Kinda serious talk this time, but I think it’s a good one. And appropriate, this time of year, we should be thankful for friends to confide in, people to listen and understand, and for our own ability to change and grow. Also, a little bit about music. Enjoy!
QUESTIONS:
Dear Hat Masters, What are your favorite pieces of classical music? –Sue the Malcontent
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
O Fortuna is from Carmina Burana by Carl Orff. The lyrics are in Latin because they are from the Middle Ages and were written by religious clerics and monks–which seems weird until you realize clerics are really just students. 🙂
So there’s the manuscript which comes from the Middle Ages (called Carmina Burana), and then there’s the music by Orff (also called Carmina Burana) but Orff is a 20th century composer.
I saw a production of this one time when I was in college and it blew me away.
I had a final in high school band one year that was all about Carl Orff and Carmina Burana. I know he was born/died September 28 and July 9. Don’t remember which years, don’t remember which one is the born vs. death date. Once you can identify it, you hear Carmina Burana in various commercials and TV shows pretty often. Cool that you saw the production before!
I think I found the piece Tony was talking about. It’s Adagio for Strings by Samuel Barber. The part that I usually hear accompanying those tragic scenes starts on this YouTube at about 5 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQsgE0L450.
Yes. That’s it. Definitely.
Thanks! 🙂
Violin Concerto in D Major by Tchaikovsky is my all time favorite classical piece. I just realized now when I was trying to look it up to get a link to post that I always make the mistake of thinking it’s in D Minor because there’s something that seems very sad about it to me–so I guess that’s despite of the key.
I’m not at all surprised by Will’s experience on Anarchist sites. If people deny their connection to each other, then I think they see only two extremes in terms of how social groups function. One is that the only way to get people to function as a group is to control them through an outside authority; the other is to deny any authority but your own individualistic desires. Feminism or Civil Rights are usually seen as part of that first extreme–an outside authority trying to impose what is right from the outside.
I wonder if anarchy is the best term to keep using because it only captures in it’s definition that rejection of external authority. There’s an article that I’ve sent to Will before that talks about how nature is neither hierarchically ordered or anarchic, but uses the term “interactive architecture” to talk about natural structures. That seems clunky but might be an interesting jumping off point.
Right… I’ve written a few articles myself about how nature isn’t order OR chaos, but this dynamic, ever-changing thing… there’s pattern there, but it’s in constant flux. As you point out, though, the term anarchy simply means “no ruler” and doesn’t really address the subtleties of the universe. Still, you’re also correct to point out that however simple the term might be at its base, it’s a much more complicated term in our culture. And you and I often agree that there’s no point in trying to fight the manner in which a term is popularly used. Language, after all, is one of those dynamic, ever-changing things. Words only mean what a culture says they mean.
So I’m ever on the lookout for a better term. But I’ve yet to find one.
Yeah, maybe I should start calling myself an interactive architecturalist, just for the whooziewhatzistalist? factor.
That was a good talk about prejudice. I wonder though whether it’s better to talk about the fact that we have racist/sexist thoughts or do things that are racist/sexist rather than say, yes, I’m racist or I’m sexist. This is just an idea I have that we have to get away from identifications attached to people and instead think about particular actions, words, ideas, etc.
Yeah, I agree with that.
So the talk about the effect of the internet and anonymity reminded me of something I heard last night on Radio Lab. They were talking to a man who suffered from a nerve ailment in which he lost all proprioception (the ability to get feedback from his body) except in his head. In order to walk, or lift a cup, or stand (etc.), he had to train himself (over 12 years) to look at the body part and consciously control that part of the body as if it were a puppet. It sounded exhausting. And if he’s distracted by anything, he loses control–he told the story of walking down the street, seeing a woman he thought was attractive, and immediately stumbling.
So I wonder if that’s kind of what we’re doing to ourselves on the internet? We’re losing physical feedback so everything we do we have to do with intense conscious effort not to fall into these solipsistic or narcissistic ways of dealing with people?
Well, it is an intensely “unnatural” way to interact, for lack of a better term. Human beings communicate every bit as much in the universes of touch and appearance as they do in the universe of discourse. When the universe of appearance is removed and the universe of touch is reduced to semantic inflections and emoticons, the communication can get strained. And if that strain isn’t expressly attended to, then things are bound to go wrong.