Suggestion Solicitation Movie Reviews

This series of talks presented by Leonard Bernstein at Harvard in 1973 has many fascinating components, but the overall thesis seems like an argument in search of a point. Bernstein is always interesting and enthusiastic in these sorts of things, but he also tends to ramble and drag in everything but the kitchen sink in order to buttress his points. He attempts to connect his musical theory of "innateness" to the development of speech patterns--unnecessarily in my view, and the connection is never really fully explained. In the end he concludes the 20th century characteristics in art--of irony, existentialism, and self-reference--are a result of the horrors of modern times, of the Holocaust, the two world wars, and the nuclear age. It's a premise put forth in his "Age of Anxiety" Symphony and I didn't buy it then either. Never does he explain *why* one leads to the other, he just seems to assume the relationship is evident. And, I hate to appear to be upstaging Bernstein, but I think I have a simpler and easier-to-defend thesis (and it's not my original idea, either).

I agree the modern artistic age is characterized by irony, references (self and other) and a revisiting of the old in new clothes. However, I don't see any link to the "horrors of the 20th century" as to why we can't directly say "I love you" when we mean "I love you." Rather, I think the reason irony and assorted deconstructionist techniques sprang up in the 20th century is because we finally had the history and the heritage for them to exist and make sense. Musical language was direct in Mozart's time, in Bach's time, in Beethoven's time, because they were inventing it. By the time we reach Mahler, it is fully developed and we find ourselves in the process of "decomposing" it (or he did). Before that time, there wasn't the heritage and history *to* decompose. To make my point, jazz, despite coming of age in the ashes of World War I, didn't become ironic and deconstructionist through the first half of the 20th century, until the 1950s. Its deconstruction was borne not from any of the horrors of the Holocaust or the atom bomb, but from its own accumulation of tradition and technique. Ditto the cinema.

So Bernstein's argument, in my view, doesn't hold water, but is the very sort of Romantic and poetic vision that appeals to him. However, while I don't agree with his conclusion, the journey he takes to get there is fascinating, filled with analyses of such landmark works as Mozart's Symphony No. 40, Beethoven's Pastorale Symphony, Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, Berg's Violin Concerto, and Stravinsky's Le Sacre, just to name a few. Also, his discussions of tonality, the "Circle of Fifths" and the evolution of Western harmony are fascinating. There's a certain amount of annoying preening--there are times when he's really milking his little Harvard audience for applause, and you'd think that by that point in his career he wouldn't need it--but this is easy to overlook. The video is clean and the audio is quite good for the time. Overall this is a set worth getting, despite my reservations about Bernstein's overall argument and his attempts to strengthen it by linking it to linguistics, a melding I think is artificial and unnecessary. (It reminds me of early jazz scholars trying to make their work appear more solid by forcing analogies between jazz and classical music, also unnecessary.) I do recommend this set, but beware Lenny's excessive Romanticisms!

Its quite interesting that in the late 20th century, there was a progresive tendency to look for a number of grand schemes, many of which would be familiar to you guys, perhaps some of which would not be. One obvious example is that tremendous effort to find an underlying theory of physics which would combine relativity and quantum mechanics - another are more obscure attempts to reconcile set theory with certain models within category theory which had been giving trouble to a certain set of number theoretians - etc, etc.

But the human dimension to this appeared, almost as one man in the form of Chomsky. His book, "Aspects of the theory of Syntax" was the tip of the iceberg of a huge number of papers published on the deep structure of language while he was working at MIT. This appeared to offer clues as to aspects of the structure of ANY human language, an utterly amazing claim. Some of his later works give clues to the possible existence of a universal paradigm for language which has massive implications for people in so many disciplines, I couldn't begin to enumerate.

This all started, by the way, on the route to attempting the final cataloguing of the North American indian languages, some of which had only one remaining speaker. The task was huge and unapproachable until Chomsky evolved a system for abbreviating certain grammatic structures, which, to his surprise, evolved into a powerful predictive theory.

Anyone exposed to this at the time would have been impressed, but what was to follow was even more amazing. Chomsky's ideas swiftly melded with other theories of semantics and syntax transformations in different fields, and became de-rigeour for many PhDs in computer science and anthropology, uniting what was up until that time two very, very different disciplines. Citations to his work began to appear everywhere, and in the most amazing places.

An illustration of what was to follow THAT is basically contained here. no less, a unified theory of language and music!

[You ought to get this - it is undoubtedly a brilliant scholarly work in any case, even if you don't concur with Bernstein on all points - and few would exactly agree with him on all, nor, importantly, would you need to, to benefit from this.]

The argument presented is quite intuitive, but is nontheless compelling. Music is shown as being a byproduct of our humanity, extended from need in whatever form, as an infant, or an adult, from utility into sophisticaion, and finally inspiration. Bernstein makes sure the listener is in no doubt that there is something way, way beyond necessity in our provision for the experience of music. His explanation of the physics of music is flawless, and ... awe inspiring. And, watching the man traverse this enormous gap between logic, physics, liguistics, and the unnameable majesty of Beethoven and Debussy (both of which he performs as a conductor, and is moved greatly and visibly) is utterly breathtaking. I would doubt that anyone watching his exposition of the 6th would be any less moved in this way.

Apart from any of this, Bernstein entertains enormously. There are parts of his explantions that truly defy you not to laugh. He has an honesty and self effacement that is quite unusual, this comes out particularly in his efforts to sing, which he pokes quite a bit of fun at. It's obvious how passionately his audience is involved. (He describes at length a discussion with a student after one lecture in the next one - and its clear that both student and teacher really have learned quite a bit but have obviously been a little combatative, at least, at first)

From there on, you might care to differ a bit. The history of the 20th Century is described rather neatly as the showdown between Schoenburg and Stravinsky, two schools of thought, two very different philosophies. He enters this very complex consideration fairly gently. I agree with his approach - and understanding of the environment of the early 20th century is essential if one is to understand its music - and so he described Debussy, who is ... sort of.. at the end of the Waagnerian era, stretching ambiguity and tonal resources to the uttermost. Can one go further? Yes indeed, and here we have the entry of the Viennese school of 12 tone technique, illustrated with Schoenburgs six little piano pieces. But oddly enough, Bernstein shows very clearly that the appearance of 12 tone technique is not unequivically Schoenburgs' alone, but appears in the guise of mists and mirages in Chopin, Wagner, even Beethoven, but grasped once and for all by Schoenburg.

Given another five or so lectures, one might imagine that one could explore the use of bitonality, not just in the context of the Rite of Spring (which is most EXCELLENTLY explained), but the mid century English composers, who use this technique. Such people as Holst, Grainger, Williams, Strauss, and of course, Britten. But there isn't time. The end point of these complications is the resolution into a robust defence of neo-classicism, such as the ebony concerto, and of course, Oedipux Rex. But I think that this is a sad way to end - Rex is a sombre, hard work, and doesn't quite illustrate the end that either Schoenburg or Stravinsky seem to have unknowingly appointed for that part of the 20th century. In this, Bernstein may have overlooked that really recent developoments in Europe, that of an emerging new impressionism (even, perhaps, Romanticism), exemplified by Xenakis, Maderna, Berio, and others, who in some sense share some parts of both ends of the bipolar world which was the basis for all this in the middle part of that century.

All this is debatable. For instance, not a mention is given to either those very radical spirits like Varese, who seemed to eschew both ends equaly - or those, like Sibelius, Delius or Neilson, who didn't seem to mind either way, and continued to write what is now known as the mid century symphonic repertoire.

That is a long, long story, and could form the basis of a lot of commentary. Where, for instance, is Shostakovich in all this? Or Bartok, for that matter? I think this is all dealt with elsewhere, but I would have given a great deal to have seen these composers discussed at length.

But this set of lectures is so valuable as a signpost, I would never do anything other than highly, highly recommend it.It's absolutely magnificent.

This lecture series is great for all levels of music lovers, from the beginner to the expert, because of the broadness of material covered. Bernstein is captivating, the lectures are wonderful. It is a delight. You will want to have been there, that is for sure. Recommended highly.

A@E normally produces pretty good stuff. For some reason they never really got it together on this one. The subject matter is certainly good, but the chronology of the story seems confused. For one, this should have been a longer story. At least another hour could have included and clarified many aspects of Arnold's complex career in the Revolution. As it stands here many important events are left out, including the battle of Freeman's Farm, as well as his clever deception of the Indians which fouled Berry St. Leger's drive down from Oswego. These were important aspects of Arnold's career, which should have been included. The excessive romance scenes with Peggy could have been cut down to make room. Jeff Daniels would have been better to have as Washington. He was so good in "The Crossing" which was a much better film. The relationship with Major Andre is grossly over-stated. Aidrian Quinn does an adequate job playing Arnold, but his work is not made easiler by an overall weak support cast, and poor editing. What is good about the DVD version is that you get the true story of Arnold's life from the A&E Biography thats included. An overall attractive production with unfortunate short-comings.

"Benedict Arnold: A Question of Honor" is a good film. Even though the editing is a bit messy, and I really wasn't 100% convinced of Kelsey Grammar's portrayal of Washington (Jeff Daniels was better in "The Crossing"), it had some good battle scenes and decent storytelling. I also wasn't 100% happy with Aidan Quinn as Arnold. But it is worth a look or two! Grade: B-