Sunday, May 7, 2017

Fahrenheit 111: Why we should hate Beethoven's last sonata

To a musician, over-analyzing a piece of music is like burning a book. Yes, understanding the subject of one's devotion is required, but hemming and hawing about arbitrary details entirely coats the stark, shining beauty and simplicity of the music with the kerosene of human perception. It's only a matter of time, then, until the whole thing spontaneously combusts, violently spitting embers of once-unadulterated artistry into the vicinity. The work's innovative glory is then reduced to mere ashes by familiarity - which inevitably breeds contempt.

It's midnight here in Toronto. I lie awake in bed, my eyes as wide as a bushbaby's. Life has become an endless blur: wake up, eat, practice, insomnia...

I finally decide to go stand near the window and look at the buildings outside. My frozen feet protest the (still!) cold air outside my blanket, but I ignore them. As I get a glass of water, I realize that the main reason I can't sleep is that I can't get over my run-ins with Beethoven's op.111 earlier today. This piece (like all of late Beethoven) has long suffered the fate I described above. Bottles and bottles of ink have been spilled over it, to the point that the mere mention of it is enough to make the entire music world go down on one knee in indoctrinated reverence, as if one had uttered the name of a putrefying saint in a church graveyard.

Thus, the true greatness of Beethoven's last sonata are hardly allowed to shine through. The modern approach to intelligent understanding, which relies heavily on dissection, is largely to blame. In order to learn and appreciate something, we often resort to objectively cutting it up and breaking down all of its parts. While we do absorb a lot of information about the entity from this process, we don't ever fully experience the entity. Can you still smell, touch, or even taste a rose if you spent all your time hacking away at it with a knife? Similarly, scholars have spent all their time hacking away mercilessly at op.111, forgetting that in music, to hear is to understand. All of this has led to a mass classical circle-jerk, in which everyone uncritically accepts the fact that op.111 is the best thing since sliced bread, but no one asks how or why.

Alright, enough is enough. I'm done ruminating, and I will now start eviscerating. You may have heard that op.111 is the best thing since sliced bread, but in order to explore why it is, we must first examine why it isn't. Let's just say for now that op.111 is not good music. If sliced bread is the best thing on the list, op.111 ranks somewhere between having the flu and cutting your wrists with a rusty knife. Hell, let's say it's so bad, it can actually make you want to cut your wrists with a rusty knife. Let's assume the position that it's a cult forming fraud of a composition. It's cumbersome, tedious, vague, and so emotionally draining that it sucks the very life out of me everyday like a Dementor straight out of J.K. Rowling's worst nightmare. I'm pretty sure there's now a giant, cosmic black hole in the cold, dead husk that once housed my emotions, and that I've practically become autistic. Gone are the days when I used to be able to give hugs without screeching like a banshee. Good times...

Everyone tells you that we should love this sonata. I ask, why should we hate it? The easiest reason is likely the fact that everyone worships it - mostly out of sanctimonious, exaggerated pity. Poor old, deaf Beethoven, everyone cries, suffering at the end of his life while he wrote this music. Obviously, because he was suffering when he wrote it, we must perceive this sonata with the solemnity of a nun. Humor and objectivity are chased away like trespassers, and replaced with a slimy, writhing mass of obsequious verbiage. But fear not - you won't find any of that slime here. If you're expecting a walk on an analytical path to the kingdom of His Majesty King Beethoven the First, paved with the noble bricks of nuance and subtlety, please note that I don't give two shits and a biscuit about such things and neither should you.

So how on earth should one go about explaining this beauty--er, I mean, monstrosity? As always, beginning at the beginning is a virtue...

The "sonata" (if one could even call it that) is a wacky little clusterfuck. 

Time and time again, I can't help but break into a smile upon realizing what a beautiful disaster this piece really is. It is made up of just two movements - each like matter and antimatter. The first is nothing short of a musical cataclysm, and the second seems to mock the angsty, hot mess that came before it with a hauntingly simple theme and anachronistic jazz-like rhythms. They somewhat resemble two siblings with an Apollo and Dionysus complex - one of which is a morose, mercurial member of a heavy-metal band who showers one a month and sleeps in till noon, the other a goody-two-shoes with permanently organized drawers and crisply ironed shirts, who later spirals into debilitating insanity.

Take a look at the introduction. Mysterious, elusive, moody, and preposterously deceiving. There are a million ways to play this, and more ineffective ways of playing it than effective ways. What's even more of an enigma is the fact that such little is musically going on. Three reiterations of a "descending diminished 7th + resolution" element are followed by a series of disjunct (but beautiful) chords, somehow meandering their way to C minor, where there is the iconic three-note motif, resembling a recurring decimal, pervading throughout the music...



As of late, I've been perusing Quintilian's terms of rhetoric and their relationship with music - especially sonata form. Rhetorical oration/explanation has six different parts, which are the basis for all those blasé six-paragraph essays everyone has to learn to write in high school for standardized tests: state your thesis (exordium), explain the nature of the subject (narratio), point out the main issues of the case (partitio), back up your thesis with logical arguments (confirmatio), answer counterarguments (refutatio), and finally, restate your thesis to sum up the essay (peroratio). Sonata form through the Classical era, before the whole Stürm und Drang movement, is loosely based on this format. The first movement of op.111 also strictly follows this plan, even though it was written quite a while later in the Classical period. But what makes op.111 unique is that the parts which need to sound the most audibly chaotic are in fact the most formulaic in structure. The first movement, however Dionysian in texture, harmony, and character, is Apollonian in terms of layout. Every single phrase is, in fact, as innocently predictable as that of an early Mozart sonata. Most of the material is sourced from an earlier place in the music, if not outright repeated in a different key. Come on, Ludwig, did you really think we were too dumb to notice this?

The second movement is the opposite. Even though it is theme and variations, in which repetition and order is expected (and heartily delivered, too), there's a sense of dwindling mental capacity imbued within the music. The theme is a simplistic, almost childish tune, which starts off in a hyper-organized, straightforward manner. It appears calm, cool, and confident, but in the dark recesses of your mind, you can somehow tell that this feigned display of security is but a house of cards, about to come crashing down at the slightest breeze. And it does - each subsequent variation emits a different light from the last, with the initial theme growing more and more distant as the piece progresses. By the last variation, it has eroded into a scattered, moth-eaten collection of notes, decayed beyond recognition.

This is highly unusual for Beethoven's variation sets. In the final movement of op.109, for instance, Beethoven restates the entire theme in its original form at the end of the last variation, and makes sure at every turn that our memory of it remains intact throughout the movement. It's a kind of condensation - close-knit, sane, and cozy. The op.111 arietta, on the other hand, is a dispersion - resembling the life of an Alzheimer's patient. What people often don't realize is that Alzheimer's is not heartbreaking for the sufferers so much as for the onlookers. While the sufferers are rolling like pigs in the mud of their age-old memories and reveling in the splendor of their heyday, their loved ones are forced to helplessly watch as they are slowly cast into the abyss. Similarly, the arietta may seem depressing to listeners, but I would say it's more lost than depressed. The music is unaware of how hopeless its condition actually is. It dances the boogie-woogie, cracks ironic jokes, and creates a lackadaisical world inside the cubicle of its own perception, without realizing it's slowly wasting away.

I guess there's a greater life lesson to learn from all this: things are not always what they seem on the outside. Those of us who seem the most well-settled might be terribly insane and broken on the inside, while those of us who seem the most scatterbrained, erratic, and rebellious are the ones who are actually organized and have their shit together. 

One can't deny that such dichotomies inevitably lead to hang-ups in the music. And speaking of hang-ups...

The entire piece suffers from ADD.

From the get-go, it's clearly evident that the whole piece needs a little Adderall. Almost every sliver of consistency is immediately suppressed or ruined by distraction. Just as comedians have to determine the right timing for their jokes, musicians have to figure out just how much (or how little) time is necessary to keep an audience engaged. Ludwig really hasn't been sympathetic in this regard, randomly lengthening notes at the most awkward places. But hey, if I wanted sympathy, I would've stuck to playing Chopin.

Almost every phrase begins promisingly before coming to a screeching halt, usually by way of an anticlimactic ritard. This predilection of pausing continues throughout the piece and immediately kills any culminating drama, which is enough to induce an apoplectic rage from perpetual frustration. Moreover, I'm inclined to believe this predilection is wholly intentional. I can almost imagine a moment in history: a senile, (possibly) shitfaced, completely deaf Mr. Beethoven hunched over the piano with an evil smirk on his face, making it his final mission to leave both pianists and audiences as dissatisfied as possible. Some people argue that the ritards are what makes the piece "immortal", "transcendent", or any other pretentious adjective they manage to pull out of their asses, but all they seem to prove is that there are more ritards in the world than in the piece.

The art of late Beethoven, apparently, is to struggle as much as possible. If opportunities to struggle don't naturally present themselves, it is up to the performer to act like you're struggling. Scholars might harp on about how oh-so-difficult the late Beethoven sonatas are to play - and they are, with all the awkward leaps, finger-work, and whatnot - but take it from me: there is far more physically taxing music in the world than Beethoven's last sonatas. In my life so far, I have stared down at pages and pages of octaves, exhausting series of chords, and copious notes so small and tightly grouped together that they may as well be vast amounts of fly shit. As for these sonatas? They're mind-warping, sure, but physically impossible? Hell to the no.

This doesn't make the pieces any easier, though. For instance, incessant practicing can make the initial diminished 7th octaves somewhat easy and comfortable, but it's so significant in character that its true effect is anything but easy and comfortable. In spots like these, there have been several moments in my lessons that I've been prescribed intentionally less convenient fingering, just to make it sounds harder for me to play the passage in question. I may or may not be humblebragging right now.

Indecision is a nightmare - both in life and music. Beethoven knew this all too well, and created this giant conundrum revolving around struggle, hesitation, and the perpetual state of being lost. It embraces the spirit of nomadism that Schubert wished to achieve in his Wanderer Fantasy and other works. My immediate reaction when confronted with all this is to resort to cheekiness - a decision which I can't yet pin down as innovative or horribly mistaken. While the music may be playing hard-to-get, it still remains deathly serious, without a hint of flirtatiousness or frivolity. At the same time, downplaying Beethoven's sense of irony in the name of face-value impressions would be a shame. This entire sonata fully embraces the silliness/seriousness spectrum - when the form is serious, the notes are silly, and vice-versa.

The fate of the entire sonata ultimately rests on select individual notes.

I believe it was Debussy who said it was not the notes, but the silence between the notes that makes the music. John Cage exemplified the meaning of this in 4'33'' - a controversial "piece" met with such explosive reactions that it might as well have been lengthened and called 9'11'' instead. By eliminating all the notes, Cage fully demonstrated the truth behind Debussy's words: the framed silence itself is the music, and the sounds that happen to occur during the silence are transient, variable, and only there by chance. Aleatoric (chance) music largely relies on this principle. Op.111, however, is a unique case in which silence is actually preferable to the notes.

Alright, alright, I don't really mean that. Mockery aside, the truth is that in op.111, the unharmonized notes are just as important as the silences. They all are a different color, and have been given the sheer strength to stand alone. The subtle differences in the projection of these notes changes the meaning of what is to follow, and makes or breaks the piece. A good way to describe their effect is contrasting the sentence, "Someone got Naked at Whole Foods" with "Someone got naked at Whole Foods", you would realize that it's only the capitalization of the letter 'N' that determines whether you saw someone innocently buying Naked brand juice at Whole Foods, or had the misfortune of seeing a crazy person moon everyone at the grocery store and subsequently get arrested for indecent exposure. In the same way, how the stand-alone notes are set up determines the character of the entire part. Screw this up, and everything that follows is ruined.

How do you think Beethoven manages to brazenly repeat himself and somehow get away with it? I'd like to think I've sussed out the secret. It's all in the unharmonized notes. When the music simply repeats in another key, it still manages to show a different character each time. Take for instance, these passages from the first movement, coming once in the exposition and then in the recap...




The first time is as familiar and grounded as apple pie. It seems like the first fraction of humanity and love in a sea of otherworldliness - especially considering all the craziness going on beforehand. There's no way anyone could've predicted that A flat major would arrive, except for the E flat that begins the passage. That E flat, though, determines exactly how the following phrase unfolds.

The second time sets a completely different atmosphere - even though it's thematically identical to the A flat major section. It's completely devoid of familiarity and human emotion, and seems to evoke a higher sense of mental clarity. Every time I play this, it feels as if my thoughts are instantly kicked out of my head, leaving me breathless and entirely omniscient of my surroundings. As with before, the only thing that determines the projected effectiveness of this part is the preceding G.

Remember - all this emotional difference, and the music is exactly identical.

This phenomenon is seen even more frequently in the second movement. Every phrase changes in thickness of texture and character, and it's always a lone note that governs all these changes. The theme, for instance, starts as vertical as ever, with every note harmonized clearly and predictably in neat 4-bar phrases. But before the A minor phrase, there's a single, open 'E'...



It is positively untouched, and doesn't actually belong in the picture at all. What could possibly follow such a clean, pure note, which has no real business being there? The 'E' seems to set off a chain reaction in which the texture gets thicker and thornier at each phrase, demanding a lot of decisions regarding voicing.

The 'E', like all the other unharmonized notes, is therefore a critical gateway: a wormhole leading into diverse worlds of sound. In this case, the 'E' connects the vertical to the horizontal that follows - the harmony to the counterpoint. The piece is entirely like a patchwork quilt - made up of different materials with different textures, all held together by thin, golden threads.

I've observed that color changes became increasingly crowded over the musical eras. Baroque music changes color within just a few elements, as seen in Bach and Scarlatti, whereas Romantic music changes color gradually, by way of long, ornate phrases with a million notes. Op.111, on the other hand, changes color through free-standing, single notes - entirely irrespective of the textural quality of the music. Thus, moodiness and spontaneity is encouraged, as sudden changes over little musical material require a quick reaction time - again proving the ADD diagnosis. But all this is a bunch of impractical mumbo-jumbo. How exactly does one go about making these subtle changes in a way that they are heard by listeners?

When confronted with a student who was struggling with technical skills, Liszt had curtly remarked, "Wash your dirty linen at home." He believed that a part of the wonder of being a performer was never letting people know your difficulties and personal methods, and I largely abide by his advice. However, I'm going to let you all in on a musician's secret: assigning importance to notes and determining which notes to specifically voice in a piece is kind of like playing the game "Fuck, Marry, Kill". These decisions are equally based on both musical truths and personal preference. Some notes are sexy and catchy, drawing attention to themselves and practically begging to be brought out. They're very beautiful, but are mostly brought out at whim and largely fluctuate in quality depending on one's mood during a particular performance. As a result, they can be rather replaceable and somewhat forgettable from performance to performance. Other notes are material for permanence - not only beautiful on the outside, but on the inside as well. These notes are the bedrocks of what makes a lifelong signature interpretation, and usually remain the same during every performance - much like a long-term relationship. Lastly are the notes that serve to enhance the atmosphere, but entirely ruin the music if they are brought to the forefront - kind of like your frenemy who never fails to make your life worse when you're together, but sometimes has access to something you need, like cheap concert tickets or free food. These notes are useful at a distance, but should be killed immediately if they come any closer. And just like the game, these decisions can be much harder than you think. 

Personally, the deliberation is simplified greatly by synesthesia. If you can "hear" the color of the music exactly when it changes, you can cultivate a pianistic touch that suits the color change. In the example I gave earlier from the first movement, the fact that A flat major registers as soft orange in my mind and C major registers as pure white greatly hastens the process. Of course, the individual effect of the colors are different (based on context), but the feeling remains the same for me. But as compositionally genius it is to transition so dramatically through just one note, the links can become rather boring and anticlimactic. Which brings me to my next point...

The transitions transition nowhere!

There's simply no other way to describe this. With all the pauses and the single-note transitions, the gist of the piece is heavily compromised. All of this is especially evident in the arietta, which already comes with the most basic yet frustrating challenge of performing variation sets - deciding how long to wait between the variations. Throughout my life, I've always observed that each variation set calls for a different approach. The Brahms-Paganini variations sound like piano studies if too much time is taken between them in performance, whereas the Brahms-Handel variations need a slightly longer time to surprise listeners with the material that comes next. Ludwig's batshit arietta, however, is flaky and inconsistent. Each variation requires a different approach at the end. It's mostly due to the fact that the piece rides the line between simplicity and complexity. Beethoven begins each variation innocently, with not a care in the world, before cramming in notes towards the last few measures like a college student before finals week. How should I keep listeners engaged? Should I wait? Should I rush? Should I do neither and instead wallow in self-pity and the existential dread of being?

As if this is not enough, don't even get me started on the first movement - especially the fugue section. Oh, for crying out loud. Ludwig, let's be honest - I love you with all my heart, but if you think I'm going to sit here and blow smoke up your ass about this scrawny excuse of a development section, you'd be dead wrong. Actually, that was redundant - you'd just be wrong because you're already dead.

The failures of this passage are especially disheartening, considering the stellar, impossibly intricate weaving of voices in op.110 and Hammerklavier. But while the Hammerklavier fugue is a transcendent stroke of genius, the "fugue" of op.111 (I even hesitate to call it that) is so tiny and dissatisfying that it could've made Mr. Beethoven's Immortal Beloved storm out in a huff and swear never to let him hammer her klavier again.

Of course, the most egregious error of this section is how pathetically the theme of the fugue is dealt with. Of course, it's led in with a single, unharmonized 'G', followed by another hackneyed meting-out of the three-note motif...


The fugal passages of other sonatas (op.101, 106, 109, and 110), are often developed mathematically, applying the golden ratio and other formulaic patterns. Referring back to Quintilian, Beethoven's fugal sections are usually the refutatio parts, which consists of abandoning the previous ideas and starting afresh. In this one, however, we're still stuck with the damn three-note motif. No effort is put into any innovation at all, and before we know it, the music gets assailed by repeated diminished 7th chord sounding out the melody of - you guessed it - that goddamn three-note motif. Jesus Christ on a cracker, Ludwig, I bet every theory teacher in the world would instantly kick the bucket at the sound of such a beautifully devastating act of rebellion! (Not saying they won't entirely deserve that)...



These chords revel like noisy neighbors, relentless in their pursuit to ruin as many hours of your sleep as possible. This piece is so chemically dependent on them, it's practically begging me to stop practicing and start a drinking game. Hey guys - take a shot every time a diminished 7th appears! On second thoughts, never mind - just writing the last sentence made me die of alcohol poisoning.

On a serious note, it is true that diminished chords were still considered novel, shocking, and scandalous in Beethoven's time period. What now sounds cumbersome and banal to modern ears was actually quite radical in the early 19th century. I often marvel at how composers slowly became infected with the bug of non-traditional tonality, beginning with op.111, then Wagner, then Liszt, with his late works such as Nuages Gris and Bagatelle Sans Tonalité, before Schoenberg and his Second Viennese School nuked the entire system. The evolution of music, from op.111 onwards, could be described in terms of the effect of materialism on the human race. In caveman days, we ate organic food, wore a minimal amount of clothes made from natural materials, and owned no possessions except for a trusty hand axe or spear - somewhat like the restricted counterpoint of Palestrina and Renaissance music. As we acquired more knowledge about our world and created new inventions (like in the Classical and Romantic eras in music), we made our lives more comfortable and pleasurable, but also evolved social norms that promoted mass consumerism and a culture that considered the hoarding of possessions a sign of affluence (somewhat like the lengthening of pieces and constant vying for more and more notes in the Lisztian days). Nowadays, we're trying desperately to return to our roots, praising minimalism in design and organization and trying ever so hard to declutter our homes and generally shut out the constant noise of our nonstop lives. We even try to eat like cavemen again, with the paleo diet and such. That being said, we also want to balance the need for pleasure and ease. This will for decluttering is seen in music too, with Philip Glass and Steve Reich, and to a degree, twelve-tone music, which limits its perceptive analysis to tone rows. 

Herein is where op.111 is so unique. Despite all of its shortcomings, hair-pulling frustrations, and overall weirdness, it is the harbinger of innovation. It shows the spectrum of music history itself - containing the polar opposites of human perception - aimlessness and purposefulness, cluttered excess and delusional, ascetic deprivation. Even though completely deaf, Beethoven managed to hear the past and future, and hand it to us in such a calm and casual manner that it's frightening. And that is truly genius.

Oh god, I'm starting to sound like those wide-eyed groupies I hate. 

Fine, I give up.

Okay, I'm done running over this amazing piece with a Schadenfreudian bandwagon of superiority under the guise of discovering  more about it. Yeah, go ahead and twist the knife - I probably deserve it for writing this horrible blog post. The truth is that, far from hating it, I've been entranced by the piece from the very first time I heard it. The protagonist that op.111 describes, with all its stretch marks, instability, and "imperfections",  is the very essence of humanity itself, and has the potential to be relatable to all - whether it's a tone-deaf banker who's never heard a note of classical music in his life, or a disgruntled pianist staying up late at night trashing pieces on the internetz that she truly, madly, deeply loves. Yes, it has ADD, but don't we all? Yes, its transitions change rapidly and awfully - just like the changes and upheavals in our lives, and like the law of entropy, which manages to burn entire ecosystems to the ground. Yes, it repeats itself often, but like lightning and sunsets, never repeats in the same way. Yes, this piece may lack a definite purpose, just like existence - but we shape it into something beautiful through our wisdom and personalities. The fact is that op.111 is just too good to hate.

The clock strikes 2 a.m. I am suddenly filled with pride and wonder for our universe, and it's all because of this mushy, crazy lump of a sonata. You go, Ludwig, you go...

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Finding freedom in eternal dependence

So I'm in Asia again, Thailand and Cambodia to be specific. From all my life experiences of flying (and living) all over the world, I'm starting to feel as if our planet is deceptively small...

I must admit that my mind has been drifting away from work these days. I haven't had a  profound musical revelation in the past few weeks. My brain has become like a leaf in the wind, unpredictable in direction and ever-changing. As frustrating as this seems, I've decided to yield to its current demands. Perhaps if I let go, I will find my center again...

Yesterday's trip to Angkor Wat kindled my thoughts. It was easy to see why this ancient temple is considered one of the seven wonders of the world. While the Western world was writhing in the Dark Ages, Khmer kings were ordering the creation of massive Hindu and Buddhist temples, hoping to ensure that their legacy will infinitely continue. I put my hand on a block of sandstone, contemplating the millennia of experience it has of the universe. Someone a thousand years ago touched this rock before me, I think to myself. Far beyond that, that sandstone probably took millions of years to form, and will take a million more years to erode into dust. What's even crazier is that even as I write these words, their scope is unfathomable to me and will always remain so for my entire lifetime, as I am but a very tiny sack of skin, blood, and bones relentlessly hurtling through space towards the inevitable void of death and atomic reincarnation. 


All of this brought to mind my recent studies of Buddha's sutras on interdependence, and the poignant observations discussed in the short film, Our Greatest Delusion. Filmmaker Derek Miller commented upon the "permanent" nature of rocks: "Rock obviously isn't permanent, but on the scale of a human life, it is, and people recognized this fact...We build great monuments out of rock because we believe they will outlast us and virtually every other material we can think of...We carve our heroes out of stone because we want them to last forever, and the way in which we want that kind of permanence for ourselves too." He goes on to suggest that this humanly desire for permanence is at our core, and the very reason we innately feel like etching our names into stone or cement, or fasten padlocks to bridges with our initials on them. It's the same impulse that drove the Angkorian kings to build these temples in honor of themselves, and the Egyptian pharaohs to keep their afterlife insured in the Great Pyramids. Miller finally comes to the very important conclusion which is also realized in the Buddha's sutras: permanence is our greatest delusion.

In our quest for permanence and preservation, we have built our whole existence around denying the fundamentally interdependent nature of the world. This is in part due to our highly evolved brains, which have tricked us into craving ultimate freedom. This freedom is a complete lie - an ever-elusive mirage that has tantalized even the best of us into wasting our short, precious time here on Earth. Think about it - if even rocks are impermanent, who are we to think we are?

Our ideas of what we call "freedom" and the truths of interdependence go hand-in-hand. In the co-dependent world we live in, every phenomenon relies on countless other phenomena to exist, and the entire universe is made of gears all turning together in a randomly organized fashion (oxymoronic, but true). This means that true freedom is a lie.

As I type this, I'm starting to feel profoundly, uncomfortably vulnerable. I realized that at this moment, the factors, people, places, and responsibilities in my life are in control of me, as without them, I technically wouldn't exist. Therefore, using deductive reasoning, can I conclude that I'm in fact a prisoner of these people, places, and responsibilities, doomed to their will? All this begs the question - is the true meaning of life not actually free will, but constant entrapment? 

Of course, this is grossly oversimplifying the issue. According to the laws of interdependence, I can't be "doomed to the will" of anything, as whatever I feel dependent on is dependent on something else. Every action is a never-ending chain. Say you're drinking a bottle of water. Ecologically, the water you're drinking used to be a cloud, before it rained down and formed a stream, lake, or river as the result of the water cycle. The water was then filtered by a corporation to make it safe for drinking, before being packaged in a factory by workers, and shipped to your local grocery store, where you paid for that bottle with money, which you likely earned from a job you work. At this point, you might think, "Fine. I'll just run off to the Himalayas and I don't have to pay my dues to corporations." But while the cycle I described applies only to those in the "developed" world that live away from nature, tribes living near fresh springs are still bound by their surroundings. Even though they don't need to pay for packaged water and feed the greed, it only takes a spell of drought to leave them all dying of thirst. And above all this: wherever you live and whatever cycle of interdependence applies to you, you still can't feasibly "make" water by sourcing hydrogen and oxygen atoms (and if you wanted to, you would again need a lab to work in, which requires you to pay more hard-earned cash and time). Furthermore, even if you could source hydrogen and oxygen atoms and create H20 on your own, you still can't make those elements yourself!

I'm now reminded of a rather corny religious joke, in which a scientist brags about human achievements to God. "We don't really need you anymore," she tells him, "These days, we can transplant organs, genetically modify plants to withstand pests, create vaccines to make ourselves immune to disease, and many other miraculous things." God then replies, "Don't need me anymore? Okay, let's test your theory. How about we have a competition to see who can make a brand new human being?" The scientist agrees, so God suggests they follow his own ancient recipe and make a human being from a handful of dirt. The scientist bends over to scoop up some dirt from the ground. "No!" God stops her sharply, "Get your own dirt."

Even as an atheist, I see that the principles of interdependence are evident in this joke, if you just switch out "God" for "Interconnected Elements of the Universe Since Time Immemorial", as there's no way a singular entity is capable of creating anything from scratch. In fact, the joke could extend into a continuum. After being told to get her own dirt, the scientist can say, "Right, I'll catalogue the chemical and biological molecules necessary to make soil, and source them to make my own earth," to which God likely replies, "Get your own molecules!". The scientist presses further, "Okay, I'll fuse individual atoms to make molecules needed for soil," to be met with the response, "Get your own atoms!". The argument descends into protons, neutrons, and electrons, before God finally tells the scientist to get her own quarks to build atom nuclei. The scientist would then get frustrated, "Well then, big guy, where did you get your quarks?". God would roll his eyes dismissively, "I made them, dumbass," to which the scientist asks "With what? And if that's true, who or what made you?" God pauses a moment in puzzlement, then strokes his chin and says, "Hmmm. Good point." before sinking into a deep existential crisis. The scientist suddenly wakes up in her bed, turns to her husband, and says, "Honey, I had the craziest dream last night!"

Thus, if we puny little humans could really create anything from scratch, we would be "gods" ourselves. But then where would we have come from? Carl Sagan once said, "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." There's only a certain amount that a singular source is capable of. If God made the world, who made God? Or is it "Gods all the way up"? Bertrand Russell also shared his hilarious observations of the First Cause argument:

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the subject"

Back to the initial topic of freedom, let's assume that freedom = non-dependence. Since non-dependence is clearly a lie, we'll just have to accept the fact that free will is also a lie, and that there's no way we would ever be truly independent. Furthermore, as we evolved and became "civilized", we increasingly curtailed our autonomy as a society. We're not just dependent on nature at this point, but we're also inextricably dependent on each other. No longer can we live as hunter-gatherers or nomads, finding food and water from nature and building our own shelter with tools we made ourselves. Not only did we create the concept of currency in exchange for resources, we entirely eliminated the ability to fend for ourselves. This is the reason why homeless people suffer. Not only have they been ostracized from the society we've created, they also don't have the option of living entirely off the land and not having to deal with our money-for-resources, heavily interdependent lifestyle. They can't hunt in the wilderness without getting a permit. Drinking from a stream in the park is prohibited, and likely dangerous. We have created so many rules and restrictions, mostly for safety and sometimes for ignoble causes such as eradicating the visibility of poverty, that the only option for these people to get by is to ask for money in the streets. If you think about it, homeless people are left with less dignity than wild animals. At least wild animals can fend for themselves, and only be bound by the laws of nature - not the laws of humans. 


So what have we learned so far? Not a single living thing on the planet has or can have free will. This realization can be pretty depressing. Does this mean that all our hopes, dreams, and ambitions should be effectively flushed down the toilet of apathy? I say on the contrary. In the phrase "free will", we don't realize that the word will is of more significance than the word free. When we have the will to do something, we feel free. Also, feeling free and being free are two different things. If you're doing something you truly enjoy and love, you feel "free" - no matter what rules apply in the context of that activity. If you hate that activity, though, you would feel that the same rules are keeping you imprisoned. For instance, say you have to work with a verbose, narcissistic dickmuffin of a professor at school (we all do at some point). Because of your utter lack of will to work with him, all the rules of the class would make you feel bound - such as the fact that you must take his class in order to graduate, and that you're dependent on the grade he would give you. However, when it comes to your favorite professor's class, you won't feel bound at all - even though the same rules apply. 


It's amazing how often we conflate being free with feeling free. Concerning the situation I described before, you are likely to come the wrong conclusion that you do not have the freedom to get out of the class, and all you're currently confined to do is keep your nose to the grindstone and idly imagine Mr. Dickmuffin having a brief encounter with a pack of wolves during his morning commute. But that's not entirely true. You forget that you always have options, as having to take his class is not an absolute certainty in the way the gravitational pull of the Earth is, but an instance that rests on human dependence. You can always choose to drop out and leave - even though you'll get an F in the class, it's not like you're bound by the laws of physics to be there.


This calls for understanding the Buddha's distinction between absolute truths and conventional truths. Absolute truths are the universal and cosmic laws, such as proven mathematical theorems and  scientific theories. As we live in interdependence with these truths, we can never be free from them - if we were, we would be completely detached from the natural world and wholly self-sufficient - essentially becoming "gods" as I discussed earlier. Absolute freedom is unattainable, and either striving for it or assuming its existence will inevitably lead to delusion. Conventional truths, on the other hand, mark the degree of our dependence on other humans who dictate how we live our lives and conduct ourselves. These "truths" are really not truths at all, as they differ from case to case and can be escaped. In the scenario I described before, ditching a class is not physically or cosmically impossible, but carries consequences that you have to abide by if you do choose to make that decision. These consequences are conventional "truths".


Freedom from conventional truths is wholly attainable, and in fact encompasses all the freedoms we should have as basic human rights - freedom of thought, speech, expression, body, livelihood, etc. These freedoms define who we are as people, and how we navigate the world with our individual intelligences, talents, virtues, and personalities. Unlike the restrictions on absolute freedom, which are worldwide (ex. the force of gravity is consistent all over the planet, and 2+2 always equals 4 no matter where you are), restrictions on these freedoms come in many forms, and vary from region to region, depending upon the legal system and culture of a particular place - as only humans enforce these limitations. For instance, in La Paz, Bolivia, it's illegal for a married woman to drink more than one glass of wine with dinner. But if she hops on a plane to America, she can get as hammered as she wants.


So now, we enter a brief diversion into the intricacies of governments and legal systems. If conventional freedoms are what we all have a right to have, why do we need governing bodies (read: a bunch of humans) telling us (another bunch of humans) what to do? While my dad and I were discussing this, he summed up the role of all governments pretty well: "The government's job, as a whole, is to take away freedom. Our job is to decide just how much freedom the government can take away from us by voting people into office." This is the hallmark for most societies, in which power is given to people instead of taken by force (such as in a dictatorship). As far as I see it, the best governments are those that set conventional laws in accordance with the absolute laws of science and nature. Specifically, the only laws that should be put in place should be for individual and collective safety, and for protecting the conventional freedoms of others. Murder, rape, theft, and slavery are rightfully illegal, because these acts go against the freedoms of others by making them suffer. Restrictions on words, belief, expression, and thought, however, are unnecessary at best and truly dangerous at worst, as offense is taken and not given.

Thoughts, words, and actions all rest on increasing plateaus of impact. A thought impacts only the thinker, so censoring a thought is an extreme violation of the thinker's freedom. A word does impact people besides the one who uttered it, but mostly disappears as soon as it's perceived and has no lasting effect unless the perceiving person chooses to hold it tightly or respond with emotion. Censoring words is also extremely misguided, except in cases of directed verbal abuse - which can cause lasting damage to the mind. But an action is irreversible, and greatly impacts not just the person who commits it, but also other people. Therefore, it's necessary to prohibit certain "freedoms" in order to preserve the freedoms of other people. A beautiful quote from the recent film Listening comes to mind: "The brief moment between a thought and an action is where free will lies."

I have once heard it said that freedom and equality are diametrically opposed to each other, but I don't at all find this to be true. Promoting equality is just a way to encourage everybody to live out their conventional freedoms without facing more hardship just for being who they are. When you're stopping someone from exercising their "freedom" to take discriminative actions against other people (notice the emphasis on actions, and not thoughts or words), you're not curbing their "freedom" to discriminate. True freedom can't come at the expense of others'. The only way these two ideals can be inversely proportional is if you pervert the meaning of either word. If "equality" starts to mean cultural Marxism and identity politics, in which the sentiments of a group of people are prioritized over the well-being of the individual, freedom is lost. If "freedom" starts to mean the allowance of discriminatory, bigoted policies and actions, equality is lost.


So what does all this mean for us as individuals walking on the face of the Earth? We don't have absolute freedom, and we are constantly faced with a barrage of conventional lies and truths. Even we can lead to our own undoing. Nietzsche famously proclaimed "God is dead", and in the years following his era, society has come closer and closer to qualifying his statement. In Victorian times, people looked to a higher power in the sky for nearly every aspect of life. Belief was an integral, immutable part of their existence, as not much was known about science and the mechanisms of the natural world. Nowadays, as we continue to extend the frontiers of knowledge, especially in the developed parts of the world, reliance on the supernatural as the sole arbiter of the universe is in a steady decline. This is not to say that the virus of religious dogmatism has been eradicated (far from it), but that we learned to rightfully segregate science and religion. Even the educated religious people of today understand the divide between their personal faith in a god (or gods) and natural truths. 

Nietzsche envisioned society becoming increasingly comfortable, convenient, and science-reliant, and often wondered about what will take the place of blind faith in its absence. He worried about what he called the "cult of comfort", or what I see as people becoming infinitely more concerned with being than doing. The cushier our lives have become, the more complacency and indolence we've fostered, worshiping consumerism, groupthink, and greed on the same altar God used to sit upon. For many, God and greed sit on the altar together! We have become little more than cattle, having labels slapped on us and being mindlessly coerced into making decisions not for our own interests, but for the not-so-well-intentioned interests of those who have rose to power. We even slap labels on ourselves, and curtail the very freedoms we are fundamentally entitled to.

Thus, getting rid of the idea of God and religious delusion is not the entire solution. It's a good start for sure, in order to think critically and claim your individuality, but it does not in any way erase your susceptibility to letting other entitities rule over you. What we really need to do is get rid of is this huge communal altar, on which we place a multitude of collective ideals in order to feel complete. We should each have a personal altar  instead of a public one, and place our individual faiths in doing whatever we see as a betterment of ourselves and others in our fleeting time in the universe - not being a part of a group or having a certain identity. I'm American. I'm a Democrat. I'm a Republican. I'm gay. I'm straight. I'm black. I'm white. If your identities and affiliations are the most interesting parts of yourself, you are not living up to your true potential, and are severely cutting off your own personal freedoms. That, and you're a very boring organism indeed. That is not to say that you aren't at all defined by these identities, but that you're defined by all of these at the same time and none of these at all. I recall reading about the concept of hybridity in art history class, and how British-born Nigerian artist Yinka Shonabare defined himself as not just black, not just gay, not just Nigerian, and not just British, but a combination of all of these things and none of them at the same time. Moreover, he emphasized the importance of his thoughts over his identities, showing that intellectual diversity is far more important than diversity of the outer identities, such as nationality, race, class, and gender. Hybridity is shown in the philosophical argument that Socrates with a nose job would still be Socrates, but Socrates without his brain would no longer be Socrates. 


The fact that humans are social creatures by nature, yet paradoxically capable of profound individual thought further complicates things. From birth, we are endowed with similar amounts of skill sets but an unequal amount of opportunities to hone our skills. To maintain a sense of "order" in society, we artificially created parties, subgroups, and cultures. We trampled upon those who dared to naturally think for themselves, because we viewed them as a threat.

But the time has now come to fight this system, and claim back the freedom we took from ourselves. In such a world we've both inherited and created, the only truly reliable entities are love and compassion. Not your identities and not your possessions. The key is to associate with other humans, live and laugh among them, but always make sure never to merge into the collective whole, and remember what sets you apart. Take refuge in art and the absolute truths of the universe, instead of conventional, pre-packaged lies of deluded humans. The fact that we're standing on Earth as we are is awe-inspiring in and of itself, and we have an infinite number of phenomena to thank for that. Our existence is meaningless in the cosmic sense, but it's the meaning that we find in our lives that make our time here meaningful. Even without the sugarcoated lies of permanence and non-dependence, we're all legendary, and it's time we started acting like it.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

All is fair in art and context

7:00am. Having woken up rather too early for a Saturday morning, I sit in my living room and drowsily attempt to theoretically analyze Three Movements from Petrushka, while sipping my morning coffee and watching the beautiful sun rise from behind the Coloane Alto...


If only I were able to rise as quickly. The coffee, though strong, is not helping yet - much at the expense of Stravinsky. For a short while, I try to fight the weariness and trudge onwards with my task, indicating the various chords, scales, and observations on the score in uncharacteristically poor handwriting, but the moment I suddenly realize that I had read the wrong clef for an entire page is the final straw on the camel's back. I close my book in frustration and inexorably turn to the clandestine realm of both the sleepless and the sleep-deprived: the internetz. 

Tired but not wishing to be entirely unproductive, I decide to watch the Petrushka ballet on YouTube for yet another time, in order to gain a more clear understanding of the narrative. As I see the Bolshoi Ballet Company's poignant choreography - evocatively portraying the main character's delirious irrationality, his creator's callousness, and society's obliviousness - I start to reflect more deeply on the process of performing pieces based on stories, and my role as a pianist to weave the story convincingly for my audiences. How should the score be interpreted to reflect the beautiful narrative? Also, how different an approach is required for such a work than that of a non-narrative piece, like a Beethoven sonata? 

A little contemplation reveals that meaning plays a crucial role in these aspects of music interpretation, or in any other instance in the world for that matter. What notes, elements, and phrases I choose to make meaningful will shape my entire approach, and will ultimately either make or break the piece. Meaning is what brings music to life, allowing it to soar through the skies and inspire our most fanciful dreams or drag us through the depths of our darkest fears.  In the human world, imparting the wrong amount of meaning or imparting meaning on the wrong things are causes for much delusion. The quest for meaning motivates people to fall in love, fall in hate, and cling like tendrils to ideology. In fact, it was this very quest that drove poor Petrushka into passionately loving the Ballerina despite her obvious shortsightedness and superficiality. But knowing all the confusion surrounding meaning, how can I be sure I'm making the right things meaningful in all the music I play? 

So far, I can confidently pin down three fundamental truths about meaning in all art forms: 1. The decision of how much meaning to impart depends on the literalism or subjectivity with which the work is perceived, 2. Literal or subjective perception depends on the amount of context a particular piece of art contains, and 3. The more context there is, the more literally the music should be perceived, and the less context there is, the more subjectively it should be perceived. 

Yes I know, this discourse has the potential to turn into a labyrinthine mindfuck. Please bear with me and I'll try my best not to let that happen. 

Context is an indispensable part of art. Just as science relies only on hard evidence to prove any hypothesis, art relies entirely on context to justify any decision, including the imparting of meaning. However, unlike science, art is something that affects people in different ways, which makes it extremely subjective. There's also the issue of accepting uncertainty: unlike science, in which we will always find more evidence to validate a theory, art does not always naturally contain a lot of context, neither is it possible to know the full story as it is created by malleable human brains - not nature. It's unfortunately due to these reasons that context in art is often shoved out of the spotlight and not taken as seriously as evidence is in scientific fields. I have previously written about the mumbo-jumbo circulating in the classical music industry, and how the subjective nature of music paradoxically generates dogmatic opinions. This is only because the context in which music is written has not been properly understood, and as a result, people resort to fabricating contextual details to justify their personal preferences - also the same reasons people often try fabricating evidence in science. When any attempt at comprehension is made, the years-old musical scores are looked to, but they hold such little concrete information that trying to derive "correct" interpretation from them is entirely baseless and uninformed. Contextual details can be found from more sources than just the score - including history, verified literature, and the composer's own notes and interviews - but even this is sometimes not enough. 

As a blogger second to a concert pianist, I've seen that the same problem plagues words and literature as well as music. If we take a walk into history, this similarity is hardly surprising, as words and music are kissing cousins that evolved from a common ancestor: sound. When our caveman ancestors wanted to express their ideas and emotions, they used sound to create a communicative system which over the years grew larger and more complex. When they wanted to express their artistry, they isolated pure tones from the clustered sounds they heard in nature and arranged them in organized patterns - also making these arrangements more and more complex and codifying music theory up till today. The wider these fields became, the more perspectives were added to the mix, so while some heads turned up to the sky, others went straight in the sand. Both words and music have been used to express radical ideas to liberate humanity (for example, Martin Luther King's speeches, or John Lennon's music), as well as to control people through dogma and facilitate oppression (such as religious texts, and in music, the brigade of puritanical assholes that was the Council of Trent). 

A good way to understand humankind's perception of art is the Platonic Theory of Forms. Plato posited that our idea about something is more powerful than the thing itself - an assertion that could go both ways. Through some contemplation, I have found that though our ideas are very powerful, they are not always accurate. For example, if I saw an apple tree, and tried to explain to a friend what that apple tree looked like, I would never be able to succeed, as her imagination of the apple tree (constructed from my words) would never truly resemble the actual apple tree. This goes for all natural entities (like trees, animals, humans, objects) - our perception of that entity would never align fully with the entity itself, and the entity will always remain the most powerful. However, when it comes to that which is man-created, like all art forms including words and music, the initial conception of the creator of that art is most accurate. However, its power rests not in itself, but in how people perceive it. The effectiveness of a composition or speech depends on who's listening, as every person is moved by art in different ways. 

For these reasons, one could say that all is fair in art. This is correct, as art is a product of our very complex human minds, but none of it would be perceived with fairness without understanding context. To simplify this understanding, I have formulated what I call my Artistic Hierarchy of Context, in which I will compare the contextual content of both language and music side by side from the most basic unit (a single note and a single letter) to the most complex (a whole piece of music and a piece of prose or poetry). Each level indicates increased context. Note that this only serves as a
basic guide, as art rests on a vast spectrum - not a series of carefully curated boxes, and ultimately      should be understood on a case by-case basis:

Level 1 - One note = One letter 
Music: The middle C  
Literature: The letter A

At this point, we don't have much information at all. The only context we have is position and quality. We know what the note C sounds like, and its position on the keyboard. In accordance, we know how to pronounce the letter A, and its position as the first letter of the alphabet. That's it. Both are simply building blocks of larger entities, and have no meaning in and of themselves. Therefore, there are no "good" or "bad" notes or letters. An 'A' could belong to any word or sentence, and a 'C' could belong to any phrase of music. Is the A part of the word "apple"? Does the C imply C minor? Millions of possibilities exist. 

Since these basic units have the minimum amount of context, they can be perceived in a multitude of ways - hence their subjectivity. Even though it's impossible for words and notes to be inherently good, bad, or ugly, people feel very differently about them due to their mindsets, abilities, and experiences. For instance, my non-musician father knows where a C is on a keyboard but feels nothing when a C is played in front of him, whereas I start to see pure white and get an oddly secure feeling when I hear one because I have both perfect pitch and color synesthesia. Someone else could be emotionally triggered by the note C in either a positive or negative way, depending upon how their experiences conditioned them. I'm sure the same applies to letters as well, as the letter/color synesthetic author Vladimir Nabokov might tell you. 

However, these are all individual perceptions, and don't change the fact that a C is a C, and an A is an A, and both hold no more contextual information than their sound and placement.

Moving on...

Level 2 - One musical motif = One word 
Music: These four notes:
Literature: The word "cat" 

Alright, things just got a little bit more complex. At this point, we are given definitions. Everyone knows what a cat is, and musicians would immediately associate the very well-known group of notes above with the key of C minor and subsequently, Beethoven's 5th. But at a deeper level, these definitions are still contextually bankrupt. What kind of cat is implied here? A house cat or a cheetah? And even though this particular group of notes fits directly into our mental sets as Beethoven's 5th, they could be harmonized in pretty much any progression! I didn't show you the rest of the music around this motif. Ives' Concord Sonata quotes the same notes. What tells you that these notes aren't part of E flat major, or G minor, or even a modulation from a distant key? The human mind is naturally reliant on patterns and association and that's a great advantage to us, but sometimes we need to get past that in order to see things for what they are, and in this case, this motif is just four notes and nothing more. 

At this point, it's still contextually impossible for a word or motif to be inherently good or bad. Yes, words and motifs make great impacts due to their definitions, but they can't be positive or negative at the core. The late great George Carlin describes this excellently in his Seven Dirty Words monologue. There are no bad words, he says, only bad intentions. Yet somehow, there are some special words which are frowned upon in society and get bleeped into oblivion on TV and most public media (thankfully not the Internet!), regardless of the context in which they are used. Furthermore, people are trying to censor other words in the name of being "politically correct", such as the word "retard". These people call for banning use of the word in media, and referring to it as "the R-word" to avoid offending the mentally challenged. What they don't understand is that the word doesn't really mean much on its own, but it's the intention behind it that brings it to life. Moreover, the definition of the word has completely changed over the years, and in today's world, "retard" is used to decry unfathomable stupidity - not to disparage the disabled. A driver might yell "Retard!" at someone who rudely cuts in front of him, but that doesn't make him ableist. In fact, the people rallying against the word are being ableist themselves, as they still equate the word with disability despite the modern-day definition. If they really wish to inculpate words on grounds of etymology, they would also have to protest "idiot", "moron", and "imbecile", as these words have discriminatory origins as well, but let's not give them any ideas. Wait, they already have those ideas? Dracula's toilet just called, it wants its batshit back.

So even though the Political Correctness Army thinks they're making the world a more pluralistic, 
compassionate place by boycotting words, all they're accomplishing is flagrantly disregarding the 
truths of context. And being fucking retarded. 

Level 3 - A musical phrase = a sentence
Music: This opening of Chopin's 3rd ballade: 
 
Literature: The cat sat on the mat. 

Now we have a full string of individual units creating a small but coherent whole. A musical or linguistic sentence can be inherently good, bad, or neutral (like "The cat sat on the mat"). Good phrases in music would be effective, meaningful, and structurally consistent - whatever structure they may follow. Bad phrases would leave a bad impression on the ears, as they would lack in both pattern and coherence. Aleatoric (chance) music or stream-of-consciousness writing, lack in overt patterns, but they fall into the neutral category, as the pattern is not having a pattern. 

Poorly constructed linguistic sentences may severely lack in both effectiveness and veracity. People often say that "words hurt", but what they really mean is that sentences hurt. For instance, the sentence "Women are dumb" is obviously bad, because it stinks of horrible sexist bias and contains not one iota of truth. However, with this added information comes a caveat. What if this sentence was being said sarcastically? Then it would suddenly not be "bad" anymore. More importantly, if this sentence is so objectively bad, what's it doing on my blog? Someone who hates me could practically lift the words "Women are dumb" from this post, quote me out of context, and label me a sexist. Similarly, one can extract any transitional phrase from a brilliant piece of music and pan it as ridiculous and nonsensical without accounting for the other phrases as a reference.

Just like "bad" sentences can become good in this manner,  "good" sentences could also become bad, and lead to bad actions. Woody Allen describes the dangers of quote-worshiping in his film, Irrational Man. Abe Lucas, the washed-up protagonist, accepts an offer to teach at a university after years of a successful writing career. The whole school is abuzz due to his exciting reputation, with both professors and students awaiting his arrival. One of the professors wryly remarks that Abe will "add some Viagra into the philosophy department".

But little did they know that Mr. Lucas himself needed truckloads of the stuff. Here was a professor who, armed with a way with words and a wealth of knowledge, had documented his observations about the findings of major philosophers in bestselling books. However, he also had a penchant for playing the role of a "tortured artist" (or histrionic manwhore, take your pick), and mostly drank his way through life. But as with most people who use such things as coping mechanisms, life eventually drank its way through him, and when that point came he realized how all the philosophical theories he had so painstakingly studied and enthusiastically extolled were nothing more than superficial paraphernalia in the context of his own life, having no practical applications whatsoever. Still, this doesn't stop his awestruck admirers (especially wide-eyed Jill) from fawning over his supposed wisdom and dismissing the extent of their intelligence in his presence. In essence, Abe Lucas turns out to be little more than a metaphysical charlatan who's a master at dishing out pseudo-profundities to elicit awe and approval, and the lust-crazed groupies who gullibly idolize him are so dumb they could fuck a doorknob. 

In the wake of his existential crisis, Abe overhears the plight of a divorced mother who could lose custody of her children because of a corrupt family court judge. The woman tearfully wishes that the judge would get cancer and die, so that she could have justice. Abe suddenly finds his life's purpose to murder the judge, in order to improve the condition of the world by removing the suffering of that woman. He rationalizes his hilarious delusions with some excellent (but context-less) quotes of philosophers, including Sartre's "Hell is other people" and Kierkegaard's "Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom". While these sentences are true, they don't reveal which situations they are applicable in when standing alone. While asserting that people should pursue freedom in action, Kierkegaardian ethics also specify that freedom is meaningless without responsibility. But Abe doesn't understand anything beyond the sentences that affirm his actions (classic confirmation bias), and as a result, refuses to be held accountable. He basks in the carnal excitement of his cold-blooded killing, but is willing to let someone else go to prison for his crime. When Jill confronts him to come clean and turn himself in, he plots to murder her as well - a plot that quite karmically leads to his own demise. 

At the end, we are left with two pointless deaths, all because a psychopath took a few good quotes completely out of context. Case in point: a sentence is still meaningless on its own without knowledge of the other sentences that frame it. So to all the people who rely on soundbites to justify arguments and actions instead of real evidence (looking right at you, Donald Trump), I think I just saw that doorknob over there wink at you. Maybe you should go introduce yourself. Thank me later. 

Level 4 - Non-narrative pieces = poetry 
Music: Beethoven's Sonata op. 109 
Literature: Allen Ginsberg's Howl 

Now that the basic components of both music and language have been covered, we finally have full pieces containing ideas that begin and end. Non-narrative pieces like Mozart's sonatas or Chopin's concertos do not follow a continuous storyline, but rather are based on moods and feelings of the composer, which makes them more contextually open. Beethoven composed his Appassionata sonata under the anguish of going deaf, but interpretations vary greatly and either emphasize his sadness, anger, or despondency. Similarly, most poetry (except maybe for ballads) doesn't have a continuous story line, but rather consists of the author's observations about a particular instance, such as love or death - like Allen Ginsberg's beat poem, Howl. These works of art are the most subjective, as their creators have purposely structured them to be interpreted in multiple ways and speak to listeners and readers differently based on their own experiences. It was this aim to "trick" people that actually led to Ginsberg's laughable obscenity trial, in which a bunch of obnoxious professors stepped up to the podium in court to argue over whether Howl could be considered a valid work of literature or not. 

Within both non-narrative and narrative music, the specificity of score markings varies greatly. For instance, Beethoven's scores are extremely detailed, and he intended every marking and Italian indication to be taken seriously. Brahms didn't much care for markings, and chose to leave many of these technicalities for the performer to figure out. It's important to keep in mind that the amount of markings don't exactly have a bearing on context, as they depend on the style and conventions of the composer. They only offer easy means to structure and convey ideas, but do not precisely link to perception. I remember when I was working on Beethoven's op.109 a few years ago, and came upon these sixteenth notes in the second variation of the third movement, marked leggieramente (as lightly as possible):


Now, I knew that op.109 is one of Beethoven's last sonatas, and expresses both gravitas and reflectiveness. This particular section is among the happier, deliciously scintillating moments in the piece, so I decided to emphasize the rests and play the notes on the shorter side to showcase its lightness. A teacher I played it for advocated a different approach: lengthening the notes, but playing them more softly to convey the same lightness I was striving for, which made for a very interesting sound quality. Fast forward a year later, I watched Richard Goode teach the piece in a masterclass. Mr. Goode posited that sustaining the notes even the slightest would sound cumbersome and heavy, and that an approach similar to what I had initially conceived would give much-needed liveliness to the excerpt. Both views are in accordance with the composer's wishes, and this is how Beethoven the Genius had intended us to interpret his musical poetry: to feel his emotions deeply and follow his scores diligently, but never bottle his music up in a jar of semantics. 

Level 5 - Narrative pieces - Fictional prose
Music: Stravinsky's Three Movements from Petrushka 
Literature: Punch and Judy (which the story of Petrushka originated from) 

When a composer depicts a continuous story through the music, there is no emotional "trick" anymore, as the musical elements represent instances of the story. Therefore, there is an extra need for literalism and attention to the individual elements of the piece, as the context of the work is quite clearly expressed at all times by default. To answer the initial question about a Beethoven sonata and Petrushka, both call for an equal attention to meaning, but in diverse ways: Beethoven requires the pianist to explore emotions in a deeper, wider, and more general sense as there is less context available to us, whereas Stravinsky requires the pianist to identify which specific instances in the piece he or she finds most emotional, as the story lays out a clearer contextual pathway to walk on. This degree of specificity does make life a bit easier, as there are less decisions to be made by the performer, but it also sparks new questions about originality and creating a "signature" interpretation. For instance, how exactly would I put a "Tussah" stamp on Petrushka, if the imaginative part has already been stamped for me? 

The answer lies somewhere in the fact that, even though Stravinsky already made the theoretical decisions for me, the practical decisions are still my responsibility. The story was not created as a definitive rulebook, but rather as a helpful guideline, and a musician's personal feelings, opinions, and perceptions have a great impact on the resulting interpretation. To put it simply, it's very clear what is supposed to be communicated at all times during the music, but how it's communicated is up to me. "How" refers to in what manner I choose to depict an instance in the music, and the amount of meaning I choose to impart into each note, element, and phrase. This differs among all interpretations. For instance, I find the scene in the music when Petrushka knocks his head on the wall in desperation, begging the Ballerina to come back poignantly striking, and emphasize it either with exaggerated dynamics, special articulations, change in timing, etc., whereas another pianist may find the moment when Petrushka passionately throws his hands in the air lamenting the Ballerina's departure more musically important and do the same.

Thus, this is where subjectivity lies in narrative pieces. Once the story is both understood and internalized, it's never wrong - scratch that - it's absolutely necessary to emphasize (or de-emphasize) various scenes of the piece in order to make it unique. The only great sin of interpretation - and this applies to all music regardless of its contextual content - would be to markedly emphasize every single note, element, or phrase in effort to make them all meaningful. I once heard a professor quip to a student during a masterclass, "You must play with your heart on fire, but your mind on ice. If you make every single note so cloyingly sentimental, you would sound like a conductor who has an orgasm every time his hand moves!" 

As awesome as it would be to be that conductor, the fact remains that such an ability would soon grow repetitive and exhausting, and be absolutely no fun for anyone else. Similarly, if every note is made to be meaningful in a piece of music, then no note would be meaningful as a result, and everything would be quite anticlimactic to say the least. Or should I say over-climactic?

Level 6 - Serialism/formulaic music - "Holy" books and other instructional allegorical prose 
Music: Anything by the Second Viennese School 
Literature: The Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. 

I'll admit that this is a very eclectic matchup, but it's exceedingly logical. Serialist composers strove for total control over the aspects of music, and thoroughly eschewed such cowardly things as emotion, passion, and feelings. Luciano Berio once mused, "Alas, this industrialized twelve-tone horse, dull on the outside and empty inside, constantly being perfected and dragged to a new Troy in shadow of an ideological war long since fought and won by responsible minds like Schoenberg, with neither systems nor scholarship for armor!" Perfection is essential, and each form of a twelve-tone row (prime, inversion, retrograde, and retrograded-inversion) rule over the music with an iron fist, dictating motivic direction, development, and technical details. Take, for example, one of Messiaen's modes of limited transposition, in which every single note of the row has been associated with an immutable dynamic marking:


As one can see, there is no room for cherry-picking in the world of serialism. All the rules the ecomposer has laid down are absolute. If he or she has stated that a form of a tone row is to be played forte each time it appears, it must be unquestioningly played forte. If the composer specifies that every E in the piece should be played staccato, then every E had better be staccato. In some compositions, even the manner in which the staccato should be played has been specified. A serialist interpreter can't sit and decide for herself that she will follow some of these rules, yet disregard others at whim. This stringency is innate to the style of music, and without it, the work would not be considered serialist anymore, and might as well not be played at all. The core mathematical and musical patterns at the heart of the composer's vision for the piece would be broken, and not at all heard by listeners. The key is simple: either follow all the rules, or ditch the music if you disagree with even a single one. 

Fortunately, serialism has never led to widespread decimation of progress and peace, unlike some other "-isms" in the world. Serialism and religious/allegorical texts are contextually alike because they both were conceived as extremely literal guides, requiring utmost, unemotional adherence. In order to truly follow a religion and call oneself a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc., one must subscribe to its tenets without any doubts or exceptions, as that's the purpose they were written to serve. Even though the regulations are explained through metaphor, the resulting moral lessons are not to be understood as metaphors themselves. 

However, the contradictory nature of the rules makes this task virtually impossible, which inexorably leads to hypocrisy. So-called Christian "absolute moralists" cherry-pick parts of their holy book to indulge their fascist fantasies, and yammer on about the Bible's addled verses on sexuality while willfully overlooking the verses forbidding shellfish and wearing mixed materials. On the flip side, "moderate" religious folks, unlike their fundamentalist counterparts, entirely snub the negative, untrue aspects of their dogmas and insist that no "true" Christian would be sexist or homophobic, or that ISIS are not "real" Muslims, just because the Bible and Koran contain mundane platitudes about universal love and goodwill - none of which could be considered exclusive to any religious text or moral story in the world. These people somehow manage to rationalize belief in books that condone violence, hatred, and inequality at their core, yet claim that the god they were written on behalf of is benevolent. Fundamentalists follow only the vengeful verses of their holy books and ignore the merciful ones, and the "moderate" religious look only to the merciful verses and ignore the vengeful ones. But the fact remains that neither can logically call themselves true believers, and both groups are grossly violating the terms of their texts. Their literature openly dictates strict, non-negotiable adherence to all their rules in the precise manner of serialism - not fluid, subjective, and selective interpretation required for non-narrative music and poetry. 

Perhaps the biggest difference between serialism and religious texts is that while the former largely aims for extreme straightforwardness and pattern-oriented clarity, the latter sets people up to fail from the start with convoluted contradictions. Whatever you do, you will always suck at your religion. But don't worry, it's not you - it's because your religious writings themselves suck. If you don't believe me, just ask your battered slaves and wives. Which calls into question: why even attempt to follow them to begin with? Bill Maher summed it up succinctly when he remarked, "I always say to my religious friends, if a pool had even one turd in it, would you jump in?" Forget one turd - most holy books are overflowing cesspools of Bronze Age ramblings which should've been edited or gone the way of the dinosaur by now. In such doctrines that demand all or nothing, nothing is the more contextual (and moral) choice. Or perhaps converting to serialism is the more contextual choice - as far as I can remember, it has never killed anyone. Maybe if the religious turned to Berg and Webern instead of God, the world would be a more educated (if not a more crashingly atonal) place. That's a movement I could get behind. All hail our Lord and Savior, Arnold Schoenberg. Amen. 

Fuck, I miss Liszt and Rachmaninov just thinking about all this. I guess it's not a movement I could get behind after all. 

So that concludes my explanation of the different levels of musical and linguistic context. Of course, even despite one's best efforts, misunderstanding will always be a part of reality of life as a human, and especially life as an artist. There is no surefire way to avoid delusion in any subjective field, but I've found that examining the rules of meaning and creativity in a compartmentalized fashion makes decision-making a lot easier. As tempting as it is to jump to conclusions, it is always important to remember that truth is what holds up perceptions and makes them valid, and that all is fair in art and context...