Archives for September 15, 2004

– From Booksquare:

When we go into a library, we usually spend a few minutes in the children’s book section, looking for old favorites. There is some comfort in knowing that another generation is puzzling over the (rather tame) antics of Beany Malone. That the Boxcar Children haven’t aged. That Margaret is still talking to God. That on any aisle in any library, we can find a book that changed our little world (look under Laura Ingalls Wilder, and you will discover the summer we captained an expedition to build a cave to protect our gang from the wild tornadoes of California’s Central Coast…).

– From Jolly Days:

I’m not entirely a fan of Impressionism. The “joy of life stuff” can feel flimsy, shallow, leaving out the full experience of consciousness, of being alive. Art is an analog to life, not a feel-good reassurance that things can be better — New Age self-absorbed dreaminess trying to be art. An emphasis on decoration and sensation ignores the mind and the spirit.

– From Household Opera:

Just under three years ago, I turned off the TV after two or three days glued to the screen because I could not, just could not, watch that footage one more time, couldn’t stand any more speculation about who or what might get blown up next, couldn’t listen to any more man-on-the-street interviews with people calling for the bombing of the entire Arab world to smithereens. Having hit my saturation point, I spent the better part of a day listening to Bach’s two- and three-part inventions over and over and over. I couldn’t tell at the time if it was escapism, or some part of my brain looking for equilibrium, or what. It may have been simply the need to remind myself of what other things human beings are capable of besides mass murder.

– From Cup of Chicha:

The back of my high school yearbook was reserved for senior ads, the rich suburban teen’s equivalent to graffiti. Groups were aesthetically demarcated, their ads’ “look” determined by their social status. The most popular girls made collages of beach cleavage, group hugs, and baby photos; the popular boys, meanwhile, wore wife-beaters, crossed their fingers into “west side,” and kneeled in front of Beemers.

– From Mixolydian Mode:

Today’s grooming tip: Guys, if your tonsorial model is Sinead O’Connor or Telly Savalas, remember to shave before heading off to evening Mass. A five o’clock shadow that covers the entire scalp is not a pleasant sight for your fellow parishioners.

– From Killin’ time bein’ lazy:

I see the impact of IM/texty/whatever you call it on my students. When they e-mail, they use it all the time; luckily, most of them know enough to not use it in actual papers and on projects in school. A few, though, seem to have a problem telling the difference between appropriate and inappropriate writing.

I don’t think it makes them look dumb, however. It makes them look like middle school and high school students.

When I see a message from someone my age, however, I worry. I don’t have a problem with getting a short text message on my cell from someone that says that they’ll be “l8”. But an entire message written like that? It’s as nails-on-a-blackboardy as reading something from an adult where they confuse your/you’re, too/to/two or (as one of my friends has discovered) weather/whether.

I wonder if it’s an attempt to act young. It can’t be a lack of education because this type of writing didn’t arise until recently. And there can’t possibly be that many former stenographers out there!

– From Reflections in D Minor:

Have you ever wondered what makes us cling so tenaciously to our beliefs – not just religious beliefs or belief in a political ideology but any little insignificant belief, such as belief in urban legends or the belief in the superiority of one brand over others of equal or better quality? We hold on to beliefs as if they were cherished possessions, like trinkets that have sentimental value but no practical use.

I have to plead guilty to this myself. Sometimes I really hate Snopes. I come across a remarkable but perfectly legitimate sounding story from a reasonably reliable source, share it with other people and the next thing I know someone sends me a link to Snopes. What a shattering blow. Why do they have to tell me the truth? Why can’t they just let me believe? (And, by the way, why do I believe Snopes is a reliable source of information?)

– From Eve Tushnet:

We’ve all heard the cliche that “truth is stranger than fiction,” and I expect most authors have been frustrated to realize that we just can’t write stories in which things happen the way they really did happen! because it would appear too coincidental and too neat. Fiction is not about presenting the raw world. Life does that for us. Fiction is supposed to tease out some kind of language from the raw world. Fiction is meant neither to replace nor to mirror life, but rather to interpret it.

– From Lileks:

The show went fast, as ever

From I Want Media‘s “Media Offline: Unlinkable Media Items” (a great idea for a regular on-line feature, by the way):

Is Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central’s “Daily Show,” comfortable as a member of the “real media”? asks the Sept. 17 issue of Entertainment Weekly. “In this day and age, anybody with a Web site is part of the real media,” says Stewart. “Media is so all-encompassing. But we’re not journalists, we’re comedians. … My colleagues are other fake news shows. Ted Koppel’s not my colleague.” What is Stewart’s take on his recent interview with John Kerry? “It was a relatively mediocre talk-show experience,” he says. “Actually, that’s a great example of the limits of this program. People expected the show to create a ‘new paradigm of info-enter-propa-gainment!’ It ended up just being a comedian lamely making jokes to a presidential candidate who didn’t want to embarrass himself or appear stiff.”

I was thinking today about how so few public figures are willing to admit (for attribution, anyway) that they’ve done something wrong, no matter how minor. But I wasn’t thinking of politicians, or even of Dan Rather. A half-remembered quote had flashed unexpectedly through my mind, and thirty seconds’ worth of Web surfing produced this paragraph from an editorial in a magazine called World War II:

Soon after he had completed his epic 140-mile march with his staff from Wuntho, Burma, to safety in India, an unhappy Lieutenant General Joseph W. Stilwell was asked by a reporter to explain the performance of Allied armies in Burma and give his impressions of the recently concluded campaign. Never one to mince words, the peppery general responded: “I claim we took a hell of a beating. We got run out of Burma and it is as humiliating as hell. I think we ought to find out what caused it, and go back and retake it.”

Stilwell spoke those words sixty-two years ago. When was the last time that such candor was heard in like circumstances? What would happen today if similar words were spoken by some equally well-known person who’d stepped in it up to his eyebrows? Would his candor be greeted by a wholehearted roar of astonished approval? Or would he be buried under the inevitable avalanche of told-you-sos from his sworn enemies and their robotic surrogates, amplified well beyond the threshold of pain by the 24/7 echo chamber of the media, old and new alike? Is it possible that the hair-trigger litigiousness of modern-day American society, in which admissions of error are treated as a license to sue, stands in the way of such confessions? And even if our hypothetical Joe Stilwell II took a savage beating in the press for a day or two–or longer–might it be possible that in the long run he’d come out on top, simply because he was honest?

I doubt we’ll be getting a real-life opportunity to see what would happen any time soon. But having recently watched Paddy Chayefsky’s Network for the first time, it occurs to me that such a scenario might well make for an interesting movie. In Network, the American public is so hungry for the spin-free frankness of a seemingly honest man that it embraces a TV anchorman who goes off his rocker in the middle of a newscast. (That’s what makes the film so provocative, by the way. In the hands of a West Wing-type screenwriter, the anchorman would have been presented as a Christ-like figure, but Chayefsky leaves us in no possible doubt that Howard Beale really is off his rocker.) Imagine, then, a film about a present-day public figure who screws up in a big way, calls a press conference, admits his errors, and throws himself upon the mercy of the public. It’s not hard to see how a socially aware writer-director like, say, John Sayles might weave the resulting tangle into a smart story about imperfect people who get caught up in the whirlwind of circumstance.

If anyone out there in cyberspace likes this idea, talk to my agent. In the meantime, I guess we’ll have to settle for the freeze-dried, pre-digested, focus-group-tested spin that has come to dominate so much of our public discourse in my lifetime. It makes me sick–but it seems to work. I don’t like to think what that says about us.

No doubt you’re all way ahead of me, but I only just discovered Jonatha Brooke last Friday night (courtesy of Kristin Chenoweth, who sang one of Brooke’s songs at her Carnegie Hall concert). I’m still well and truly blown away.

Brooke is kind enough (and smart enough) to allow visitors to her Web site to listen to her albums in streaming audio, so if you’re curious, go here and give Live a spin. I’m sure she’s not for everyone–otherwise she’d be rich and famous–but she’s definitely for me. Don’t bother if you don’t care for female singer-songwriters of the Joni Mitchell/Aimee Mann/Allison Moorer/Ani DiFranco variety, but if you do, check her out.

Here’s Allan Kozinn in the New York Times:

In the weeks since American and European authorities approved the merger of the recorded-music businesses of Sony and Bertelsmann, two of the world’s five biggest record companies, virtually all the discussion has been about what the deal means in the vast popular-music market, with barely a mention of the labels’ classical catalogs….

No one at either Sony or BMG, either in their classical divisions or among corporate spokesmen (to whom journalists are immediately referred by workers terrified to talk, lest they earn an instant spot on the list of 2,000 employees expected to be sacked), has been able to say what will become of the labels’ classical operations. So faintly do the classics register on the corporate radar that BMG’s spokesman, when told that his company had recorded the likes of Enrico Caruso, Jascha Heifetz and Artur Rubinstein, said he was pleasantly surprised to hear it.

(Read the whole thing here.)

This is an important story, right? Sort of. I’ve been writing about the crisis in classical recording since 1996, and I summed up my thoughts two years ago in an essay called “Life Without Records” (it’s reprinted in A Terry Teachout Reader) in which I predicted, among other things, that the major classical labels were doomed:

What remains to be seen is whether existing classical labels can operate profitably on the Web, especially given the fact that sound recordings go out of copyright in Europe fifty years after their initial release. This means that by the year 2015, the classic early-stereo recordings of the standard classical repertoire currently being reissued by the major labels will have entered the public domain, meaning that perfect digital copies can be legally distributed by anybody who cares to make them available for downloading. Callas’ Tosca, Heifetz’s Beethoven and Brahms, Herbert von Karajan’s Strauss and Sibelius–all will be up for grabs. Once that happens, it is hard to see how any of the major labels will be able to survive in anything like their present form.

Well, the future is now, and judging from Allan’s Times story, it seems perfectly clear that Sony-Bertelsmann, Inc., isn’t going to give a good goddamn about the classical-music treasures in its vaults. On the other hand, it’s only a matter of time–and not much of it, either–before all those old records become universally available on the Web, there being no way that American computer users can be kept from downloading them from European Web sites.

And what about the new records that Sony-Bertelsmann, Inc., won’t care to make? Once again, I refer you to “Life Without Records”:

I, for one, think it highly likely that more and more artists, classical and popular alike, will start to make their own recordings and market them directly to the public via the Web. To be sure, few artists will have the patience or wherewithal to do such a thing entirely on their own, and new managerial institutions will presumably emerge to assist them. But these institutions will act as middlemen, purveyors of a service, as opposed to record labels, which use artists to serve their interests. And while even the most ambitious artists will doubtless also employ technical assistants of various kinds, such as freelance recording engineers, the ultimate responsibility for their work will belong–for the first time ever–to the artists themselves.

For all these reasons, I’m not too terribly disturbed by the recent developments described in Allan’s piece. I’ve been expecting them for a long time, and thinking about what they might mean to the culture of classical music:

[O]ne aspect of life without records is not only possible but probable: henceforth, nobody in his right mind will look to classical music as a means of making very large sums of money. Of all the ways in which the invention of the phonograph changed the culture of classical music, perhaps the most fateful was that it turned a local craft into an international trade, thereby attracting the attention of entrepreneurs who were more interested in money than art. Needless to say, there can be no art without money, but the recording industry, by creating a mass market for music, sucked unprecedentedly large amounts of money into the classical-music culture, thereby insidiously and inexorably altering its artistic priorities….

Hard though it may be to imagine life without records and record stores, it is only a matter of time, and not much of it, before they disappear–and notwithstanding the myriad pleasures which the major labels have given us in the course of their century-long existence, it is at least possible that the 21st century will be better off without them.

To be sure, this prospect is understandably disturbing to many older musicians and music lovers, given the fact that the record album has played so pivotal a role in the culture of postwar music. Nor do I claim that life without records will necessarily be better–or worse. It will merely be different, just as the lives of actors were irrevocably changed by the invention of the motion-picture camera in ways that no one could possibly have foreseen in 1900. But one thing is already clear: unlike art museums and opera houses, records serve a purpose that technology has rendered obsolete.

We’ll sure see, anyway–and soon.

“The only brickbat that angered Orton was the grudging praise of his plays as ‘commercial’ from John Russell Taylor in his introduction to the play [Entertaining Mr. Sloane] in Penguin’s New English Dramatists 8. ‘Living theatre needs good commercial dramatists as much as the original artist,’ Taylor wrote. Orton was furious at such critical stupidity. ‘Are they different, then?’ he asked, quoting John Russell Taylor’s distinction between commercial success and art to his agent and asking to withdraw the play from the volume. ‘Hamlet was written by a commercial dramatist. So were Volpone and The School for Scandal and The Importance of Being Earnest and The Cherry Orchard and Our Betters. Two ex-commercial successes of the last thirty years are about to be revived by our non-commercial theatre: A Cuckoo in the Nest and Hay Fever, but if my plays go on in the West End, I don’t expect this to be used as a sneer by people who judge artistic success by commercial failure. There is no intrinsic merit in a flop.'”

John Lahr, introduction to Joe Orton: The Complete Plays

Tom Scocca wrote a funny column about bloggers called “TomScocca.com: Blogging Off Daily Can Make You Blind” for this morning’s New York Observer. He interviewed a number of old-media writers who’ve taken to blogging on the side, myself among them, and his tone is slightly snarky but basically friendly, if you know what I mean:

What blogging provides, [Teachout] said, is an “immediacy, informality and independence that you can’t find in the print media.”

He’s not worried, he said, about using up his ideas on the blog. “I really see the blog as a kind of public notebook or sketchbook,” he said. Part of the appeal, he said, “is that backstage glimpse it gives of the writer’s life.”

Blogging is more spontaneous than regular writing, but it’s writing nonetheless–as opposed to spontaneous blathering on cable TV, he said: “Blogging, by contrast, I think …. ” (Here my notes, in my hasty scrawl, appear to say “CRIDLY OCITHS”) ” … takes us back to a more considered but spontaneous” form of expression….

Not that any carefully constructed device can protect you from the withering and omnipresent scorn of the blogosphere, should it think it’s being attacked. The blogosphere is sensitive.

“I could write an account of this conversation while we are having it,” Terry Teachout said. I checked–he didn’t. Whew.

Indeed not. In fact, I happily certify that all direct quotations attributed to me in “Blogging Off Daily Can Make You Blind” are pristinely accurate and not taken out of context. (Scocca takes better notes than I do!)

Still, I want to mention one thing I said that Scocca didn’t print, which is that writing a piece solely about print-media journalists who’ve taken up blogging seems to me to be more than a little bit beside the point. In my opinion, most of the really interesting people in the blogosphere–all of whom, needless to say, are represented in the “Sites to See” module of the right-hand column–launched their blogs without any significant print-media experience. They’re the pioneers, whereas I’m just a Johnny-come-lately who’s having a ball and making all sorts of cool new friends along the way. What’s more, I think it’s a hugely significant development that these bloggers are now migrating to the print media in fast-growing numbers–without giving up their blogs. If you seek the future of American journalism, look to them.

As far as I’m concerned, that’s the big story of blogging, and I hope Tom Scocca gets around to writing it soon.