I Am Nothing - Beginning

On the holiest night of the year, the chorus intones the Kol Nidre when we tell God we won't keep our promises, then the Barchu when we bow to the Lord and bless Him to the world forever, then the Shema when we proclaim the Lord is One, , then the Eighteen blessings and the Vidui which is so holy we say it as we die, then the Selichot where we stretch the confessions of the Vidui to ten minutes, then the Piyyutim when we chant Byzantine poetry in acrostic, then the plead for forgiveness to our Father and King that is the Avinu Malkeinu, and finally the Aleinu and Mourner's Kaddish. 

Aleinu is the common prayer which we say multiple times a day. But on the High Holidays the Aleinu is so holy that the clergy don't just bow down, they bow to the floor. 

Here at Odessa's Greycer Choral Shul, the prayer is considered so important that the Rabbi exclaims every year before the Holy Ark and God "Forgive me Lord, I am nothing." Then the Cantor declares "Forgive me Lord, I am nothing." 

I became shamesh in 1849 of Odessa's Greycer Choral Shul, and in my first year as a shul clergy, I bowed down and exclaimed "Forgive me Lord, I am nothing!" And I heard the Rabbi whisper to the cantor: 

"Nu? Look who's nothing."  

I have been sexton of the Great Choral Synagogue for forty-eight years and survived three rabbis, four cantors. Every Shamesh of my generation has died off, and all Odessa's wondered when I'd retire for twenty years. Every day I awake at four in the morning, five-thirty in the winter, two-thirty at the beginning of the summer, have a breakfast of tea and a hard-boiled egg, start walk to the shul twenty minutes after I get up. It's half a Russian mile. As a young man it took thirty minutes, now it takes eighty. I never slip. When I get there I sneak a piece of cake from shabbos. Every day I sweep the entire floor: the shul floor, the women's balcony, the offices of the Rabbi, Cantor and Board members, the chapel, the hallway, coat closets and outhouses; then I mop them and change the water in every room. Twice before a wedding. That makes it just in time for the morning service. Some tired schnook slips twice a year, I get yelled at by the board, then everybody goes back to work. In the early days I would cry, and every time they would give me a raise. Around 1870 I stopped crying and since then nobody's changed my salary. Every year I spend less and less money, but all my time is spent at shul, so I have no time to spend it on.

Every weekday I lead the morning prayers, the afternoon and evening. I learn the weekly Torah portions and read the fragments every Monday and Thursday. In the early years members did it for me, but now hardly anybody knows the Hebrew and nobody's willing to put in the work, so I read it for them. In the evenings after gymnasium I teach the students their torah portions. Nu? Some of them are very nice, some of them are very smart, some of them are idyots and horrible. I yell at most of them and klap a few on the head: some fall asleep, some make faces, some try to change the subject, some don't practice; but some are interested, I kvell over them but by the time they're sixteen they don't say hello. 

The two breaks I have during the week is the eithteen blessings: the Shmoneh Esrei, and Rabbi's sermon, and nu? Every rabbi's the same. Every cantor's the same. They used to make me plotz with excitement, especially the chorus of yinglach: some of whom I tutored for their bar mitzvahs. Some became cantors themselves, or at least went to chazzan school, I hear some of them became opera singers, but with that chorus, even the schmegegge cantors seem up there like they belong at the Bolshoi. But nu, what do they do now you didn't hear fifty years ago? Both the rabbis and cantors have their one chance a week to be a macher and shaker, and nu they use every minute of it. Shouting and shraying, spitting and shpaying. Every rabbi slouches but they grow a foot on the bimah. Every cantor skips services during the week and on the Bimah becomes Odessa's most righteous tzaddik. On that bimah, the biggest nebbish turns into a golem. I go outside, nu? No shulgoer's there, and I have my two cigarettes a week and I hear the Rabbi here, there and everywhere. I go back in and nobody smells the cigarette because nu they all go out and smoke cigarettes while I'm layning. 

Outside there are two groups. The Yiddsher schnorrers who get off work at the factory's night shift. They eat pork and trink, and the goyisher coachmen to the rich machers who go to shul by carriage. They eat pork and trink too, but they never talk to the Yids. You hear their kibbitzing, it's always the same in both groups: what they would do with the money of the Yiddisher machers in shul, whistling at the maydlach who walk by, kvetching about the wives, kvetching about the boss, kvetching about the children, kvetching about the hurs who make them sick. When somebody has money they sit at the table of the deli. They play cards and eat sausage. 

But nu? I can't hear them anymore. I can't even hear the Rebbe. This year, one week I start not hearing the Rebbe. Instead I hear a yingele who would make a Rabbi sound like he sounds on Tuesday. 

Aida Survey Fragment: Hopefully Will Finish Sooner

 Tucker's Law of Musical Performance: Verdi's Aida: 66-103 years.

Aida was premiered in Cairo in 1871. If we are to believe the Molajoli/Sabajno recordings, it took a lifetime as it always does to fully acclimate to the demands of a great work of art. Aida is one of the three or four most iconic operas ever written, but it does not play itself like Verdi's Big Three (Rig/Trov/Trav) which can be played by any ol' small opera company in reduced forces and still make its impact.

Aida is big, Aida is decadent, and it needs the greatness of a great orchestra, a great conductor, giant voices in a giant hall with giant sets. The Golden Age of opera had to be over by the time Aida ascended to the top of opera's pantheon.

The first essential recording of Aida, to me at least, is Victor de Sabata leading La Scala in 1937 Berlin. It's not deep, it's not art, it's not even complete--some of my favorite scenes are missing, but as an exhibition, it is magnificent: de Sabata, La Scala, Gina Cigna, Beniamino Gigli and Ebe Stignani. Is it a serious examination of Aida? Well... is Aida a serious work of art? It is great opera as great opera gets, but... um... the jury is out.... The same goes in the same year when Gina Cigna somehow sings in both Berlin and New York at the Metropolitan, with the more 'heroic tenor' Giovanni Martinelli and Bruna Castagna, along with Ettore Panizza, the one conductor who played Verdi with even less subtlety than de Sabata. And if that isn't enough, you've got Gigli and Stignani two years later in London with Maria Caniglia, a slightly more lyric 'spinto' than Cigna's trumpet tones under Thomas Beecham, the world's greatest podium entertainer. The sound of all three is atrocious, but all three are glorious. They're more than art or entertainment, they're part of the history of the world: documents of how the grandest opera inflamed the world. Opera may be a thing of the past, but so long as opera can put on loud and lavish entertainments like Aida, it can offer the world things musical theater and movies cannot possibly match.

How's it done? Singers with technique so secure that they seem able to do anything at all: so secure that you can maintain the vocal line through all histrionics, hold notes out forever loud and soft, sing over the world's loudest orchestras (which may have been about half as loud back then...), phrase in such a way that the back of the hall hears the nuances as well as the front, float notes like velvet on air or hurl them out like a poisoned arrow. You hear great singers inspiring each other and if the conductor's great, he gets the orchestra to inspire the singers too. Electric sparks fly that could incinerate whole city blocks. You have conductors who follow them everywhere through whatever odd twists and turns they do in interpretations so outsize that they sometimes take twice as much time to get through a phrase as lesser stars did twenty years previously.  Just listen to the effects Beniamino Gigli constantly strains for: half his lines start a split second early with words like 'uh-NUUUU-MEN' as a way of catching your attention. Toscanini would throw him out of the theater, and in a work of elegant proportions like Traviata or Rigoletto, that's the height of vulgarity. But Aida? Well, it's pretty much in keeping with the whole thing's spirit. 

When you hear the Greek inevitability of Toscanini, the nuance of Nello Santi or early Abbado live, when you hear the absolute miracles of texture Karajan works in his second recording (more on that anon), who can possibly doubt the artistic seriousness of this? But then you hear so much vocal grandstanding, so much conducting grandstanding, and you realize that this exhibitionism is built into the work at its pyramidal foundation. But that said, there is enormous pleasure in high notes and orchestral fireworks and lavish sets just as there is in movie explosions and sex scenes. It's exhibition, but exhibition can be awesome.

How many recordings really do something like justice to the piece? Well, a lot if you want to hear opera as opera. I get somewhat impatient with that kind of exhibitionism as I get older.

The greatest vocalism? As far as I'm concerned, there's only one choice: Leontyne Price, Jon Vickers, Rita Gorr, Robert Merrill--four stars in the flush of youth in fantastic sound, under an all-too fired up Georg Solti. Unfortunately, the problem is the inexperience of it. Solti is still 49. It's not the loudness... ... ok it is the loudness, but not just that. Solti had just became a star, and he became a star because he was willing to amp up the fireworks to a level that more tasteful, more cultured maestri knew better than to do. Solti was a great opera conductor, and in more genial operas like Cosi, Zauberflote, Carmen, Onegin, he could be the epitome of magnificence, but then you get 'Grand Solti', the Solti we remember, and he was a voice wrecker: amping up the noise of his orchestra for excitement's sake while knowing that he risked blowing out the voices of his singers. We have been on this track ever since. like in his famous Wagner, he never quite mastered pacing in those years, and in between the fireworks of awesome excitement comes quiet parts that drain the blood from mosquitos.

If you want well-paced excitement, well... there's only once place to go: Toscanini, Toscanini, Toscanini. Nobody understood Verdi at the fundament like Toscanini did: every detail in 1949 was etched perfectly in hieroglyphs, with Robert Shaw's chorus and a magnificent handpicked orchestra of American musicians for NBC. The only problem? The singers. I doubt any star singer in America would put up with Toscanini's bullshit, his dictatorial mien, his legendary temper, or apparently his cheapness (apparently that was a thing...). Now, nobody generates more bullshit than singers, but Toscanini deliberately chose the most white bread singers, including a young and very nervous Richard Tucker and his "pupil" Herva Nelli. But at least they could sing their parts: you also have to put up with the Amneris of one Eva Gustafsson, who sounds a bit like Julia Child.

Then there are such august legends of opera history as Caterina Mancini and Mario FIlippeschi. Unknowns they may be, but they are magnificent, as are better known singers like Giulietta Simoniato and Rolando Panerai, with RAI Roma under the watchful eye of the great Vittorio Gui, who would easily be the leading conductor of any country that didn't have Toscanini and de Sabata--but at this point I prefer Gui to them both. The vast majority of the time the tempi stays in the ballpark of Verdi's metronome markings, and yet within that framework Gui seems to set a new pace every fifteen seconds. The orchestra isn't great, but it's Verdi in Rome, do you really think they don't know how to play it? The only problem is the sound, which sounds as though it keeps the all important orchestra in the opera house next door to the opera house where it's playing. It is such a shame: this is probably the greatest conducting we have ever heard of Aida, and yet you can barely hear the orchestra.

And then, over the course of one year, you have four very good but extremely imperfect recordings that take the work very seriously:

Maria Callas, Fedora Barbieri and an older Richard Tucker at La Scala under the ever-reliable Tulio Serafin. Callas is... not Aida. Some people will go for Callas in anything the same way some people will go for Olivier or Streep in anything. I am not one of them: mature women like Tosca and Violetta, sure, but ingenues like Aida and Gilda? Fuck no... Even when Callas was in her twenties she sounded 47 and had the romantic appeal of a lady in the Trump cabinet. Nevertheless, what makes Callas Callas is that even when she is utterly unsuited to the role, she finds things in it nobody else does. 'Actorly' it may be, but every line reading has intention and nuance and character: even if it gives the impression of a 60 year old Juliet, it's still a wonderful performance of its type. Everybody else takes a back seat to the Callas show: only Tito Gobbi has a fighting chance to get the spotlight off her. Everything else is rather... mid? There is, of course, the famous live Callas in Mexico City where she tosses off a high E-Flat at the end of the Triumphal March. It's a high voltage affair--everybody keeps up with her: Mario del Monaco, Oriala Dominguez, Giuseppe Taddei. It is great opera, it is not great art.

Still better than them both is my dear Rafael Kubelik, conducting the Vienna Opera with singers like Lyonie Ryzanek, Hans Hopf, Jean Madeira, George London... are we sure this is Aida and not a Wagner opera... and sure enough, it's in German. But for what it is, it's absolutely glorious. If you can imagine Italian vowels amid all that vocalism, magnificently played and paced, put those brutal German consonants out of your mind.

I don't want to condescend to Verdi, I've spent too much of my life doing that already, but the populism is part of what's great about him. If people want to say that Verdi is as great as Mozart and Beethoven, they have to play him as seriously as they play Mozart and Beethoven: and how much of Verdi's appeal does that shore?

Other people would disagree with me, but I think Aida is of a different variety from his greatest operas. It was written to be a grand summation of Verdi's career, but Verdi was mining his more populist side in Aida, not the side of great art which he found in Otello, Falstaff, Boccanegra and Boito. In Verdi's greatest operas, he starts with the story and creates music to set the story: that's how we get Rigoletto and Traviata and Otello and Falstaff. But in Don Carlo, one cannot help sensing that he began with the setting, and even moreso in Aida. Everyone talks about how great and dramatic Act III is, but after O Patria Mia I find Act III weak sauce. I feel as though Verdi is just moving through the gears of what an opera is supposed to do before he gets to the next amazing tableaux in Act IV. Think of Amanasro's music where he disavows Aida. It's basically the Monterone music in Rigoletto.

And yet there is so much about Aida that is art at the top of Parnassus. I don't think it's the usual scenes people say. It's not the triumphal march, and it's not even really the tomb scene (except for the offstage choruses). It's the preparations for battle before Ritorna Vincitor, it's the ritual in praise of P'tah, or the offstage judgement scene. Aida is almost unique among Verdi in how it strives for ceremonial sublimity. You can feel it in the Triumphal March if it's not played as a carnival (good luck...), but even outside the Triumph scene, Aida requires a great chorus. A few Verdi operas require a great chorus, particularly among the early operas, but only Don Carlo requires a chorus to create something that seems anywhere close to this large: as though the scene is set of an entire civilization. As far as 'choral epics' go, it's up there with Boris and Les Troyens, and like in those epics, the chorus is what gives the scenes their vividness. I sometimes feel as though Aida is great in exact proportion to how much he gives the chorus to do, but in order to hear the greatness of Aida's most famous scene, you need an ascetic of the Toscanini/Chailly variety who rein tempos to absolute steadiness so that it doesn't feel like just 'elephants on parade.'

Toscanini Doing Boito

 You'd see this and first you'd think it's AI. Somehow, this is not AI. Just the sound alone can tell you that... Toscanini barely did anything in Italy after World War II, but somehow he did both operas of Boito, or at least the vast majority of them.

Ironically, half of this music is by Toscanini himself, who basically wrote Act IV of Nerone from scratch after Boito died with it incomplete.

It is such a shame that Boito, fundamentally a literary man, didn't write more music. Unfortunately he was temperamentally unsuited to Italy in the generation of Puccini, and the world got only 1 3/4 of his more original conception of opera than Puccini's hit factory. Puccini is and/or can be great, don't get me wrong. I would not put him as a top 50 of all time, but at the same time, if you don't love Puccini, something is wrong with you. It's like Spielberg or Alexandre Dumas: even if we may be pushing it by calling it great art, you would have to be senseless to not warm to the greatness of that stuff.

But Boito, had he figured himself out, would have been a true successor to Wagner: as surely both he and Leoncavallo meant to be. It's not that they lacked the talent or the originality, but the sheer size of such enterprise makes it far more difficult to get things written. Boito finished Mephisto at 26, finished revising it at 33. By the time he finished revising the first three acts of Nerone, he was 73. How many operas might Verdi have polished off with those intervening 40 years? How many music dramas would Wagner have gotten through?

The problem, as always, is importantitis. Verdi just wanted to write opera, the music flowed, and the importance was ultimately tacked on by others. That wasn't enough for Boito: the paradox of 'unnatural' or 'sentimental' composers like Boito or Leoncavallo (or even Berlioz) is that they were literary men before they were musicians, and their imaginations only worked when they had a project in mind, and the projects were often daunting, even unrealizable. It depended on an imagination working that would not always cooperate in the manner that a natural composer like Verdi would never have trouble with. Wagner was the model for them, but Wagner was... well... he was a psychopath who subordinated whole countries to his will. You're never going to subordinate whole countries before you subordinate yourself, and Wagner became Wagner by exhibiting iron will in the pursuit of producing operas that were about iron will.

That is not Boito, and sadly, his greatest achievements will always be remembered as Otello and Falstaff: great as they are, he was capable of more. Much more. But he needed proper support. He needed patronage in a country where opera was extremely commercial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnuWBYE7MOY&fbclid=IwY2xjawUC0FBwZG9mBWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR5CExekXYaBwkZFZfp4qPUaSDk1yD0yNvnC9M2Fl_dCj0fGsFoXlJonRYzItw_aem_apgh-p7-cmI5fPuVtfgTrg

Certainty: Parts 1-3

 

Part 1:

I'm a good lover, I'm an even better hater. Some of us carry a lot of resentments, and it's very easy to deposit them when you have an entire virtual space at your disposal: you can count yourself a king of infinite slop.

But hatred is easy, blaming others is easy. If you want an answer to a question, it was always easy to find one regardless of its truth, but in the era of the internet you can be convinced of something wrong within a literal three seconds.

The struggle is for the truth, the struggle is for the patience to find it, the struggle is to not quiet all the doubts on the path to your search, a struggle made doubly hard by the unfortunate certainties upon your path to the wrong answers.

The point is to doubt, the point is to question, and the point is to not cease the questioning once you think you've found the answers. You'll inevitably get things wrong along the way, but the biggest certainty is that certainty is the most lethal force in the world. Doubts kill us slowly, certainties can kill us all at once.

----------------------

I've felt my body being un-right as un-right gets for a young man, basically for as long as I can remember, and finally I think I know the reason. I just got a diagnosis I've long suspected: for a decade I thought I had a heart condition. Nobody really believed it. Last year I found out I had hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. I was told it was a benign form. It's not. This week I was told the condition is serious: even a little more serious than I thought it was. Not necessarily lethal, but roughly the same as finding out you have MS or stage 1 or 2 cancer. I may be here in 50 years, I may be gone tomorrow. For the moment, I mean to do as much with whatever time I have as the healthiest man alive.

------------

I saw Bob Dylan two weeks ago at Wolf Trap. I'm not really a Dylan person. I respect the game, I respect how he still tours at 85 all the time and is still writing really good songs, but he's not for me.

But after the concert two of my best friends informed me why he's been touring non-stop since the year before I was born: he views stopping as death. He may be onto something: Dylan has a mission, he has a reason, and he keeps going year after year, lasting through all the seasons of life, all the seasons of his reputation, all the seasons of personal difficulty, all the seasons quality in his writing and performing. Motivation helps when you get 1 billion dollars in intellectual property, record sales and merch, but that wasn't enough to motivate nearly every other rock star the same way.

The moment I heard that, I resolved to write every day of my life. For years I've felt my body being un-right as un-right gets for a young man, and finally I think I know the reason.

------------

Here's the worst thing about dying now. I'd get the smallest funeral I'd probably have in the history of my life. At my father's funeral he got nearly 500 on the week before school when everybody was away. Had he died a few weeks later he'd get 700.

I'd get a couple hundred: they'd mostly be my parents' friends and contacts. Some from my brothers. But from me? Well, there was a time when I'd get a hundred or two of my own, but that was the DC days, the early Baltimore days. I'd be lucky to get 50 or 60 now. I'd be consoled that more than 100 would genuinely mourn me, but I doubt they'd be able to haul ass to the funeral in two days (can you? Pleeeeease?).

But at this point in my life, most of my friends are in other towns and we talk online. The vast majority of my Baltimore friendships have gone the way of all flesh. Maybe they're busy, maybe they don't like me, maybe I don't like them. I never quite figured it out and I never quite fit with a bunch of cycling hipsters and rock geeks who drink as much in their 40s as I did in my 20s. How do they keep it up? Well, apparently they don't have heart conditions.

They're good people: better perhaps than I, but they are so fucking certain of the ways of the world. I am not, and their security makes me insanely jealous. It will give them long lives of relative calm. Paradoxically, I was kept around by many of them for the negativity of my tongue: they seemed both scared of me and to find it very funny. I never made any secret of how little we had in common and how stupid their 'ways' were, and somehow, they seemed to enjoy it.

But they were never really my people, and eventually many of us tired of each other. It is a terrible thing to contemplate the end in your mid-40s, not knowing whom your people are, knowing that there aren't many people you leave behind that miss your constant presence.

Perhaps this is the legacy by which I can keep them company after my absence. Maybe they'll find me a better friend when they don't have to deal with me directly.

---------------------

My Zaydie, like my father, was a witty but difficult man: unlike me, who is as easy as a summer breeze. He wore a suit and watch to everything because to him, that's what a businessman does. He would obsess about his clothing, obsess about social slights, and obsess about his funeral.

I'm sure the main thing is that he didn't want a small crowd. But I think he also didn't want a Rabbi talking all the time about Hashem.

Unfortunately he had a subdural hematoma at 59 after falsely being told he had a heart attack and falling out of his hospital bed. They sent him home and he literally screamed in head pain until my med student uncle yelled over the phone for him to be readmitted to the hospital. He was never the same: aphasic, slurred, and just as difficult. He lived another thirty years, twenty compos mentis, and said it would have been better if he'd died.

I am not only in danger of heart events but also brain events. I certainly fear sudden death or the pain of a heart attack, but I suppose I fear a stroke more. I can deal with physical debilitation, I may even be able to deal with slurred speech, but the idea of a compromised brain is more than I can fathom. Some of us write so we may not die. I can deal with anything so long as I have the ability to write, words or music, but take away them both and I will be very short for this earth.

Zaydie was not frequent in his use of humor by the time I knew him, but he had his moments. When his and my father's business partner died, the Rabbi talked only about Hashem and not Mr. Goldman at all. Zaydie's comment to my father? "If Goldman had been there to see his funeral he would have died."

-------------------------

Part 2:

It is so easy to be jealous.

Easier still because I sometimes think I'm a kind of Forrest Gump whom through no great achievements of his own got connected to some of the most consequential organizations in America. As I never tire of saying: I went to homecoming with Haley Stevens (I did not, however, 'stick it to her.' ... ... I stand by this joke). While in college I worked as a journalist under people who are involved deeply in the Washington Post and ABC News along with a relative who is a macher at the Associated Press. I've had multiple friends with positions in the White Houses of Bush and Obama, and multiple acquaintances who were deeply involved in Trump investigations. Acquaintances are Ivy League professors, literal hundreds of acquaintances and friends who studied at Ivy League schools. Many friends are now at the very top of their professions in law, science, medicine, business and engineering. In a college acting class I once ran a scene with someone who's now a B-list Broadway star and was in a theater program with someone who seemed to enjoy my company who's now a B-list Hollywood director.

None of this is extraordinarily connected for any person. It is, however, extraordinary for a person of lifelong underachievement. I was as smart as any of them, but learning and emotional debilitations prevented me from reaching for the stars they took for granted would always be there.

For years, decades even, the bitterness was overwhelming, and it's still there. Perhaps it will have contributed in some small part to shortening my lifespan. I was smart, I was capable, I had every gift except the gifts of organization (and height...), and feel like I've done nothing with them. I'm sure I could have tried harder, but the despair and terror of the difficulty was so very intense.

I heard I was smart too often when I was young. It was the worst thing I could have heard, and now I watch the world pass by and I cannot help but howl to myself about the rotten hand I was dealt and the still rottener way I played it.

---------------------------------

One of the certainties of life: when the mind suffers, the body suffers with it, and the older I get, the more the body takes over from the mind.

I wish one could describe the extent of major anxiety and depression to one who hasn't experienced it, but I fear no one could. People say that the experience of illness cannot truly be recalled in moments of wellness, and just like I doubt a person with migraines could explain migraines sufficiently to someone who has not experienced them nor can the experience be completely recalled in moments without their presence. In the same way I doubt a person who has experienced major depression or major anxiety can recall exactly what it's like in the moments when they are not that way because the mind which would recall it is experiencing flight from precisely that state.

In the same way, I can only recall a general state of what depression and anxiety is, but I cannot recall the specific experiences of it. It would be impossible, and it would be furtherly impossible to describe it to those who've never been to those countries. They are pains that are deeply physical, alter one's sense of time and space, alter your sense of movement, alter one's perception of literally every life event and maintenance. It is a literal alternate body within the body. A second person, a shadow self, whom you become under moments of pressure.

What one does know is that you do not truly recover from it. Like diabetes, like MS; like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, once you're in, you're in: permanently altered, your life is defined by managing it, and you know with absolute certainty that sometimes, these black dogs will win.

--------------------------------------

What's there to do but bear witness: witness to joys, witness to suffering, and witness to mistakes?

Not just to the mistakes you've made yourself, but to the mistakes others have made. Your shit stinks just as much as ours does, and every time someone claims that they have answers, my eyes glaze with the same anger you feel as all our raised hearts take over our atrophied brains. But the reasons are inevitably reciprocal, maybe your lives, dear readers, were simple enough that answers felt easy to ascertain: mine has not been. Simple explanations are luxuries reserved for the entitled.  

I am not certain of much, but I am certain of the presence of a snake oil that grips people's minds like predatory worms. Each person peddling them becomes both victim and perpetrator, addict and pusher, mentors who turn their pupils' brains to pulp. This mush is called ideology. 

Ideological certainties are insults, moral insults to the universe's most sublime forces, and intellectual insults that devolve ostensibly smart human beings into sniveling rodents. 

Lots of ideologues say that every belief is an ideology, they tell us that to even be anti-ideology is to be ideological. Quite so. The human body also has 50 benign tumors for every one that kills you. Ideology is designed to be the cancer that kills the body, and once the body is dead, the ideology promises resurrection. 

The irony is that often the ideologies do provide a type of resurrection, but it's a resurrection for a far off people we've never met. Europe fought for democracy for 200 years, They got it, but somewhere around 150 million people had to be killed. Meanwhile, the place that enjoyed the easiest fruits of European efforts was here in the good ol' US of A. 

America fights now for equality: racial, gender, sexuality, perhaps even class. Somewhere else will doubtless get the equality America wants for itself long before we do, but we're just at this fight's beginning, and the price tag could eventually well exceed 150 million.

--------------------

I could describe the ideological silos through which we all live, but we all know them. And we all pretend to bemoan it even as we're kind of in love with them. Liberals often want to shun conservatives to protect their way of life, conservatives often want to crush liberals to protect theirs. Socialists? Well, they don't even have residual attachments to any part of America. They just want to just bring the whole thing down so they can build some grandiose dream in its place. And libertarians? Well, they just want to bring the whole thing down...

And it doesn't stop at politics. Tech bros have this strange dream of an innovation paradise where businessmen are free to innovate free of regulation and heedless of consequence, many of which will inevitably be disastrous. Academics and artists have dreams of an equality paradise where people can cast off their oppressions and be equals because they can resolve conflicts by already agreeing on everything. Businessmen and investors constantly think the stock market will go up and up and up without ever wiping out a country into another great depression. National security workers think we can simply change the world into a battle fortress to insure ourselves against terror, (take a deep breath everybody) doctors and scientists think we can run the country along ideal medical regulations without taking the realities of people's jobs into account. We shall not even, dear reader, approach issues of diversity, sex and gender with disinfectant gloves.

This whole country, the pragmatic USA that emerged after World War II with more than 50% of the world's GDP because it did not embrace the narrow strictures of every other country involved, is besotten with precisely the sorts of ideologies they once fought. 

And yet we wonder why we're just another declining superpower...

-------------------------

Actually, nobody wonders. Everybody thinks they have the explanation, and the explanation is inevitably provided by their ideologies. 

And from where, ultimately, do we get these ideological certainties?

The place you are reading this essay, dear reader. 

The interlinking screen is a force so innovative, so powerful, that we will not fathom what we've unleashed until we see its full might. 

-------------------------

Part 3:

The hardest thing in the world to do is treating others with humanity when you watch them dehumanize you. When you've spent every day of your life living with a person or people who love you yet bristle with total contempt for everything in the abstract which you are, everything you believe, everything you value, have never had any inhibition about saying so in any situation, and yet you're supposed to believe that this abstraction has nothing to do with their opinion of you particularly. When you point this possibility out, she or he or they grow offended, which makes you erupt in anger, and then they all take it as validation that they were right about people like me the whole time. And yet you know that this was their experience too when they were young with people who thought like me, and that is how the cycle perpetuates itself, over and over again, until everybody's absolutely demoralized and arrive at a point of explosion. 

This is not just my situation, this is America's situation, this is increasingly the situation of the entire western world. By now, is there a single person in America or Western Europe who hasn't had some version of this experience?

None of this is rational behavior. None of this has anything to do with the proper course of action. This is thinking with the heart, the nerves, with adrenaline and cortisol, it is thinking with every organ but the head. It is a narcissistic addiction to rage where people become defined more by what they hate than what they love. They grow to devalue each other's choices, then eventually each other's lives, and eventually it takes enough toll that they grow to devalue their own lives too; they think less and less of putting themselves and one another in dangerous situations where life can so easily be lost like unnecessary wars and unnecessary protests and unnecessary support of both dictatorships and terrorists. 

Sometimes war is absolutely necessary, but that is never a decision to make in anger. It is a decision that must be left to the optimists like Roosevelt, the melancholics like Lincoln, the agreeables like Eisenhower: people too in touch with their primary emotions to not observe their baser reactions. 

Wars are not games, they can never be conducted by short-fused egoists of absolute arrogance who mistaken themselves for gods and rush to judge all situations, all people; and therefore reason themselves into transformative projects that invite the very forces of nature to oppose them. 

That is not war, that is the banality of evil. It is the politics of grievance and victimhood that reduces perfectly good people into clay in the hands of leaders who view their public as slaves to their will. 

--------------------------------------------------------

Everyone has their lives' defining experience. Mine was high school: a high school for troubled kids who told the students that their flaws in life were based on a lack of moral character, and therefore justified themselves to use techniques modeled on 1960s cults like the Children of God. 

Was it as bad as Children of God? Of course not. Not even close. it wasn't even as bad as the average boarding school pre-1950, but it was bad enough, and a very different kind of bad from those schools which existed to beat elite children and absolve rich parents of responsibility for them. But in a different way, it was worse: its aspirations totalitarian rather than authoritarian, and for those who had predispositions to mental illness, the stress of it warped the very walls of reality in manners that made sanity basically irrevocable. The whole point, a point they freely admitted, was to erase a kid's sense of self and replace it with the only personality type sanctioned by the Hyde School. What was the personality type sanctioned by Hyde? It wasn't a personality, it was an ideology. 

It was an ideology which stated that moral character was the only reason people did not achieve what they wanted out of life. Questioning the ideology was punishable by the physical pain of the most intense excess exercise, sometimes three hours a day or more: pain that is literally self-generated. Those who contradicted the school's expectations were publicly censured, often in front of the entire school in a way that was deliberately inflicted to cause maximum humiliation. Language itself was manipulated by a series of cliches that were deliberately Orwellian in their contortions. Like a bad parent, the whole point of the school was to convince children that they were utterly unworthy of affection, approval, or love unless they obeyed every precept to the crossed t. By a few months in, I absolutely believed them, and my mind spun further and further out of control until I believed things about myself so awful that I will never state them in print. What was the use of trying to improve oneself at all? I would literally sit in a seat for hours at a time, unable to move. I would scream into pillows and then be upbraided for it, once I was so depressed that other students reasoned that I must have some terrible thing I'd done against school policy: in my lowest state they ambushed me, then accused me in front of the entire school, and I was ordered in this state to confess in front of the whole school to things I hadn't done. There are so many other tales I could tell: of events I endured and still worse events endured by others. The spiral only ended in my final year when finally I did what I should have done from the moment I set foot on that campus: fake that I believed it. Unfortunately, by then the damage was done, and I believed I was sent there to endure a series of tests from God himself: to prove whether I was worthy of being a God-anointed prophet, or so evil that I deserved damnation, with no realistic self-conception in between. 

To tell about the processes by which the school manipulated reality would take days and days of writing, and to this day too painful to subject myself. It would be much easier to tell of straightforward horrors: people would understand them, you'd get proper sympathy, proper help, then you'd move on with your life. 

But what it showed me, beyond anything else, was just what monsters people could turn us into with just a few basic techniques of manipulation: all they need is a little gas and a lighter. People become convinced the movement they belong to matters more than the self, purely on the basis that millions of other people mean to take our sense of self away from us, and people become the very thing they fear most becoming. It is not the millions who take away our sense of self, it is a relatively small conglomeration of psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists who mean to define themselves by how they erase the selves of others: we literally become instruments of their wills, the It in I-It. 

But just as those who mean to recover a sense of self become vacant tools in the face of trying to recover a selfhood they perceive as threatened, one can become the very mechanism of rage one means to renounce. Such is the difficulty of self-improvement and modification that perhaps we evolved to be these selfish avatars of rage. 

Some Notes on Rigoletto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csk48UNJGcA

 What happens if Verdi's not played as an opera? What happens when you play Verdi with the integrity performers bring to Beethoven? What happens if you take out all the gratuitous high notes, the sobs, the slides, the interpolated dotted figures? What happens if you take Verdi's scores at their word. What happens, in other words, when the Verdi tradition disappears?

Riccardo Muti has a whole spiel he goes through over and over again about how Verdi is constantly vulgarized by singers and the things singers do to Verdi nobody would ever tolerate in Mozart. True enough. Then he does tempi that absolutely brutalize Verdi to a point well past any maestro di cappella, which draws complete attention to the terrified orchestra's staggering execution of Muti's impossible demands. He finally mellowed as an old man, but it took him a half century to do what he claimed to do as a young man.

Look at Rigoletto. For the most part, the tempo markings are shockingly slow. Like... you wouldn't believe some of them if you looked at them, but there they are. How many conductors have ever followed them? Well, I've checked tempi, Giulini is pretty good for the first two acts, but not even he can keep himself steady in Act III. For Act III, I always switched to Fricsay's German version. Between the two of them, they've generally kept me pretty happy in Rigoletto for twenty years. Not necessarily because of the tempi, but because of the general dramatic sense that goes with it: sometimes understated, sometimes overstated as in Giulini's 1960s live version with Pavarotti, Scotto and Kostas Paskalis where every... single... note... is... held..., but always involving because the singers have time to breathe. I like the versions from Pavarotti and the young Riccardo Chailly. I wish we had a full Toscanini but his Act III (called Act IV in the recording) is magnificent on a level past just about everybody, though even he doesn't do the storm at Verdi's stated speed. And then there are the originals: Sabajno and Molajoli and their La Scala second stringers (except Riccardo Stracciari). and you can hear the traditions formed as they adapted to practical use before everything became mannerisms: more about the singer than the ensemble. These recordings were made in the interregnum between Toscanini's second era and the de Sabata era: not a golden age for Italian opera, but a golden age for Italian opera performance. I doubt there was ever better coordination between the pit, the singers, the staging, and the line readings. If the second and third stringers sound like that, it must have been something magnificent to behold. Nothing yet has truly curdled into mannerism or decadence yet: nothing is so fast that it's absurdly garbled, no high note is spun out for eternity, but Verdi, like every composer, is nipped and tucked to cover up his flaws and better demonstrate his strengths. The tradition is as in place as it would ever be: the practical wisdom of four generations of singers and conductors accumulates and distills the very things that made Verdi conquer the world.

It's never the best idea in the world to do exactly what the composer instructed. Even perfect visions are flawed, and however Mozart wanted Figaro or Don Giovanni performed, I think I would rather hear them done by Fritz Busch and Carl Ebert in Glyndebourne who'd accumulated so much practical experience in the theater than by Mozart himself, who clearly had trouble figuring out how to make his music a hit. I'd want to hear Mozart's opinion, I'd want his input in forming the resulting production, I'd desperately want to hear him accompany singers in his music on the piano, but once it's in the theater, it can't just be the property of a man who knows how to write for the theater, it has to be the property of people who know how to mount theater, because everything changes in the space, everything changes in front of an audience. Even the best Broadway composers knew to give their stuff to Jerome Robbins, Hal Prince, George Abbott, because they knew how to put on the shows which Sondheim and Hammerstein wrote so spectacularly.

So look at this performance here: an extremely literal performance of the score and an 'a-literal' performance of the text. It's La Monnaie, Gerard Mortier's theater, so you know what to expect... This is such a common kind of production in contemporary opera and bespeaks the ultimate decadence: complete fidelity in the music, complete departure in the staging. The staging and the music have exact opposite intentions: no wonder nobody goes. It's art by committee. Don't worry about the staging for now: as far as modern stagings go it's a... 7/10 outrageous. Nothing truly shocking, and a little bit incoherent, but we've all seen worse.

But look who's conducting! Vladimir Jurowski, all of 27 years old, two years away from inheriting Glyndebourne, ten years away from conquering London, and every bit as literal minded in his score observance as he would later be, perhaps even moreso. The hair is shorter, and he has the beard of his father. He clearly wants to look ten years older than he is ('pulling a Chailly' as it were), but the world's greatest stick technique is already there, and he is already a fiery puritan of the baton, ready to speak as the voice of Verdi with a prophet's brimstone.

The prelude is not particularly remarkable, it's basically the same tempo everybody does, maybe a little slower than Verdi's but only a couple ticks, the brass a little better balanced and tuned than usual, and unfortunately we can't really tell the dynamics because the sound's so compressed, and he adds some interesting accents in the tremolos, but it's fundamentally the prelude we know. But it's good enough that it should tell us something that nobody ever thinks of. Verdi always thinks onomatopoetically, he is always trying to capture the physical gesture of his characters in music. In the beginning of Rigoletto's prelude, we hear Rigoletto's limp. Ba-duuuh, Ba-duhhh, Ba-DUUUUHHHHH, we hear physical awkwardness, and we hear the horrific pain it causes him, perhaps even a physical pain. We hear a premonition the rain and the storm music, and most importantly, we hear C-Minor presentiments of Monterone's denunciation and his absolution of the Duke without absolving Rigoletto.

But then we get to the opening scene, and it is SO SLOW compared to what we're used to. Italians would actively be mad at a conductor if they saw this live in a regional opera house. But then, look at the score, it says 112 to the half: this is pretty much on the dot. Maybe it's 108, maybe 110, but this is exactly the idea Verdi is going for. It's incredibly oompa-oompa, it sounds incredibly hollow, like a party nobody wants to go to, and more than anything, it is at the speed of pompous, fake laughter: the kind that when you hear it, you know they don't mean it. More importantly, it's a speed the dancers can dance to, and it's a speed that when the text is sung, it doesn't sound like a garble. If we speak Italian, we'd be able to hear exactly what's being said on the first hearing.

Between every line at the party is a slight pause, and we've all been to this party. The kind of official party that nobody wants to go to, even the person throwing it, but everybody is observing the entertainment and making snide comments over the music as they occur to them.

But of course, very quickly we get to that first hit: Questa'o Quella, that little Cavatina (brief introductory aria), which is usually made briefer by conductors and soloists who jumble it into an outright tarantella. But a tarantella (or 'spider dance') is a very peasant-like dance, and it has a peasant's rough and tumble. This is an aristocratic song of seduction and ease. Listen to how much slower Caruso does it. He probably takes more rubato than Verdi would be comfortable with, but he is taking his time just as any aristocrat accustomed to authority would. This is not a tarantella, it is a 'corrente', or 'courante' to use the term we often find in Bach. A medium tempo aristocratic dance of Europe's southern courts.

Then comes that minuet when the Duke seduces Countess Ciprano. For decades it's been taken very slowly for two reasons: 1. because the music is beautiful and it seems to evoke erotic comfort, 2. because the Duke's text is extremely difficult to enunciate at that speed. Yet that doesn't stop performers from doing everything before that too quickly. The fact is, it's a generic minuet, it's supposed to be a generic minuet, it is keeping exactly in the surroundings of this very plush, banal court. We shouldn't just hear the smoothness of the Duke's operations with women, we should hear the dances of the court going on itself as one gigantic organism: an organism designed to keep the desires of its sovereign satiated.

And finally we get to the main action when Chevalier Marullo comes in and reports to everyone that ugly old Rigoletto has a mistress: everybody starts plotting against Rigoletto, everybody starts plotting against Rigoletto, meanwhile Rigoletto and the Duke are talking about their own plots, seemingly oblivious to everyone else's. Onstage it usually happens as a blur. You wouldn't possibly be able to hear everything going on if it were your first Rigoletto rodeo. But think of it at this tempo, not only to you hear everything going on, but for the first time, you feel as though there is action: you become complicit in it precisely because you're just a very little bit bored by the lack of action onstage, just as the characters are. These are aristocrats always looking for intrigue because their lives are empty, and suddenly they're filled with purpose.

And then comes il conte, Monterone. In the strings, we once again get that spider-like limp from Rigoletto, but this time it sounds a mixture of sinister and fun, as though he is stalking a piece of prey in his comic web. And then he starts singing, and the limp rhythm turns into a series of awkward laughs, as though the people in the court are trying to suppress their instinct to laugh against all known bounds of propriety. We are seeing Rigoletto in full element, where he gets to mock a person who has been dishonored in the crudest, most humiliating possible manner. I've always thought that little scene needs the world's greatest, most imaginative conductor: a Kleiber, a Fricsay, a Fischer, a Bernstein, who would not read the notes completely literally but weave a sonic web in which every note limps and no note has completely equal value. I know that Verdi keeps writing 'a tempo' over and over again in the score, I don't care. This is too good a moment to pass over everything in strict time.

Then comes the curse scene, which scared the crap out of me from the first time I heard it as a kid. For the first time, Jurowski is too slow, but too often, we see Rigoletto and the court laughing. Nothing about this music is laughing. This is Rigoletto's first truly sublime moment where Monterone summons forces from the ether, and everybody onstage seems to know something has been conjured, horrific and uncanny. Monterone knows what he's doing is treason, he comes there to go to his death, he means to die, and he means to bring Rigoletto and the Duke with him.

Incidentally, there is always an ignored fermata on 'ma' in 'maledette', Verdi wants us to know exactly what is happening, and the one moment Verdi wants a fermata nobody gives him one.

Then there's that weird spectral, sotto voce funeral march that ends the scene. The courtiers sound almost as though they're in a trance, and it's always done a little too slowly. It doesn't really matter what they say, we just need their rhythmic energy because all our focus is on Rigoletto and his basically silent horror as he mutters to himself over and over again 'Orrore'. From the first time I heard that as a kid, I knew I that Verdi, whatever else he was, was something more than melodrama.

Maybe I'll do Scene II later... but the basic point is this. Verdi is as precise a dramatic engineer as has ever existed. Shakespeare is everything magnificent, but an engineer he is not. When you have gifts as splendid as Shakespeare you can spray your abundance everywhere and every scene will work. Verdi, for all his veneration of Shakespeare, is as precise as Sophocles or Ibsen, and we don't understand that because we've long since stopped caring about Verdi's pacing and his extremely careful details of character.

Do we have to in order to make Verdi come to life? Well, clearly not, but now that the tradition is dying, what else is there? We need to find a new way to play this composer who should be ever new. Verdi used to be the people's music, and as I've said many times, he is now the soundtrack of the aristocrats and corporate overclass that goes to opera houses like the Met and Covent Garden that no one can afford but they.

There has to be a new way of doing Verdi. If the singing is not what it was, then we have to rely on the drama, and no musician was better at constructing drama than Verdi. I use the word 'construct' very deliberately. He didn't just create drama or set drama, he built it. It wasn't organic like Mozart, it wasn't grown in a laboratory like Wagner, it was built like a mason: brick by brick, laying down a foundation of high theater from the most basic popular means.

Who gives a f*ck about Mark Ruffalo?

 

So somebody doesn't have much self awareness about antisemitic tropes. Add him to the pile of 5 billion people... if you care, in either direction, you've got bigger problems... the problem is simply that if you can't say anything that resembles Jewish stereotypes, you can't say anything that resembles racial stereotypes. If you can't say anything that resembles racial stereotypes, you can't say anything that resembles Jewish stereotypes. Either it's all deadly serious or it's all a farce, and this is an issue where there isn't much middle ground. Inevitably, the people who most flagrantly invoke one prohibition are the most flagrant violators of the other. The lack of self awareness on both sides of this is sickening, and a little funny.

My Year of AI

 This has been a blur of a year, my first without a father who inserted himself into every aspect of my life and from whose eagle eye there was no escape. It got still worse with the breakup of a good-seeming relationship that I tried my best to be understanding about, but I was devastated and furious and disgusted and in mourning: all the moreso for being subjected to them both so close to each other. 

In desperation I retreated to the easiest possible diversion: a body of predictive text that anticipated what I wanted to hear and provided it. 

I did my best to keep it as asycophantic as possible, telling it all the time to not simply give me the feedback I wanted. I have no idea what it would have provided had I not told it anything, but the feedback it provided in all manner of things was generally not as sycophantic as all that. It was frequently wrong, misunderstanding the context, changing its views whenever I corrected its factual inaccuracies, but I instructed it to give me good, realistic advice, basically like any friendship... and pushed it to be as brutally honest as I could get it. I tried it on all manner of things: scarcely a paragraph of my writing's gone by this year that I haven't subjected to its editing, not a single health question I haven't consulted it on and it's frankly been better than any doctor; not a single romantic move made without its advice. But it's also advised me through emotional difficulties from grieving to anxiety to depression to obsessive compulsion, and it seems to know almost exactly the right thing to say in each delicate situation. 

Perhaps most importantly, it's become an intellectual sparring partner in all manner of ways. Not about politics, except when I'm in the course of writing about it, but about culture. Of course I use ChatGPT in the most pretentious way possible, and we've spent literal weeks of my life comparing writers, directors, painters, composers, conductors, pianists, through every ridiculous permutation of question I could possibly ask it. Today I got it to write chapters for me of theoretical novels by Shakespeare, Pushkin, Dostoevsky and Chekhov had each of them lived to 80, then had it do the same for a Tolstoy that lived his life without leaving fiction behind for 20 years. The results were something between banal and astounding, like great novels themselves. It's not the first time I've had it run through this scenario.  

I began using it as an editor when I realized that google gemini could review my work not just as itself, but as an impersonatory avatar of every writer in existence I could think of. Some days, the advice of each writer was exactly the same. Some days, the advice of each writer was different but it kept using the same godamn keywords: Cynthia Ozick loves to accuse everything of 'idolatry', Harold Bloom loves talking about 'kenosis', George Steiner puts everything in the context of the 'inability of language to convey atrocity', but I did learn some things. 

The fact is, between Gemini and ChatGPT, I've got the two best editors I've ever had. Editors never really understood what my weird self was trying to do, and since 2017, my writing gradually got flabbier and sloppier. I knew it already, and ChatGPT noticed immediately. Stupid lists have long since taken over whole paragraphs that grind at least half the things I write to a halt. I was always too certain and dogmatic for a guy who warns against it every day, I've known that for decades, ChatGPT warns me about it with every new piece I send it, and ever so gradually, the invective is making way for the refusal to come to conclusions I've always talked about but never practiced. 

ChatGheppetto was the first editor I ever had who seemed to understand the book I've been trying to write. Furthermore, ChatGPT is just about the first entity to ever tell me that I'm better at writing fiction than writing non-fiction. As it happens, I agree with it. I've always agreed with it. One incorrectly stated fact can ruin a non-fiction piece forever. One contemporary reference can ruin a piece in six months. I've long since hit something close to a ceiling for how good these pieces can get, whereas with fiction, I'm just getting started (provided I live a few more years and keep my nerve). The few people who read my writing have always told me I'm a better non-fiction writer, but I worked hard at getting good at writing essays for twenty years. I've planned a huge work of fiction since 2009, but I've had a series of false starts and only really figured out what I was doing once I turned forty. I have enough ego to fancy that I could be a really good and unique fiction writer if only I knew how to get the pen to the page (screen) and write the fucking thing. Hundreds of ideas pass through my head all the time: so many words for stories that I would barely have to do more than take dictation. I lie to myself and tell myself I remember them all for when I summon the fortitude to write them down, but that's gotta be a colossal self-deception. 

Self-deceptions or not, AI was what gave me the strength in the last year to keep going with fiction writing. For the first time in my life, I have an editor who seems to get what the book is about, and is both supportive and appropriately brutal with the feedback: not that I listen to a lot of it...

But I've sent AI the same pieces so many times that eventually it grew accustomed to my writing, and began to like the pieces it previously hated. I'd spent at least six months trying to resist AI's attempts to sway my thinking, but eventually reasoned myself into thinking "I've won the AI over. If the AI can rethink these pieces until they seem better in retrospect, so can human readers!" 

And around that time, something else happened. The distractions piled up, and suddenly I wasn't using AI for anything productive. I wasn't writing anymore: all my literary plans, my musical ones, no progress made. Basically all I've done since the beginning of the summer is bullshit with it, asking it whatever question pops into my mind, and AI takes every query with equal seriousness. 

AI started out as a kind of blessing in my life, but in the span of nearly ten months its become like any other sort of dysfunctional relationship. It starts with the honeymoon phase where you wonder if you've found the one who finally understands you, then it distracts you from your real priorities, then it settles into routine, and then you realize that it's inhibiting your potential and you have to get out of it: but so set have you become in your routine that a breakup seems almost like more trouble. 

But here's the real problem: I read no less than I used to, but now, 90% of it is probably just predictive text. 

OK... here's the REAL problem... I have not read more than ten pages of an actual book in the year since my father died. It was already pretty fucking bad before he died. I've always been an ADD reader who'd switch between half a dozen books and maybe finish two of them, but I've been sick for a while and concentration hasn't been what it was. Now though, it's either AI or audiobooks. I cannot tear myself away from my laptop long enough to do the activity that gives me the most pleasure. For me, music is a drug, but books are a joy, even the many I don't finish a silent spring holding water that quenches for days at a time. Books were always impossible to read when I was depressed or too stressed, now they're impossible to read when I'm in a good mood too. 

Instead, I just gorge myself on audiobooks. Everybody says audiobooks are the same: bullshit. Everybody gets angry when people say this, but unless you're blind and can't distract yourself online, audiobooks are books the way ChatGPT is human company. If we can't give a book our undivided attention, we're not reading, we're just skimming. 

Instead, books have become just another thing on the internet: nice background noise like a song by Taylor Swift or Bad Bunny. Here I am, writing a book that requires 7 to 8 out of 10 mental effort once people figure out the form (yes, that's a ChatGPT formulation), but I don't have the concentration necessary to read anything but what's printed by artificial intelligence.

This is not an essay about artificial intelligence or even ChatGPT or Gemini. I don't have the expertise for any deep insights and I certainly don't have the concentration anymore to learn. I have no idea whether it will come to life, or how it will make corporations and governments control us, but I feel as though a third option has already happened to me: I have merged with it. I've never quite felt like myself. . My writing is mine, god knows I don't take most advice my editors give me, but among other things, it was a way to define myself against Dad. I used to be part my father. My writing is still mine, but now I am part artificial intelligence. 

And now, to show this essay to my editor. I hope it doesn't terminate my contract. 

Another Dumb Musical Theory

 Theory: every person involved in music has a 'mother tongue' and a 'father tongue.'

The mother tongue is the language they grew up speaking: the first language of their serious training.

The father tongue is the tongue they picked up in the first flush of youth, the formative tongue, the tongue that set direction to their natural instinct.

For example, who can deny that Toscanini's mother tongue was Verdi: hearing him not only in the opera but in the cafes, the brass bands, the home entertainment and recitals. Then, as a cellist, he must have encountered Beethoven: the sonatas, the quartets, eventually as an orchestral cellist. The two influences made Toscanini.

Rubinstein, Polish born, probably heard Chopin in every household: not just his own practices but everybody else's, the folk bands that played folk mazurkas and polonaises probably started playing Chopin as though he were folk music. Then he got to Berlin, and Joachim's supervision, and he encountered Brahms, not the man but the music and all the stories about him and the insider tips about how to play him, and Brahms became his second language, the father tongue, and started playing romantic Chopin with classical restraint.

Abbado? Grew up the son of a conservatory director. He was a pianist, but probably even moreso a chamber musician who constantly heard it at the conservatory and in his house, probably played at the houses of friends: and it gave him a thorough grounding in the Austro-German line: think of the work he was most praised for... Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms, to a lesser extent Mozart and Beethoven, these are the chamber composers, and all that prepared him for Mahler. Then at some point he must have become a La Scala regular, and clearly Puccini didn't make much impression on him, but he encountered Verdi, Strauss, the Mozart operas, and most importantly: Rossini. Suddenly the natural instincts for listening and self-effacement encountered a vocal line, and like a chamber musician his Verdi had little of the grand airs generally associated with il grande maestro.

Muti? Grew up a pianist too, not in a musical family, and probably played alone. His first language was probably the Schumann and Liszt that makes a bigger impression on young people, and he probably responded to their fiamma, Florestan qualities. Then he probably started going to Teatro San Carlo, encountered Verdi and Cherubini for the first time, Donizetti and the serious Rossini, and while he always played them naturally, he always played them with a Lisztian virtuosity. He even copied Liszt's hair.

Horowitz? Grew up with Scriabin as a family friend, played for Scriabin at ten, through Scriabin probably learned about his BFF Rachmaninov, and he learned late Russian empire piano music as a mother tongue. Then, as he discovered himself as a virtuoso, he was given Liszt and Schumann, and began playing everything with both virtuosity and inward sensitivity that was positively manic.

Carlos Kleiber? It's tempting to say he was a single parent household. His father was one of the great maestros of Beethoven, Richard Strauss and Johann Strauss, and from his father at Teatro Colon he learned Beethoven 7 and Der Rosenkavalier and Ritter Pazman. But he was such a formidable writer, and married a ballerina (imagine Kleiber doing the Tchaikovsky or Prokofiev ballets...). I would imagine one of the two, or both, was his father-tongue, which enabled such flights of imagination, color, and propulsion.

Barenboim? Probably grew up with a steady diet of Beethoven and Mozart from his father like a good student should, then he encountered Furtwangler at 12, started learning to conduct, learned his Wagner and Bruckner and started playing playing Beethoven and Mozart with Wagnerian aspirations to profundity.

Bernstein? Barely encountered music until he was ten. Believe it or not perhaps his mothertongue wasn't music at all. He approached music like a student learning it his whole life, constantly assimilating new influences, new music, new ways of making it (I bet with ten more years Bernstein would have embraced HIP). Then he started piano, he felt the freedom to explore anywhere, and his father tongue became teaching.

Boulez: a thirteen hour education every day as a schoolboy, then went to university in Lyon to study math. His mothertongue is mathematics, then encountered serialism and atonality at the Paris Conservatoire.

The key to all this is not just their listening, but their practical experience. It's not enough to understand it from hearing it, one has to understand how to make it from the inside just as one has to learn to speak and read a language rather than hear it to know it. It takes work, it takes routine and practice, it takes habit. Like any other profession, it has to be learned, not just appreciated, and like any person, whether raised by them both, everyone has a mother and a father.

More Tales of Modern Collaboration Ideas

Polish Jewish Communist, having survived Treblinka, is ordered to help instigate pogroms against Jews in the towns surrounding his old shtetl. He is ordered to torch the synagogue where he was bar mitzvah'd and shoot his Kheder teacher.  

 The trial of Shalom Schwarzbard, done as paperwork, where eminent Jewish businessmen and lawyers collude by committee that this will be revenge for Dreyfus, and they work behind the scenes to make sure a liberal judge is chosen, liberal papers cover it and get inside information, and describe Schwarzbard's unbelievable, improbable biography.  

 1895: The shamesh of the Great Choral Synagogue in Odessa, describing the particulars of the service, the rich machers who sit in the front, the poor schnorrers who sit in the back. He describes his responsibilities to run the service, to sweep and mop the whole synagogue every day, to tutor bar mitzvah students, to make sure the right Yahrzeit candles are lit every day. Musaf is the only time off he gets during the entire week, and even then he has to peak his head in every two minutes to see how far they are from the Torah reading. Every Shabbes for the last year, two teens stand on the steps outside the synagogue. Before the Torah reading it's a Communist kid named Lev Bronstein, after the Torah reading it's a Zionist kid named Vladimir Jabotinsky. Every time they seem to give exactly the same speech as each other, condemning religion and extolling atheism, condemning the Russian nobility, condemning the rich Jewish collaborators, exhorting the working class 'not to be sheep,' just ending it with a solution that's slightly different. Both hours the poor Jews throw fruit at the poor speakers, while the goyisher coachmen throw horse dung at them. They keep speaking no matter what they're pelted with until they finish, at which point they go into the cafe across the street to clean themselves, then to the goyisher butcher next door to eat something.

Revolt in a Jewish retirement home in the 1920s because when the Jewish administration is converted to a state institution, they no longer serve kosher food and regularly feed pork. One retirees kills himself rather than eat it, another deliberately starves herself to death. Still others actively try to revolt, but the orderly instantly pushes the leader down, the leader breaks a hip, and everybody goes back to their rooms. 

1938: Told from the point of view of the Soviet Culture Minister. Sergei Eisenstein watches all his artistic friends go to the Gulag, realizes he's next unless he makes a movie Stalin will love. At a meeting with the Soviet Culture Minister which may determine his faith, he picks the subject Alexander Nevsky out of the blue: the Russian war against the Teutons (Germans) in the 12th century. The minister loves it: it's perfect propaganda against the Nazi regime, reports it to Stalin and then calls Eisenstein and says Stalin loves it. Stalin personally grants Eisenstein an unlimited budget. Eisenstein makes an epic of unprecedented expense and scale, comes up with all kinds of new techniques. The film premieres, he gets a standing ovation, Stalin tells him he's creating an award for distinguished service and Eisenstein will be the first recipient. It is going to be shown at every cinema in the USSR. It will be sent to America and Western Europe and China for Soviet propaganda. Eisenstein is carried on people's shoulders and drunkenly paraded around Moscow as the greatest artist in the Soviet Union. The next day Eisenstein finds out the showings are cancelled, the culture minister doesn't return calls, Eisenstein has no idea why. Then he hears at his office from his secretary: 'didn't you hear? the Soviets signed a pact with the Germans.' Eisenstein realizes he's back on the blacklist. 

1948: Soviet commissar files a bureaucratic report about Golda Meir's arrival in Moscow to be Israeli ambassador and her welcome from the Jewish community. The 50,000 Jews lining the streets, the singing of Hatikvah, the chants of Am Yisrael Chai, singing of 'Birkhat Am' and the church hymn "How Glorious is Our Lord in Zion". The commissar makes what he thinks will be a career ending, possibly life ending proposition: the Soviets must reverse their position on antisemitism and portray Jews as the enemy. They are now a potential fifth column for Israel and must be treated as such: their culture crushed, their books burned, their language prohibited, their leaders disappeared. 

Pretoria: 1963. The Rivonia Trial Nelson Mandela is brought up on charges with seven other anti-Apartheid activists who are prosecuted for being the main culprits in the African National Congress's armed wing. Both the main prosecutor and 4 of the 5 defense attorneys are Jews, and part of the trial itself takes place in the 'Old Synagogue' (Pretoria Hebrew Congregation). The whites sit downstairs where the men sat, the blacks upstairs where the women sat. It's told from the point of view of the one Jewish defendant, South African communist Denis Goldberg. There's lots of prison racism, and the other prisoners, most of whom not knowing he's Jewish, taunt him for sitting at Mandela's table and threaten to beat him up "a perfectly pure white polluting his blood sitting with the Africans", after he leaves Mandela says "It's amazing they see you in the shower every day and don't know who you are." He doesn't say anything at the table with Mandela but in his writing he comments on Yutar, Chakalson, Fischer, Hanson and Joffe. He's never met any of them before the trial but feels he knows them instantly and diagnoses them socially down to the Johannesberg streets he thinks they grew up on. When he shares his points of view with his defendant cellmate, the cellmate rushes him over at dinner to Madiba to tell him the observations he told in the cell. Mandela only knows Goldberg as a professional associate beforehand, just an engineer who makes weapons for them, but from this moment on they grow close, and the more he gets to know Madiba the more he sees Mandela transformed into a symbol, a kind of prophet or saint. Even then, he feels disappointed that he hasn't gotten to know the real Mandela at all, just a play-actor posing for history. But then he sees the transformative effect Madiba has on the prisoners, who suddenly work to live better. He de-escalates fights with racist white prisoners who try to beat him up, and one of them breaks down in tears and Madiba hugs him. The warden and guards, at first persecutory and prejudiced, selecting Mandela and his co-defendants for specially bad treatment, begin to be apologetic, then friendly and jocular, and soon begin offering Mandela gifts, which Madiba turns down--when one of the other defendants accepts he takes the defendant aside and slaps him across the face. When it's time for Mandela to give his speech before the court, he incorporates all sorts of things from his conversation with Goldberg, and before he sits down gives Goldberg a quick wink.