Ignorance Is A Warm Gun

Bob Herbert is often angry, and he’s almost always correct. While most columnists (even at the liberal NYT) pussyfooted around the issue of the Bush Administration’s ineptitude and brazen lawlessness, he came after them early and often. And with complete accuracy.

If Paul Krugman is the (self-described) “conscience” of the liberals, Herbert is the town crier for common sense. His only “agenda” is pointing out the myriad hypocrisies and injustices that provide the stimuli for which violence and crime are usually the responses. As such, he tends to tackle numbingly familiar yet consistently overlooked topics like poverty, education, and senseless murder. The type of unsavory topics that are easy to dismiss as depressing. (And like Krugman was, and to an extent remains, easy to dismiss as a nagging pessimist, it is too simple, and tempting, to marginalize Herbert’s concerns as the obsessions of a crank.) Of course, for both of these columnists, it is precisely because the issues they confront are depressing that they warrant honest examination. It is, obviously, a lonely and very uphill struggle, but we are fortunate they are willing to trudge along, alone.

Today’s reflection (accurately entitled The American Way) on our country’s insane addiction to guns is top tier Herbert:

This is the American way. Since Sept. 11, 2001, when the country’s attention understandably turned to terrorism, nearly 120,000 Americans have been killed in nonterror homicides, most of them committed with guns. Think about it — 120,000 dead. That’s nearly 25 times the number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the most part, we pay no attention to this relentless carnage. The idea of doing something meaningful about the insane number of guns in circulation is a nonstarter. So what if eight kids are shot to death every day in America. So what if someone is killed by a gun every 17 minutes.

Murderous gunfire claims many more victims than those who are actually felled by the bullets. But all the expressions of horror at the violence and pity for the dead and those who loved them ring hollow in a society that is neither mature nor civilized enough to do anything about it.

(The above song, “Throw Away Your Gun” is by the great reggae toaster Michael James Williams, aka Prince Far I. He was shot in his home during a robbery, and died in 1983.)

Share

Get Your Goat or, Dancing With Mr. G.

Is 2009 going to be the year of the Goat?

Let’s hope so.

And no, I’m not talking about the metaphorical goat, like the bonus babies at AIG or any of the other recently disgraced masters of the now incredibly shrunken universe.

I’m talking about the real deal; goat. The type you eat. Everyone knows Goat Cheese (our beloved chevre) is legit; but only recently has Goat Meat started to gain some traction in our beef-centric country. In today’s New York Times, Henry Alford gets all Zamfir about this up-and-coming comestible: How I Learned to Love Goat Meat:

Indeed, goats have long held a lowly reputation. Scavengers, they are falsely accused of eating tin cans. Their unappetizing visage is simultaneously dopey and satanic, like a Disney character with a terrible secret. Their chin hair is sometimes prodigious enough to carpet Montana. Chaucer said they “stinken.”

My conversion moment came this February when I went to the West Village restaurant Cabrito and had the goat tacos. This hip taquería-style restaurant — which is named after the baby goat that is pit-barbecued in Texas and Mexico — marinates its meat for 24 hours before wet-roasting it over pineapple, chilies, onion and garlic. The resultant delicious pulled meat is tender throughout and slightly crisp and caramelized around the edges. Think lamb, but with a tang of earthy darkness. Think lamb, but with a rustle in the bushes. Think … jungle lamb. Suddenly I was go go goat. I wanted to order goat in as many restaurants as possible. Shortly into this process, a friend asked me, “Is it gay meat?” Confused, I said, “There’s nothing gay about it at all.” She explained, “No, I said is it gamey?”

This goat = good: 

This goat, not so much:

I myself am new to the goat game, but I’m already a fan, and hope the trend takes hold. The goats have had their way with us, I reckon it’s time we returned the favor. And after that, we can eat some goat meat.

Share

Taking It To The Streets?

In today’s NYT, Sudhir Venkatesh (author and Sociology professor at Columbia) contributes an op-ed entitled Too Down To Rise Up, In it he posits the intriguing, and depressing, theory that perhaps too many of us are too preoccupied to rise up in any real (i.e., compelling) fashion. Preoccupied, as opposed to distracted; it’s not that people are uninformed, it is, perhaps, that a great many people are too engaged. The only explanation for this seeming dichotomy is the electronic machine you are reading (and I am composing) this text on. Venkatesh points out that, between our blogging, online news surfing and (mostly) innocuous navel gazing, we are firing on all intellectual cylinders, including ones we couldn’t conceive pre-Internet, but what we are lacking is a primal, collective forum for expressing that awareness and those feelings. Despite the well-documented populist rage, albeit a white collar rage, that we’re reading about (in mostly staid reports inside mostly staid mainstream publications), most of the ire, directed outward, dissolves in the ether. Put another way, is it pretty much impossible to rage against the machine when you are plugged into the machine? Hardcore bloggers would bristle at the suggestion that their concerted efforts to absorb and disseminate information and affect change can ultimately be shrugged off as inaction. Certainly, they could correctly point to the recent election to illustrate the ways in which online organization paid undeniable dividends in terms of galvanizing and directing energy for a common cause. There are millions of other minor examples that one could accurately invoke. Nevertheless, where the Internet has radically democratized, and advanced the retrieval and dispersal of information, and it obviously serves as a powerful organizing tool, does it not, by its nature, necessarily mute and muffle a more unmitigated, more human response?

But if American anger remains corralled on the Internet, into e-mail messages to Congress and in sporadic small-group protests, it is unlikely that the Obama administration will do much to assuage the anger of taxpayers. Administration officials certainly don’t seem concerned that rage will heat up and overflow; after all, anticipating unrest would mean a broad and intensive campaign to shore up housing, food and welfare safety nets. The proposed budget contains a few such line items, but a comprehensive, coordinated program to prevent violence and defuse anger would need sustained commitments from mayors, service providers and civic leaders.

That we are too smart, or soft, or satiated for our own good is debatable, and there is probably a refreshing amount of gray straddling the extreme of either being aggressive or supine. But perhaps a more disconcerting possibility is that our collective reticence is already accounted for in the eyes (and intentions) of our politicians and the still-resurgent masters of the universe. Maybe it’s an intrinsically understood (and eagerly embraced) condition of our contemporary status quo that the people making the Big Decisions recognize that our capacity for outrage is several degrees more docile than it was a few generations ago. Oh we rant, we rage, we howl; but the sound of a million citizens tweeting is not going to shake, much less raze, the foundations of the temple.

But these days, technology separates us and makes more of our communication indirect, impersonal and emotionally flat. With headsets on and our hands busily texting, we are less aware of one another’s behavior in public space. Count the number of people with cellphones and personal entertainment devices when you walk down a street. Self-involved bloggers, readers of niche news, all of us listening to our personal playlists: we narrowly miss each other. Effective rebellions require that we sing in unison.

It would not seem especially effective, or intelligent, to make a case that what we need most is more anger, or the type of unified uprising that (invariably) results in violence. But it does seem fair to propose that in our current state of affairs, when the usually (take your pick) quaint or radical word populist has again gained cachet, it would be to our considerable detriment if we failed to harness some of this outrage in a productive way. It wasn’t until people let their voices be heard, in a tone that conveyed genuine indignation, that Obama began to acknowledge the inconsistency (or, worse, the consistency) with which the AIG bonuses had been handled. The point being: without any vocal demand for accountability, we can remain certain that our elected officials won’t feel unduly obliged to be accountable. Venkatesh’s piece today is a timely and invaluable reminder that even while our inboxes glow and our ire is evident, we may still be acting in accordance to the script that was already written for us.

Share

1973: The Things They Carried

Front Page Image

 From NYT: On March 29, 1973, the last United States troops left South Vietnam, ending America’s direct military involvement in the Vietnam War.

I can’t recall the last time I watched The Deer Hunter in a single, uninterrupted sitting. I suspect, reflecting on the first Vietnam-inspired Hollywood epic (preceding the similarly overstuffed Apocalypse Now by a full year), the extensive overture is necessary not only to set the tone, but to signify, on literal and figurative (artistic) levels the last glimpse of a way of life that was about to irrevocably change. With minimal pretension (that would be saved for the movie’s third act) and effective subtlety, the elaborate, unhurried scenes depicting the plans and preparation for the big wedding illustrate a way of life that, even without the war, was almost obsolete: the steel mills and coal mines, of course, would not figure as prominently in the lives (and livelihoods) of the next generation. Less remarked upon, but equally significant is the vivid depiction of a reliance on religion and ritual that seemed much less archaic in an era when it was not uncommon for first or second generation immigrants (mostly from Europe) to comprise the (invariably blue collar) workforce. As such, the film’s first act is a document of a time that was slouching, not exactly innocently but less than fully prepared, toward the end of its own history. First there was the ’80s and what the powers that were did to the unions, then the ’90s and what computers meant for the majority of workers unfamiliar with the Internet.

 The Deer Hunter’s second act deals with the horrors of combat and the third act with its aftermath; those are the parts that, while not as deliberate and languid as the less eventful opening act, become weighted down with their own urgency and all-encompassing compulsion to illustrate Big Truths. This is where the (inevitable?) lack of subtlety and (unfortunate) pretension sometimes suck the air out of the action on the screen. Still, the scene where De Niro skips his own homecoming party and paces nervously around his motel room says as much about the alienation and subsequent disillusionment (where he came from, where he went, where he is headed) than most films and books devoted to the uneasy homecoming Vietnam veterans endured. For an unfettered and forceful examination of this awkward chapter in our country’s history, I’ve yet to encounter a work that improves upon Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried. But the single scene (from any film, and more immediately than any book) that successfully synthesizes the before and after of that war, and that era, is the brief, devastatingly beautiful scene that concludes the first part of the film: post-wedding and pre-war; no words are spoken but a great deal is conveyed. The world will soon be a different place for the friends headed to war as well as the ones who stayed behind. It is an elegy for folks who are beginning to understand that everything has already changed.

Share

Straight, No Chaser

This Sunday’s New York Times magazine features a lengthy, but worthwhile appraisal of John Cheever by Charles McGrath. The piece reassesses Cheever’s current status (McGrath correctly concedes that Cheever, who died in 1982, has had his star fade in the last decade or two), and perhaps in light of John Updike’s recent passing (he made it to 76; more McGrath here), it is difficult to believe the “Chekhov of the suburbs”, as he was sometimes called (in a way that only a regular contributor to The New Yorker, that literary bible of upper-middle class, over-educated and angst-ridden WASPs could be) did win the Pulitzer Prize in 1979 for his collected short stories. Those stories, taken along with his novels (some highly regarded, others not so much) seemed to constitute a significant pillar in the modern American pantheon (modern meaning three to four decades ago).

When Cheever died, McGrath recalls: his literary reputation seemed as secure as literary reputations get. You would have bought shares in it if you speculated in such things. He was a widely acknowledged master of the short story, in a league with Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Updike, who said that Cheever wrote “as if with the quill from the wing of an angel.”  Now, not so much. The aforementioned collection of short stories, still largely regarded (for better or worse) as one of the seminal works of 20th Century American fiction, sells approximately 5,000 copies a year. Not shabby, McGrath acknowledges, but pretty depressing when you consider this asshole probably sold more books in the last ten minutes than the Cheever catalog will sell in the next ten years.

Nevertheless, (and this seems to be one of McGrath’s implications) it stands to reason that with the understandable hubbub stirred up by Updike’s death and the celluloid reincarnation of Richard Yates’ Revolutionary Road (haven’t seen it yet, but if it’s half as depressing as the novel, it will be very depressing indeed), the time may be ripe for a reassessment of Cheever, that bard of suburban despair. We’ll see. As we slouch toward a not-so-great Depression, I suspect that nostalgia for the black-and-white TV era in America might not entice too many young readers. Having to brown bag lunch it once in a while (do they even make brown bags anymore?) is about as retro as most middle-aged clock punchers want to get. I can’t say I blame them. Also, remember how quaint some of the characters seemed, when we read about them in the late ’70s and early ’80s? Think about how ancient, and boring, those loquacious and well-mannered (not to mention mostly lillywhite) characters will seem to X-box educated pupils today.

Let’s put it this way: to get a handle on Cheever, you need to have at least a passing appreciation of a time when people poured their spirits out of glass decanters (you need to know what a decanter is). An era when women drank, and smoked, all through their pregnancies just so they could keep pace with their husbands. McGrath speaks to Mary, Cheever’s 90 year old widow, and she reminisces about how certain folks rolled back in the day: “I just couldn’t keep him from drinking,” and went on: “But everyone drank a lot back then. People don’t always understand that now. Sometimes someone would even have to be put to bed before dinner, but that’s just the way it was.”

That remark, remarkable in its stoic, unsentimental honesty,  reminded me of Cheever’s much-anthologized short story The Swimmer http://shortstoryclassics.50megs.com/cheeverswimmer.html

It also (inexorably) reminded me of something I wrote*–which I do not quote to flatter myself by comparison with Cheever (trust me) so much as to acknowledge that the generational divide I invoke is from the same era Cheever lived, wrote and drank in:

With Pavlovian precision, I make my way to the medicine cabinet and pour myself a bracing plug of bourbon. It’s more than I need or deserve, I think, but I don’t want the bottle to suspect I was unfaithful in another town, waiting for my return flight for instance, in a cramped and crappy airport bar at La Guardia. If this were a movie (I think, mostly in the past, but even today), I would grab my crystal decanter, filled with obviously expensive spirits, and administer that potion the old-fashioned way, needing no ice cubes, especially since I would never get around to drinking it, as it’s only a prop, a cliché. No one reaches for that tumbler these days (except in movies); the question is: did they ever? Even in the ‘50’s? Or has it always been part of the script?

I still have hangovers, thank God.

Everyone who has known an alcoholic knows that as soon as you stop feeling the pain, it’s because you are no longer feeling the pain; you are no longer feeling much of anything.

So, I welcome the horrors of the digital cock crowing in my ear at an uncalled for hour, am grateful for the flaming phlegm in my throat, the snakes chasing their tails through my sinuses, the smoke stuck behind my eyelids, the shards of glass in my gut, and the special ring of hell circling my head. Because if it weren’t for those handful of my least favorite things, I’d know I had some serious problems.

All of us can think of a friend whose father (or mother for that matter), we came to understand, was in an entirely different league when it came to the science of cirrhosis. The man who falls asleep fully clothed with a snifter balanced over his balls, then up and out the door before sunrise—like the rest of the inverted vampires who do their dirty work during the day in three piece suits. Maybe it was a martini at lunch, or several cigarettes an hour to take the edge of. Whatever it was, whatever it took, they always made it out, and they always came back, for the family and to the refrigerator, filled with the best friends anyone can afford.

Our friends’ fathers came of age in the bad old days that fight it out, for posterity, in the pages of books, uneasy memories and the wishful thinking of TV reruns: the ‘50’s. These are men who have never opened a bottle of wine and have no use for imported beer, men who actually have rye in their liquor cabinets—who still have liquor cabinets for that matter. These are men who were raised by men that never considered church or sick-days optional, and the only thing they disliked more than strangers was their neighbors. Men who didn’t believe in diseases and didn’t drink to escape so much as to remind themselves exactly what they never had a chance to become. Theirs was an alcoholism that did not involve happy hours and karaoke contests; theirs was a sit down with the radio and a whiskey sour, a refill with dinner and one before, during and after the ballgame. Or maybe they’d mow the lawn to liven things up, tinker under the hood of a car that had decades to go before it could become a classic. Or perhaps friends would come over to play cards. Sometimes a second bottle would get broken out. This was a slow burn of similar nights: stiff upper lips, the sun setting on boys playing baseball, mothers sitting on the couch watching TVs families did not yet own, of forced smiles battling bottled tears in the bottom of a coffee mug, of amphetamines and affairs, overhead fans and undernourished kids, of evening papers and a creeping conviction that there is no God, of poets unable to make art out of the mess they’d made of their lives. It was a hard time where people did not live happily ever after, if they ever lived at all. It was a time, in other words, not unlike our own. 

*excerpt from novel The Money Dread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share

Malcolm, Malcolm – Semper Malcolm*

 

On Feb. 21, 1965, former Black Muslim leader Malcolm X was shot and killed by assassins identified as Black Muslims as he was about to address a rally in New York City; he was 39. (NYT story here.)

(The blog’s title comes from the great Archie Shepp album, Fire Music: check it out and see what it’s all about.)

Plenty has been written about Malcolm, but (as always) some of the most eloquent words were never actually spoken; they were sung. As such, I eagerly cede the floor to the incomparably cool and soulful Jackie McLean:

Share

The Intellectual Super Bowl: Frank Rich, still undefeated

MVP! MVP! MVP!

If, like me, you were unable to get through a day this past fall without visiting at least a half dozen (often more) blogs, sites and newspapers (Glenn Greenwald @ Salon? Check! Andrew Sullivan @ Daily Dish? Check! The usually accurate analysis at The Nation and Mother Jones? Check. AlterNet and truthout? Yup. The fantastic critical mash-up of all-things progressive at topplebush.com? Hells yeah. Always keeping an eye out for The Hitch because, even when he’s off his liquid meds, he’s always good reading: he writes better on his worst day than 99.9% of humans can accomplish on their best. And, of course, when he’s on, he’s on. And even as a site like The Huffington Post becomes fonder of itself–and its ankle-deep celebrity commentaries–than good writing, it, like its cousin Daily Kos does more good than ill, it just requires some screening to separate the insight from the onanism). You get the picture.

But if I were to single out the one writer whose work, week in and week out, is not only invaluable but imperative, I would without the slightest hesitation give the nod to NYT’s Frank Rich. Rich has been around for a while, and written brilliantly about the arts, culture and politics. It’s for the latter that he has been my go-to guy for the last several years. I am confident I could revisit any single piece (he is featured each Sunday in NYT’s Op-Ed section) from this time period and pull out several quotes to illustrate his trenchant take on the mess America has been making. It’s not a simple matter of  exemplary intellect and writing (though these things offer their own manifold rewards), it’s that his inerrant eye holds up, months and years later. Rich warrants repeated reading, period. In this regard, his oeuvre is very like art, and that is just about the highest praise I could offer. Here’s a taste, from today’s column (check it, here):

What are Americans still buying? Big Macs, Campbell’s soup, Hershey’s chocolate and Spam—the four food groups of the apocalypse.

Also from today, he eschews the shooting fish in a barrel target practice that was, let’s face it, so simple (if maddeningly obligatory) during the clown-prince Bush’s recent reign, and hones in on the bigger, messier picture:

The crisis is at least as grave as the one that confronted us — and, for a time, united us — after 9/11. Which is why the antics among Republicans on Capitol Hill seem so surreal. These are the same politicians who only yesterday smeared the patriotism of any dissenters from Bush’s “war on terror.” Where is their own patriotism now that economic terror is inflicting far more harm on their constituents than Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent W.M.D.?

Here’s the thing: Rich ties in seemingly all the threads (speaking of today’s effort and his work in general); he does not take just one topic–no matter how large or pressing–and put that in his sights, though that would be entirely suitable and satisfactory. Rather, he really does summarize the lay of the land, moving from mark to mark, seamlessly weaving a tapestry of analysis. This, of course, is much harder than it looks. Hence, this explains why his contributions are so crucial.

I hope we get to a place (sooner and not later) where his input is not so welcome, and necessary. But I don’t expect that to happen, so long may he run.

Share

Life Imitating Art Imitating Life…

 

Roger Cohen, again. 

One needs to be either peculiarly observant or exceedingly self-absorbed to behold, in another’s writing, traces of one’s own. But for the second time in one week (!) I’m reading something by the estimable Roger Cohen (from today’s New York Times, here) that caused me to think of my own work. This one is not much of a stretch: for one thing, the theme is similar, for another, it’s not a particularly original sentiment being expressed. Reflecting on the present necessarily obliges certain types of people (sensitive, perceptive, or simply writers who may be little of either but, by being writers, have an innate compulsions they cannot control) to consider the past. Of course, in Cohen’s case, being well-traveled, well-read and more than a little erudite augments his powers of perception, and commentary:

Yet, for all its enduring seductiveness, Paris has ceased to be the city that I knew. The modern world has sucked out some essence, leaving a film-set perfection hollowed out behind the five-story facades. The past has been anaesthetized. It has been packaged. It now seems less a part of the city’s fabric than it is a kitschy gimmick as easily reproduced as a Lautrec poster.

Anyone who has been to Paris will be able to appreciate this. On the other hand, anyone who has been alive to see an old century collapse into a new one can apprehend some of what Cohen is expressing. Progress being what it is (people can celebrate or lament it, but it is ambivalent about its own powers to propel us forward), whether it brings about a better, or more evolved world is in the eye of the beholder, it simply ensures that old things get older and new things become increasingly commonplace. When it comes to consumables and what happens to food before and after it has been ingested, it’s difficult to deny that progress is positive. When it comes to the ever complicated case of culture, it is a dicier proposition. Old music performed by old(er) people, for instance, has an inherently nostalgic (but never sentimental–not good music anyway) element; it is living proof of a time that is already passing. The music may make certain types of people sentimental (or else wistful) but the music itself never is; unless it was designed to be sentimental in the first place, which disqualifies it from being good music.

What about more tangible or tactile things, like architecture or food, or old-fashioned things like (as Cohen notes) drinking during the day or smoking in public places? Simply put, the way we create and the way we interact is always evolving (or devolving, depending on one’s perspective) but it’s seldom static. Old ways will disappear, and that is when we turn to art in order to preserve what has passed us by.

(excerpt from The American Dream of Don Giovanni)

Columbus Plaza.

This must have struck the designers of this mid-60’s innovation as particularly ingenious, a new town and its new epicenter: a new discovery, a new country. Hard to imagine already, a time when Columbus was not a dirty word, the man not yet controversial, celebrated and honored with his special day. The man who claimed what the Conquistadors—and the Vikings before them—had not seen as potential property, failing as they did to recognize the real estate potentials. Admittedly, those other explorers were more committed to human conquest.

Now, at the end of the century—only three decades after its inception—the plaza, like its namesake, was showing signs of age, the cyclical whims of fashion and, worst of all, mortality. The upside, of course, being that what is no longer new now had character. And the plaza, with its distinct, entirely intentional European essence—the lake circling it like a canal—had been built to last. These days, it sulked silently with the jaded envy of an older sibling, the one who saw the younger sister receive an unjust proportion of attention and opportunity. In an unprecedented development, the last-born had received the dowry.

 Singular and strange, there was nothing else like it in America; probably nothing else like it in the world, because if failed in all the unimportant ways. Perfect places, like Disney and Vegas or any inane theme park can have the miniature to-scale Eiffel Towers, the made-in-Japan cobblestone, the ethnic foods cooked by people in ethnic garb brought to the table by college kids with cultivated ethnic accents (the better the act, the better the tips). Whereas, the combination of real, and limited, resources of the myopic, but well-intended mindset of the late 1960’s, and the inexorable, impossible-to-imitate strains of a quarter century of fads, styles and influences, all conspired to make it seem at once an insufficient, but somehow superior facsimile—it’s virtue was an unintended, but naturally evolved singularity, its style and substance. An accidental symmetry, it could never be copied. This was obvious to anyone who has been to Europe, or any of the places depicted in theme parks and movies, for the over-stimulated senses but undeveloped, underutilized imaginations of Americans.

          When one actually walks through the streets of Paris, the cobblestone is broken and scarred from centuries of feet, time and turmoil; the canals are naturally eroded and muddy, the occasional smattering of graffiti, the stapled signs and billboards, the cigarette butts, the smoke flowing from cars, sewers and mouths of the populace—all of these things, and a million more, are what make the place—any place—real and authentic. That is why one can spend less than five minutes in any city at Europe and get a palpable sense of history. The tradition of an old place which is awakened by and open to all the senses—in the air, the sights, the smells, the sounds and the things that are no longer there but still have left an indelible mark; whereas a week in Disneyland provides the equivalent of a CliffsNotes education—if that—of what the real world outside the golden, glittering, cage contains.

Share

Song of the Day: Daniel Barenboim (Sonata No. 14, 3rd Movement)

Daniel Barenboim: The Prodigy at age 13

Daniel Barenboim: The Prodigy at age 13

Beethoven again.

It seems impossible to believe that Daniel Barenboim is only 66 years old. It feels like he has been around forever. Possibly it’s because the music he plays–the music he’s spent most of his life playing to the extent that it seems inextricable from the man himself-seems to exist outside of time. Revered for completing a recorded cycle of the Beethoven piano sonatas while still in his 20′s, he then tackled Beethoven’s piano concertos, and then the piano sonatas and concertos of Mozart. For good measure he also handled the piano concertos of Brahms and Bartok. Barenboim cemented his legacy as music director of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra from the early ’90s through 2006. Want more? He was married to the famous, and beautiful, cellist Jacqueline du Pre until her premature death.

All of which is to say: he’s the only thing cooler than a rock star; he’s a classical music star. You want to hang with Mick and Keith? I’ll hang with Wolfgang Amadeus and Ludwig Van. I’d rather spend a half hour listening to Barenboim discuss his experiences than a free week pass on tour with any rock band on the planet. But I’m weird like that. Then again, check this out:

“Rubinstein read Cervantes in Spanish, Dostoyevsky in Russian, Voltaire in French,” Mr. Barenboim said. “Music has become specialized today. There used to be a different notion of musical culture. I believe that Furtwängler genuinely felt — maybe he was naïve, but he felt that he personally could save German culture from the Nazis. He wrote about the introduction to Beethoven’s Fourth Symphony in relation to the Greek idea of chaos and catharsis. How many musicians think that way today?”

Barenboim shows no signs of slowing down, and the profile of him in todays New York Times here (from which the above quote is taken) reveals a man who is always looking for a new challenge. You think Ozzy Osbourne is controversial? Barenboim broke the half-century taboo of performing Wagner in Israel (in 2001) and has used his influence, and the profoundly positive influence of the music he conducts, to promote dialogue and understanding amongst nations. To put it simply, his work with Palestinian intellectual Edward Said arguably did more to advance relations between Israel and Palestine than 90% of our world’s politicians.

But all of this is just backstory (amazing and life-affirming though it is). Before I knew anything about Barenboim’s politics or his iconoclastic journey, I knew him through Beethoven. Or vice versa. My first exposure to Beethoven’s piano sonatas was courtesy of Barenboim’s initial take on the works (from ’67; he revisited the cycle many years later). It was that time in my life (age 17), it was that era in general (1987, one of the very first compact discs I owned) but mostly it was the music. Indelible and unforgettable. Then, and now. Bottom line: this is my favorite music in the world, and if there was one set of works I had to take with me to that cliched desert island, it would be Barenboim’s set of Beethoven sonatas. If the person sending me to this imaginary island was particularly sadistic and insisted it could only be one disc, it would be this one:

 

Share