimmy Fallon in the guise of a rock star -- in this case, Bruce Springsteen. What he sings here is a parody of "Born to Run" which they call the "Gov. Chris Christie’s Fort Lee, New Jersey Traffic Jam." What's particularly different though from those others is that in this song, he's joined by...well, I'm not going to be too coy, but we'll just say a surprise guest. You ought to be able to figure it out... And if you can't, and if the image below doesn't help...well, that's okay, you'll get to it soon. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|