Sunday, November 28, 2010

Showing Off in Baroque

If you know the great counter-tenor story of Carlo Maria Broschi through the film Farinelli, you know it’s about the castrato, Carlo, and his ambitious composer brother, Riccardo. Although the story takes great liberties with history, it is probably true that Riccardo dreamed of being up there with the baroque rivals of his age, Handel and Porpora, but didn’t seem to have what it takes. In the film, Riccardo uses his brother Carlo, both for his ability to attract women (whom Riccardo then finishes off) and to showcase his music. He claims he writes only to further Carlo’s career, but Carlo is a good enough musician – he’s a harpsichordist as well as singer – to tell the difference between real creativity and compositions consisting largely of trills and ornaments to pander to the crowd.

Anyway, one of the great show-off pieces for the voice from Farinelli is Riccardo Broschi’s “Son qual nave.”

Here’s soprano Simone Kermes doing it at the Schwetzinger Festspiele 2010 with the Venice Baroque Orchestra. If this lady ever gets tired of singing, she’ll be a great bronco rider. She’s already got the dress for it.

And here is the Farinelli version, supposedly in counter-tenor, but actually, it’s the voice of coloratura soprano Ewa Malas-Godlewska, digitally blended with counter-tenor Derek Lee Ragin’s voice. No matter. It’s one hell of a presentation.

And did I say show-off? You want to see show-off? Take a look at Cecilia Bartoli having at this piece:

And for those of you who like going off on a tangent, here’s a little video about Malas-Godlewska, sopranistka, and the American Derek Lee Ragin, in the studio having their voices massaged for the film. It’s in Polish, unfortunately, but don’t let that stop you.

And for a tangent on a tangent – here’s Handel’s famous “Lascia qu’io pianga” (Let me weep), the only piece in the film that is exclusively Malas-Godlewska’s voice:

But back to “Son Qual Nave”

Here are the words:
Son qual nave ch’agitata
da più scogli in mezzo all’onde
si confonde e spaventata
va solcando in alto mar.
Ma in veder l’amato lido
lascia l’onde e il vento infido
e va in porto a riposar.
My Italian is limited at best, but no matter. With a little help from Google Translate, I think this means something like:

I am a restless boat.
Those rocks in the middle of the waves
Confuse and frighten me.
I plough through the high seas.
But when I see my beloved beach
I leave the treacherous wind and waves
And go into port
And rest.
I leave it to you to make the connection between this poetry and bronco busting.

Or did I get that wrong and Simone Kermes is simply singing the title song from “Oklahoma” and her voice is being dubbed by some Polish lady?



_____

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Rest in peace, Maria Hellwig.

Maria Hellwig, let me guess, was probably not on your radar.

Let me tell you about Maria.

Germany, Austria, and Switzerland may have given us Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Mozart. And Humperdinck. And Franz Xaver Schnyder von Wartensee.

But they also gave us the cuckoo clock. Which, no coincidence, rhymes with schlock.

I grew up on this schlock. My grandmother would listen to it for hours.

Maria Hellwig was the kind of woman she would want me to carry around with me, if one carried music around with oneself back in the day. “If you’re ever out in the world and don’t feel safe, go to where people are singing,” she would say. She had Maria Hellwig in mind.

I was barely into my teens before this music began to give me the willies. It’s so over the top saccharine. The words are Ur-banal. Dumm as a cowflop. Ridiculous is a step up. But I could never shed it completely, because trashing it, given my grandmother’s love of the genre, always made me feel like I was kicking a cat.

As in other modern countries, folk music has become best known in its Hollywood variation, with phony nostalgic happy happy joy joy setups, oh, let’s sing and dance and be gay (the old gay, not the new gay, of course). Japan has its enka, Poland its polka. And the German nations the waltz and the yodel. Well, the southerners among the Germanic folk, anyway.

There’s music to make you cry, music to make you swoon, music to make you get up and dance. This is music to make you realize it is possible to lose your cookies and have a laughing fit simultaneously.

Take equal parts country music, Lawrence Welk, and honey. Mix in a blender and pour over sugar cubes and eat with a spoon. Chocolate sprinkles add a nice touch.

Alas, it’s fading away. Maria Hellwig has died at the age of 90 in Ruhpolding, near her birthplace, Reit im Winkl (ride in the corner) close to the Austrian border. Her passing is a serious setback to modern-day German folk music. Not a death blow - this kind of thing, like swamp gas, always rises again. But a profound loss to a whole lot of people.

Have a quick look (you probably will not want to dwell.) Here are three glimpses at Maria doing her thing. The first is a song called

Wenn’st niemand mehr zum Reden hast” (When you don’t have anyone to talk to)

The second is “Wenn wir auch nicht jünger werden” (Even though we’re not getting any younger) . It gives you an idea of the fun-loving rhythm-challenged folk who make up her audience. (Watch the whole thing, especially the part where a fan gets his confetti tangled in her hair.)

And the third, my offering for the pièce de résistance of music to commit suicide by (especially if you know this is the same neighborhood that produced Mozart), here she is, with her daughter Margot, in front of her very own “Cow Stall” Restaurant and Café, singing that great paean to the three German speaking nations, Austria (where they say Servus), Switzerland (Grüezi) and Germany (hallo), “Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo. ”

Holleroihi, by the way, is how you put a yodel to paper.

I’ve Englished it for your listening pleasure.

Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo

Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo
Holleroihi
Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo
Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo
Holleroihi
Gute Laune sowieso
denn Musik macht alle froh.
Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo
Holleroi
Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo.
Servus, Gruezi und Hallo

Wir singen heute von schönen Ländern
von Österreich, Deutschland und der Schweiz
von unserer Heimat und uns´ren Nachbarn
und grüßen herzlich allerseits.

Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo
Holleroihi
Gute Laune sowieso
denn Musik macht alle froh.
Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo
Holleroi
Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo.

Die einen jodeln
die andern singen
und jeder freut sich auf der Welt
weil uns doch Deutschland
das schöne Österreich
und auch die Schweiz so gut gefällt

Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo
Holleroihi
Gute Laune sowieso
denn Musik macht alle froh.
Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo
Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo

Und keine Berge und keine Täler
und auch kein Fluss trennt mich von dir.
In alle Länder, die ich hier meine
bin ich verliebt, drum singen wir:

Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo
Holleroihi
Gute Laune sowieso
denn Musik macht alle froh.
Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo
Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo

Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo
Holleroihi
Gute Laune sowieso
denn Musik macht alle froh.
Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo
Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo

And in English...

Hello (in Austrian), Hello (in Swiss), and Hello (in German)
Servus, Grüezi und Hallo
(yodel yodel)
Good spirits in any case
because music makes everybody happy.
Servus, Grüezi und Hallo
(yodel yodel)
Servus, Grüezi und Hallo

We sing today of beautiful countries, of Austria, Germany and Switzerland
of our home and our neighbors
and say hello to everybody all around.

Servus, Grüezi und Hallo
(yodel yodel)
Good spirits in any case
because music makes everybody happy.
Servus, Grüezi und Hallo
(yodel yodel)
Servus, Grüezi und Hallo

Some yodel
Others sing
and everybody is happy in the world
because we like Germany, the beautiful Austria and also Switzerland so much.

Servus, Grüezi und Hallo
(yodel yodel)
Good spirits in any case
because music makes everybody happy
Servus, Grüezi und Hallo
Servus, Grüezi und Hallo
And no mountains and no valleys and also no river can separate me from you.
With all the countries I speak of here
I am in love, so let´s sing:

Servus, Grüezi, und Hallo

(repeat till the cows come home)


I rest my case.

You rest, too, Maria.

You were a lovely lady.

Seriously.




____

Monday, November 1, 2010

Voting in 2010

My phone has been ringing off the hook. Martin Sheen called me. So did Leonardo di Caprio. I forget now what they wanted of me. I remember, though, that they already had it. It was nice to hear their voices, anyway. I tried to get a word in edgewise and ask them if we might get together for coffee, but they just kept on talking and hung up when they were done. I found that kind of rude, but I’ve got a tough skin.

I’m glad they’re on the right side. Which is to say the left side. I just went through my sample ballot and voter information pamphlet in preparation for voting. Usually I vote for the main folks and don’t bother with dogcatcher, but this time I decided I needed to line my actions up with my attitude that people who don’t vote are responsible for letting the foxes back in charge of the henhouse. The paper this morning already announced as fact that we will now have John Boehner running the House instead of Nancy Pelosi.

If that’s the case, it will mean Americans will have reached a new low in stupid. This guy is almost perfect sleaze, and leader of such tricks as blaming democrats for the bailout which was Bush’s idea, and saying it hasn’t worked when it has, blaming democrats for a healthcare program which was basically the Republican plan, and a whole host of lies and misrepresentations. We need to get ready for such things as tax relief for the richest Americans so that the need to pay for basic services will be shifted to the middle class. But since the middle class doesn’t seem to care all that much, what’s wrong with that idea?

Think I’m kidding? David Sirota’s column this morning cites a survey done by some Harvard guys recently showing Americans believe the richest 20 percent own 59 percent of the wealth, when, in fact, they own 84 percent of the wealth. But that’s OK, too. After all, they’re smart, and someday if I work hard I’ll be rich and I won’t have to pay taxes either. That’s because America is still the best land of opportunity in the world, no matter how much the democrats try to make it socialist. They can’t fool us. We’re voting Republican.

I went to a conference on the Tea Party at UC Berkeley last week. Didn’t learn much new, but it was nice to see a bunch of academics getting into the nitty gritty of the movement. Problem is, when somebody asked the question at the end of a long day of talks, “What do we do about it?” there were no answers, other than to vote.

Keith Olbermann had a lovely rant the other day on the Tea Party, a 19-minute, 33 second special in classic Olbermann form. Have a look if you can.

Looks like this is what’s coming. Nothing left to do but lie down in the road and let the tanks roll in over us. Just went to a Tea Party site (in Fremont) to see their recommendations and note that they are supporting Prop. 23. That’s the move by Texas oil companies to suspend California’s air pollution control law, AB 32. Not only is the money coming from oil, the line is it is to save California jobs, when in fact the opposite is true. Future jobs in the green industries would be shut down by this bill. You’ve got to wonder what the hell the Tea Partiers are thinking. Oh… Right.

Anyway, as I said, I’m looking at all the candidates and issues this time around with more care than usual. I know most of this is of little or no interest except possibly to my neighbors who, most of them, would largely concur, making this just one more case of preaching to the choir.

It took much less time to make up my mind. Mostly, I simply sought out the guys that I trust and let them show me the way. Not in all cases, but in most. Often, as when the entire city council, liberals and conservatives (or what passes in this town as a conservative), throw their weight behind an issue, it becomes a no-brainer. I did dig a little further to see what, if any, arguments I could find on the other side on a couple contentious issues, like the marijuana legalization proposal

In any case, here’s how I’m voting and why.

1. Partisan offices: Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsome, Debra Bowen, John Chiang, Bill Lockyer, Kamala D. Harris, Dave Jones, Betty T. Yee, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Lee, Nancy Skinner. Unless I can find a reason not to, I always vote a straight democratic ticket. My arm would fall off if I voted Republican, and giving a vote to the Peace and Freedom, Green, American Independent or Libertarian candidates, much as I would like to in some cases, strikes me as throwing my vote away at a time when Republicans have gone totally obstructionist, and ceding any power to Republican candidates only helps them on their way. As long as things remain polarized, I’m voting straight Democratic when it comes to politicians.

2. Judicial offices: Judges are another story. Here I have to say I’m influenced by the fact that in Iowa there’s a move to get rid of their Supreme Court justices who voted for same-sex marriage. Never mind they all voted for same-sex marriage, the ones being targeted are the ones up for approval after their first year. Mean. Nobody is considering what other thoughtful decisions the justices have made; they are being attacked for this one decision. That makes me want to go along with the appointments, and assume the vetting process done before they were appointed separated good justices from bad. But there’s no good reason for that assumption and we’re back where we started, making choices on a partisan basis.

So what to do? Do I just go right down the line and vote against anybody appointed by Republican governor Schwarzenegger? Or do I consider that they are likely to be moderate Republicans – no tea party type would rise to this position – and take the trouble to poke through the record of each of them?

A good rule of thumb, I think, is to find out what the Judge Voter Guide has to say about these appointments – they love the word “activist judges” to refer to anybody they find too far to the left – and vote the other way.

I started with Peter J. Siggins. Now here’s a guy, Republican, who illustrates the dilemma of partisan voting. The guy has a sterling record. He was appointed by Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a democrat to make democrats proud as well as Diane Feinstein. Recognized by California lawyers as lawyer of the year, and recognized by the Western States Attorneys General as exceptional. He is not recommended by the 2010 Christian Voter Guide despite the fact he is actively involved in Jesuit education, and the Judge Voter Guide, which finds him insufficiently conservative. So I’m giving him a yes.

Then there’s James R. Lambden, another Republican. What’s the yes, but? He left the Boy Scouts after thirty-five years as a Scoutmaster when they launched their anti-gay discrimination policy. That alone should do it for me, but the Judge Voter guide is against him, so that’s a vote in his favor. Also, he’s about to head up the California Voter Access Commission, which seeks to bring justice to more people who can’t afford it. Sounds like a Republican I can support.

And that’s it. Some or all of the other Republicans may have good things going for them, but I’m saying no to Kathleen Banke, Robert L. Dondero, Martin Jnkins, Timothy A. Reardon, Terence L. Bruiniers and Henry Needham, because I’m hoping Jerry Brown gets elected and will come up with somebody more likely to piss off the folks down at the Judge Voter Guide.

For Superior Court Judge, I’m voting for Victoria S. Kolakowski over John Creighton because Kriss Worthington, Tom Ammiano, Dennis Herrera, Mark Leno and Nancy Skinner all endorse her as well as a whole bunch of gay organizations such as the Harvey Milk Club, Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, Equality California, which I worked for briefly.

For State Superintendent of Public Instruction, google “Endorsements” for Larry Aceves and then for Tom Torlakson and you’re flooded with names – dozens and dozens and dozens. Both seem like good guys. Aceves has the edge, apparently, on school reform. They both reject the “Race to the Top” bullshit. They both say the system is badly broken. Aceves seems to have the greatest number of school principals behind him, and he has the San Francisco Chronicle and LA Times behind him, but I’m voting for Tom Torlakson because I know more of the endorsers. I suspect these are both good men.

When it comes to City of Berkeley candidates, I am following the recommendation of Kriss Worthington and other local people I trust and voting for Townley, Webster, Blake, Stephens, Dodsworth and Harr for Rent Stabilization Board Commissioners and Wilson, Daniels and Hemphill for school directors.

Joel Young
is endorsed by just about everybody, good guys and bad guys, for AC Transit District Director, and nobody has anything bad to say about Andy Katz for EBMUD Director, so they get my vote.

Now to the main reason for voting, besides keeping billionaire Meg Whitman from buying her way in to the governor’s seat and Carly Fiorina, Sarah Palin’s endorsement from taking Barbara Boxer’s seat. That’s the State measures – the referenda issues.

I’m voting

Yes on 19 to legalize marijuana for two reasons - even though it's badly written, it's the camel's nose in the door. Once we get used to the idea of decriminalization we can tinker. The other reason is the argument I've heard for decades - it's time we freed up law enforcement for more important things [and thanks to my friend Dustin who is concerned a badly written law may actually do more harm than good. He put me back up on the fence over this;

No on 20 (see 27 below), which would redistrict the congressional districts;

Yes on 21 to add an $18 vehicle licence surcharge to pay for state parks and wildlife programs;

No on 22, which would prohibit the state from borrowing funds from Peter to pay Paul. I don’t like the smell of this, but both the People for the American Way and the San Francisco Chronicle are against it, so I suspect there’s something wrong with it;

NO NO NO NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO on 23 – which would allow Texas oil to trash California green energy;

Yes on 24, to bring in $1.3 billion in taxes, countering a previous Republican type no tax effort responsible for bringing the state to financial ruin;

Yes on 25, to change the 2/3 majority requirement for budget issues – the reason the California legislature has become totally dysfunctional;

No on 26, because it would make a 2/3 vote necessary to slap a fee on businesses that cause harm to the environment, obviously a Tea Party notion of a good thing. Bankrolled by oil, tobacco and alcohol; and

No on 27. Both 20 and 27 have to do with how districts are drawn in California. Currently there is a move to take that power out of politicians’ hands, since they, both parties, work to gerrymander the state, and put it in the hands of a citizen commission. Problem is, 20 and 27 seem to be at odds, nobody knows what the citizen commission would do, and how the current plan is working – so I’m voting no on both, effectively saying leave things alone here.

On Alameda County measure F, I’m voting yes to slap a $10 fee on vehicle registration to build streets and roads. Why would people say no to fixing the roads? They’re a mess. And why shouldn’t the money come from car owners and not the public at large?

Finally, I’m voting yes on H – money for schools; yes on I, ditto; no on R, the mayor’s downtown development plan that isn’t a plan at all, but a chance to overturn the previous downtown development plan which he didn’t like; yes on S, a small tax on medical cannabis, because nobody I know has come up with an argument against this, and yes on T, which would allow for cannabis collectives but keep them away from schools – because my friend Karl and the mayor, whom he can’t stand, both say so.

There. That’s the end of probably the longest thing I’ve ever written which I expect absolutely nobody to read.

It might have made more sense if I’d done this earlier, and given people a chance to challenge some of my choices, but I didn’t get around to it.

Why do I feel I've just come off eight hours of jury duty?




_____