Meals From The Marketplace

            I am no fan of Fox News.  I don’t watch it when I have a choice and only do so grudgingly when it is on a TV in an establishment I frequent (like my gym).  From what I have seen of the cable channel, it is a mouthpiece for that part of the American political spectrum that I do not normally find myself aligned with.

             Fox has made much of its “Fair and Balanced” theme since it came on the scene over a decade ago.  At first it was a mere nuisance to the far more established CNN (which I also do not watch, save on rare occasions when a real breaking news story commands attention).  At the time, CNN billed itself as “The News Network of Record,” and that motto actually seemed true in the early years of cable news coverage, before the entire industry turned the reporting of news into entertainment, thereby creating “infotainment.”

             But Fox played up the idea that CNN (and the rest of TV news for that matter) was controlled by the “liberal media,” as if such a thing ever really existed in American journalism.  And the viewing public (conditioned by years of that pitch from conservative politicians and commentators) bought the line to such an extent that before long Fox had overtaken CNN and was on its way to cable news dominance, first as the cable network that led the call for the impeachment of Bill Clinton and more recently as the cable network that avidly supported the “war on terrorism” in all its Bush/Cheney iterations.

             Under the leadership of Roger Ailes, an old-line Republican political media consultant from the Reagan era, Fox loaded its prime-time line-up with conservative talk show personalities (Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and, most recently, Glenn Beck).  The shows that featured political panels were also tilted noticeably (if you were paying attention) to the right, and some would say the straight news reporting, such as it is on cable, also betrayed such a bias.  (The “crawls” – those never-ending lines of news headlines at the bottom of the screen that require viewers to listen to one message while reading another – also reveal a strong right-wing bias on Fox.)

             Be all that as it may, the network has been remarkably successful, leaving CNN and MSNBC to scramble to secure what is left of the cable news audience (totaling as many as 5 million viewers on any given night).  Still, even with an average of 2.5 million viewers, Fox is hardly threatening to monopolize the field (and it isn’t a big field to start with).

             All of which makes the recent dust-up between Fox and the Obama administration all the more curious.  Fox clearly considers Obama fair game for political attack, and as a First Amendment protected media member, it has every right to do so.  Whether it is “fair and balanced” to have its prime-time hosts refer to Obama as “a socialist,” “a fascist,” and “a dictator” is hardly relevant to the question of whether the president and his administration should be engaging in an attempt to isolate (maybe even muzzle?) the network’s voice.

             But that appears to be exactly what the administration (led by the president) is trying to do, and the question has to be – why?

             Granted, the ploy is one that just about every administration has used since the advent of television.  Richard Nixon and his gang (led by his attack-dog VP, Spiro Agnew) were all about casting aspersions on the “liberal media.”  Ronald Reagan wasn’t above suggesting that same liberal bias, although he left the dirty work to the likes of Mr. Ailes.  The first Bush continued the same theme, and, as if to show the game could be played by both ends of the political spectrum, Bill Clinton and his minions made a good run at the “right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary at one point claimed was led by media operatives.

             But the Obama folks seem to have escalated the nature of the battle with the current direct assault of Fox News.  It all began when the president went on five Sunday talk/interview shows, all in succession, leaving out only Fox.  Then his aides, Rahm Emanuel and David Alexrod, took to the airwaves to decry the bias on Fox.  Mr. Obama has continued the assault with “casual” comments about Fox that do not hide his distaste for the network.

             Apart from troubling First Amendment issues that are perhaps not fully appreciated, these attacks are disappointing, to use a charitable word, and offensive, to use a more accurate one.  Fox should be attacked for its bias and probably for a bunch of other journalistic sins, but it should not be so attacked by the president and his administration.

             First of all, it does nothing for the president’s image, he of the “open dialogue,” “seek bipartisan solutions” mantras.  Obama would do far better for his own image if he would show up occasionally on a Fox broadcast.  Why not do an hour with Bill O’Reilly, for example?

             Sure, O’Reilly’s ratings would soar, and he’d get a lot of mileage out of the whole thing, but so what?  Is Obama really afraid of Bill O’Reilly?  He could run circles around him both on policy and on personality.  And he’d show himself to be a better person than the host and the rest of the Fox stable.

             Instead, Obama is engaged in the cheapest form of intimidation, and it can only backfire.  Fox will complain (just like the rabbit did in the old Uncle Remus tale), all the while reveling that it has been “thrown into the briar patch” by the president.  And Obama will look more and more like the same kind of politician he said he was not going to be if elected president.

             Bottom line: here’s the way it works in America.  If you have access to the airwaves, you can say what you want.  If you’re the president, you have to measure your words and your actions, lest you end up in the briar patch with those nasty rabbits, er, foxes.

            For classical music lovers like me, trying to identify a list of personal favorites is almost sacrilegious. So much great orchestral music has been composed over the last three hundred years (an entirely arbitrary period, but one that includes the Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern and post-Modern eras) that to single out ten of the creators of that music and call them the best seems unduly presumptuous. 

             And it probably is. 

             But with the onset of another season of concerts by Sacramento’s own Philharmonic Orchestra marked by the performance of Beethoven’s great Ninth Symphony (see my review, below), the occasion may be as appropriate now as ever to take a stab at just such an undertaking.

             I boast no fancy résumé for this task.  Over the years, I have studied, played, and sung the great works of the repertoire at various times and with varying degrees of intensity.  I own no other claim to fame and certainly do not intend the list that follows to represent anything other than my personal tastes in this field of artistic creativity.  Therefore, I offer the list most humbly, more as food for thought than as the final word on the subject.

             And my tastes, while broad and generally eclectic, certainly favor the pre-modern period of classical music.  I like my music structured and harmonious as opposed to free-form and atonal.  So, read the list with those implicit caveats in mind, and consider it, at best, a vehicle for conversation, rather than an encyclopedia of definitive rankings.

             As I’ve done with similar listings in the past, I’ll start at the bottom and proceed to the top.

 10. Joseph Haydn (1732-1809) – It’s hard to justify having the father of the symphony ranked this low on this list.  Haydn is rightly credited with inventing the modern symphonic form, and he was extremely prolific, with 104 symphonies to his credit.  But his contributions don’t stop there, because he is also considered the father of the string quartet and was also instrumental in the development of the sonata form.

 9. Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971) – This amazingly diverse composer is responsible for three of the great ballets of the twentieth century (“The Firebird,” “Petrushka,” and “The Rite of Spring”).  He also composed heavily in the neo-classical form in the earlier part of the century and in the atonal form that was in vogue later in the century.  And in each of these forms, his music is nothing short of mind-boggling.

 8. Aaron Copland (1900-1990) – The “dean of American composers,” composer of “Appalachian Spring,” “Rodeo,” “Fanfare for the Common Man,” “Billy the Kid,” and numerous films scores, Copland was a marvel of composition.  His works sound classically American, yet they are uniquely personal to his style and heritage.  It is almost impossible to mis-identify a Copland composition.  That fact alone earns him his place on this list.

 7. Gustav Mahler (1860-1911) – The composer of the grand symphonies of the late Romantic/early Modern era, Mahler composed ten great symphonies and any number of “song-cycles,” occasionally combining the two forms, as in his “Das Lied von der Erde.”  His symphonies were originally considered too difficult and complex for most orchestras, often scored for 100 players, but they now are readily accepted as part of the standard repertoire.

 6. Antonin Dvorak (1841-1904) – Dvorak is probably best known for his “New World Symphony,” his ninth, but any of this great composer’s symphonic works are loaded with intricate and stimulating passages.  Drawing heavily on his Czech nationality, his melodies are lush and romantic, yet not without rewarding surprises.  In addition to his nine symphonies, he composed operas, chamber music and a highly regarded concerto for cello.

 5. Felix Mendelssohn (1809-1847) – The composer of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” five terrific symphonies (the Reformation, his last, is my favorite) and any number of chamber and choral works, Mendelssohn’s compositions are full of youthful energy and spirit.  He was a child prodigy, composing notable pieces before he was a teenager.  His early death undoubtedly robbed the music world of many additional gems, but those he did create are much beloved and admired.

 4. Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) – I must apologize for placing this master so low on my list.  Many would argue that he should be first, so prolific and powerful a force was he in the development of modern music during the Baroque era.  His six Brandenburg concertos alone would merit top ten recognition, but the full body of his work (including choral, solo instrument and orchestral compositions) is revered for its intellectual depth, artistic beauty and technical command.

 3. Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827) – Of course he should be first.  How can he not be with his nine great symphonies, his numerous piano sonatas, his string quartets, his great chamber pieces and his overall continuing impact on the music scene fully two centuries after he established himself as the heir to the Mozart legacy?  The Ninth is almost universally regarded as the greatest of all symphonies, and he composed it when he was completely unable to hear a single note!

 2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791) – The boy wonder who died far too young, the great Amadeus was both the most prolific (with 652 published works in his short 35 years of life), the most technically proficient, and the most creatively ingenious of all the composers on this list.  His forty-one symphonies trace the evolution of orchestral music during the Classical period, and his last three are generally credited with introducing the Romantic era.  Beethoven was greatly influenced by him, as have been, whether they know it or not, just about every composer since.

 1. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky (1840-1893) – Tchaikovsky’s melodies are pure gems of the Romantic era, and his orchestrations around them, in his six great symphonies and in his many other orchestral works (including his scores for ballets and his ten operas), more than justify the esteem in which he is held.  My first introduction to music was with his 1812 Overture, and I would hope that the last movement of his sixth symphony, the Pathetique, might be played at my funeral.

            Times may be bad for the performing arts, and with the economy struggling to show any signs of recovery, many local organizations are definitely feeling the pinch, but the Sacramento Philharmonic seems to have figured out how to beat the odds.

             In its opening performance of its thirteenth season, under the continuing direction of Music Director Michael Morgan, the Philharmonic offered Ludwig van Beethoven’s most celebrated opus, his Symphony No. 9 in D minor, the “Ode to Joy.”  And the plan worked, as the concert was a complete sell-out, with nary a spare seat to be had as of fifteen minutes before the orchestra was scheduled to play its first note last Saturday night.

             That first note was delayed for about 20 minutes, as the throng of attendees waited patiently to be admitted to the Community Center Theater by a clearly overwhelmed staff.  And to add to the minor glitches, too few printed programs were available, leaving those who were seated last without the benefit of the information contained in them. 

             That program contained the standard bios about the four soloists (but none on Mr. Morgan or Ming Luke, the orchestra’s assistant conductor) and included an informative note about Beethoven’s symphony (along with the German and English texts of the glorious fourth movement), but it had nothing by way of background on the Sacramento Opera Chorus (other than to list the 77 singers who comprised the chorus for the performance).  For the record, Timm Rolek is the Artistic Director of the Chorus, and Mr. Luke is the Chorus Master.

             After the preliminary announcements and welcoming comments and a double-dose of the National Anthem (a favorite arrangement of Maestro Morgan, that, as he explained includes the refrain from “America the Beautiful” played against the second verse), the orchestra got down to work.

             What then followed for the next 70 minutes was a thoroughly professional, if at times slightly uneven, performance of what is inarguably one of the great classical compositions of all time.  What made the performance less than memorable may be attributed to the state of flux the orchestra appears to be in at the moment.

             For example, the concertmaster listed in the program, Dan Flanagan, was not present for an undisclosed reason.  His assistant may have taken his place, but the program listed that person as TBD (“to be determined”).  The woman who took the position appeared to handle her role effectively, but was it just an accident that Mr. Morgan ignored her presence at the beginning of the performance and barely acknowledged it (almost as an after-thought) at the end?

             He did acknowledge his timpani player, and rightfully so, for that instrument is prominent throughout the work, especially in the second and fourth movements.  But the musician here, too, was unnoted in the printed program, again listed only as “TBD.”

             As it was, we counted somewhere around 64 musicians on stage, more than enough to provide the power and drama of this great piece.  They combined to provide a stirring rendition of the dynamic first movement, the conclusion of which elicited a smattering of spontaneous applause from the audience (leading to the same responses to the second and third movements, even if they were not quite as well realized).

             But it is the fourth movement that brings everyone out for this work, for it is there that the chorus and soloists provide the memorable “ode to joy” refrain.  On this night, it was introduced with an impressively powerful recitative delivered by bass/baritone Kevin Short.  The chorus then picked up the theme and carried the majesty of the piece forward in doing so.

             Meanwhile the orchestra distinguished itself admirably under Maestro Morgan’s baton, covering the changes in themes without missing a beat while the other soloists (soprano Elizabeth Koontz, mezzo Cybele-Teresa Gouverneur, and tenor Albert J. Glueckert) contributed their parts.

             The end was a rush of controlled frenzy, as it should always be, recalling some of the best performances of the finale we have been privileged to hear over the years.

             Everyone seemed pleased.  Mr. Morgan specifically acknowledged his principal horn player (Ruth Stuart Burroughs) and then just about everyone else on the stage (even his concertmistress), and he returned with his soloists and Mr. Luke several times to the sustained standing ovation everyone received from an obviously more than satisfied capacity audience.

             May the rest of the Philharmonic’s new season be equally as successful.

            Since its inception in 1900, the Nobel Peace Prize has been one of the world’s most cherished awards.  Given to individuals who have distinguished themselves in some significant way in the cause of peace, it has been bestowed on the likes of Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, and Nelson Mandela. 

             Among politicians and government leaders to have received it are Woodrow Wilson, Willy Brandt, Anwar Sadat, and Nelson Mandela. 

             In almost every instance, the winners have been selected for something they have accomplished (e.g. Mandela for his peaceful struggle against apartheid; Sadat for securing his country’s peace with Israel).  In some, however, the award has recognized the ideas propounded by individuals, rather than the actual realization of those dreams.

             Barack Obama, if he is worthy at all, falls into the latter category.  Barely eight months into his presidency, Obama leads a nation that is still engaged in two wars, with one (Iraq) slowly winding down, while the other (Afghanistan) may actually escalate in the weeks and months ahead.  He also has assumed responsibility for the drone attacks inside Pakistan that have killed innocent civilians (exact numbers depend on whom you ask, but no one would dispute that it is “more than a few”) and is continuing extraordinary renditions that might well constitute war crimes if unsubstantiated reports prove to be true.

             His record on the subject of peace, therefore, is not the stuff to fill a résumé.

             What Obama did bring to the selection committee, and from all reports, he was not seeking the recognition, was a tone of voice and an image of openness that is vastly different from the arrogance and militant defiance of his predecessor.  That difference alone, when the individual we’re talking about is the leader of the most powerful military force in the world, may justify consideration by those who honor peace makers.

             But speeches do not make the man, not when you are possessed of the power to destroy whole countries, if not the world.  And policies that run afoul of those speeches do not create a consistent legacy, not when you speak of peace and practice war. 

             And so, while it is foolish, even mean-spirited, to criticize the president for winning the award, it is not at all improper to ask what he will do to deserve it, conceding, as even he presumably does, that to this point, he has done essentially nothing to merit the honor.

             Obviously, any president who brokers a lasting peace in the Middle East would redeem Nobel recognition.  Likewise, any president who could negotiate complete nuclear disarmament would more than qualify. 

             Those life-time dreams are not readily achievable, however, and do not warrant serious consideration as the road to Obama’s justification.

             On the other hand, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the whole “war on terrorism” (however defined and whatever handle it is known by currently) might present a more realistic opportunity for greatness, in Peace Prize terms.  And on those fronts, Mr. Obama may still be trying to find his way.  That conclusion certainly seems apparent from the evidence at hand.

             Notwithstanding the rhetoric of his campaign, this president has yet to order anything approaching a drawdown of military might in the three areas noted above.  In Iraq, he is essentially following the withdrawal timetable embraced (albeit reluctantly) by President Bush.  That war continues to represent a major incursion of American military power and presence in a land that never should have seen it and felt it in the first place.

             Therefore, one noble step Mr. Obama could take would be to declare definitively that the justification for that war never existed, that its perpetration was a moral abomination, and that U.S. involvement in it is over.  A complete withdrawal of all forces (not just “combat forces”) should then be announced on a timetable that recognizes only logistical requirements. 

             The Iraqi people would then be free of American influence, as they have every right to be, and would be able to choose their own destiny, be it civil war (as some fear) or peaceful reconciliation (as many hope) or something in between, as is most likely.  Whatever the fate of Iraq, it should never have been invaded and occupied by Mr. Obama’s country, and he should honor the Nobel award by stating so and by acting on that statement.

             In Afghanistan, Mr. Obama assumed office with the apparent plan to right what his predecessor had gotten wrong, to wit: to hunt down and bring to justice the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.  The problem with this plan is that what Mr. Bush failed to accomplish seven years earlier is probably no longer realistic or pertinent now.

             To be specific, Osama bin Laden has moved, and his operation has morphed.  Al Qaeda, while still very much a threat to U.S. security, is not the same organization it was in 2002, when Bush led an international coalition into war in Afghanistan.  That coalition no longer exists, and bin Laden, if he is still leading al Qaeda, is almost certainly not operating out of the nether regions of Afghanistan.

             The justification for a continued presence in that country, therefore, is uncertain at best.  And Mr. Obama seems to acknowledge as much as he struggles to find a new one.  In the meantime, Pakistan may be the more probable hotbed of anti-American Islamic fundamentalism, and it is not likely to invite a U.S. military presence, nor should it have one.

             Obama should commit to a well-ordered and carefully-planned withdrawal from Afghanistan.  By leaving, he would allow that country to return to its own form of governance (one marked by warlords and tribal laws, rather than a western-style democracy that fit it about as poorly as a ten-gallon hat would fit Mr. Obama).

             And finally, Mr. Obama ought to declare the war on terror (or whatever we’re calling it these days) done and over.  Instead, he should seek dialogue with all who have grievances with his country and should find ways to show humility and understanding in addressing those grievances. 

             Men of peace do such things.