Fish and Moose

" Fish and Moose is  a witty comedy following the tale of three close friends and Doug as they face their respective daily trials of work (and the avoiding of it), sexism, finding an occupied bed for the night (and leaving it without attracting attention to oneself).

Ray and Jules set about the task of trying to force their friend James to get over a break up as the sitcom gives a naturalist take on familiar situations. The cast is a highly believable bag of characters who share witty repartee, teaching you why be “moose” when you can be “fish” ! "



This is a most-loved project I'm working on with my friend Finn Townsley who stage managed my play Lock and the Emerald Eyes (my second play) and co-wrote+co-directed Patriot (the third.)

For me the interesing thing about this piece of writing is it started out life as an extensive list of jokes that we had coined over the course of several nights out. Us having a few different strands to our senses of humour, characters began emerging through the jokes as you could think "well that line could be said by the same person that said that line" ...and then storyline started to weave itself around the development characters. It has shown out to be a really cool, interesting and original way of writing, consistently funny, with some very unexpected results regarding the depths of some of the characters. Lots of happy coinicdences and subtext that was coined without preconception and becaue most of the jokes are things that were actually said the dialogue is very natural and believeable. I am very much looking forwards to seeing how this goes!

Orlando - Handel'd with Care

Scottish Opera perform a modernisation of Handel’s Orlando at the Theatre Royal, Glasgow

            Putting on one of Handel’s Operas will always create controversy between those impresarios pledging unfaltering fidelity to the original text and those staring in the face of a patronage acclimatised to the Italian Romantic repertoire which is the mainstay of the contemporary opera house. Rossini, Verdi, Puccini. They need little modernisation as they deliver in and of themselves exactly what an audience expects from the Opera. How though, can an early 18^th century work written for an audience that was expected to pay only cosmetic attention to the stage capture the attention of today? Needless to say some work has to be done whether one stays true to the original reading of the text or otherwise.

           Having attended a private seminar given by director, Harry Fehr, on his vision for the piece, it was with great expectation that I attended Scottish Opera’s contemporisation of Orlando. The “swords-and-sorcery” tale of a great soldier in Charlemagne's army driven mad by unrequited love only to be restored to sanity by a wizard’s spell has been reimagined in a World War II setting. Orlando is now a RAF hero, and the sorcerer is a talented psychologist who cures him with shock treatment - controversial! Unfortunately the adaptation, while often compelling, sometimes challenges the audience to credibly reintegrate libretto with setting, for example when Orlando pledges to slay dragons, monsters and madmen to prove his love to Angelica. The naturalistic themes synonymous with Handel’s Operas also find poor substitution in the clinical hospital. Dorinda sings: “How delightful it is in these woods! To watch the harmless play of goats and deer…” but the woods are a small garden with potted plants, and there are no playful goats or deer to be seen.

            While the acting is good on all counts (particularly Sally Silver’s heartfelt and emotionally torn performance of Dorinda) and there are some truly memorable aria moments, particularly in the third act, these merits are counterbalanced by some serious directorial blunders in the execution of the piece. The most unforgivable of these is at the very climax of the piece when Orlando is finally cured of his madness and declares himself a new man. Handel’s music suddenly rings out in all the colours of a glorious celebration, but far from finding our hero lauded and applauded at centre stage, where he belongs, he starts singing his Aria on his knees somewhere over to the left, and continues to distract us from his lovely voice by getting dressed throughout it. Patrons and critics will debate the relative merits and demerits of any modern rendering of an opera, but botching the climatic scene is unambiguously Fehr’s failing.

Still, Scottish Opera’s new setting holds novelty enough to make it worth seeing, each making their own value judgement as to the success of the new setting. Handel’s beautiful, plush, score provides much to thrill the ear, although some may feel that the two countertenor voices of the principle males joining the two soprano female leads perhaps creates too little variation in the vocal range.  Thankfully towards the end “Dr.” Zoroastro’s lower voice plays a more prominent role and is a welcome change of character.

West Side Story in the South Side

Glasgow Music Theatre perform West Side Story in Eastwood Park Theatre, Giffnock. 

            There's little doubt that West Side Story, Leonard Bernstein’s streetwise reinterpretation of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, is one of the best loved musicals ever written. The 2009 Broadway Revival lasted out nearly 750 performances into January of this year. Nothing about the show is forgiving to amateur performers. They are expected to sing, dance and act with competence while at the same time maintaining the teenage zest of the characters they play rather over the maturity of their craft. The score, replete with ever-memorable showstoppers such as the America, Tonight and Maria, has been described, at best, as “rangy” to sing, and it requires a large ensemble (with many players doubling on more than one instrument) to properly realise its cocktail of jazz on the rocks served with cool ballads and a not-light sprinkling of off-beat dissonance carried fourth from Bernstein’s experience conducting the symphonies of Gustav Mahler. It is therefore with some degree of ambition that Glasgow Music Theatre, a new group formed in 2009, take on this as their third show.

The challenge is set. Expectations are high.  No one would care to see their favourite scenes and numbers floundered by poor execution. And no one will leave disappointed. Marion Baird’s choreography merges seamlessly into Amy Glover’s direction with intricate professionalism, and who can tell where ones work ends and the other’s begins? There are some wonderful dancers and actors in this group.

The principal cast, for the main part, give extremely nuanced performances: we see Bernardo, leader of the Shark gang (played by John McGlone) hold up his head and broaden his chest with Hispanic pride. His “Jet” counterpart, Riff (played by Stewart Archibald), deftly delivers his lines with attitude and impeccable timing. Kirsty Leith, who plays Maria (the Juliet of West Side Story) has a pure, clear voice truly to die for that fills the theatre and will ultimately bring a tear to the unsuspecting eye. Unfortunately, at times she is let down by the physical rigidity of her Romeo, played by Colin Richardson, who gives a good-natured performance that suffers from a lack of openness in his body language. This was particularly painful during his solo, Maria, in which the audience expects to see him stretch his arms out in a whirlwind of passion, but finds them magnetically drawn into his chest instead. David McCurrach gives a stand-out performance as Lt. Schrank, catching us off-guard as he switches with expert calculation between the attitudes of Good Cop and Bad Cop.

A particular success of the performance was a pervading feeling that these really were youngsters who believed their lives as hoodlums transformed them into adults. This is something that is often lost in renderings of West Side Story by more mature casts, notably the movie version. Such youthful spirit comes to crescendo in the playful satirical number Gee, Officer Kruptke, which is always a highlight of the show, but a more skilfully choreographed and amusingly performed rendition is beyond my imagination.

Look out for Glasgow Music Theatre, they’ll soon attain a worthy reputation as the most professional of amateur theatre company in Glasgow.

No Clear Deterrent - An Austere Case For Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament

Written for Nuclear Free Scotland the publication of the CND

The British public greet the new year with a VAT tax increase, along with the phase-in of the coalition-government’s savage cuts to public services which even The Telegraph reported will hit the poorest households (with incomes of under £10,000pa) 15 times harder than the richest. [1] Meanwhile the British National Debt approaches nine hundred and ninety seven billion[2] (£997,000,000,000) and each household will have to pay around £1,880 just to cover the interest on this massive figure, almost unfathomable to those of us who still believe that the purpose of paying tax in a liberal democracy is to fund public services rather than to pay off the rich corporate banking oligarchs. In a time where the most vulnerable members of society are being asked to bear the brunt of what are euphemistically termed ‘austerity measures,’ we see the true measure of parliamentarian hypocrisy in light of the majority support, both in the Conservative coalition and the Labour opposition, for continuing to upkeep Britain's independent nuclear deterrent, at the cost of £2 billion a year.

I add my own emphasis to the turn of phrase because “Nuclear Deterrent” in itself is a misnomer.  It is difficult to see the practical return we have rendered from the exorbitant amount of money successive governments have spent on nuclear weapons systems in the past, as they won us none of our wars, and deterred none of our enemies. Argentina was not deterred from seizing the Falklands even though we had the bomb and they didn’t.

Set to the backdrop of a volatile geopolitical landscape in modern times, we are entreated to believe that states such as Iran and North Korea may soon pose an imminent nuclear threat (as we were with Libya in the past) in order to justify a renewal of our nuclear arsenal in the not-too-distant future at a further cost of £76bn. Yet when our leaders make the argument from deterrence, they concomitantly empower other nations that may have nuclear aspirations to do the same. The sense of this is clear. Having initiated two legally (not to mention morally) questionable wars in the last decade, enemies of our state, and indeed those our state consider enemies, now more than ever have a compelling argument to present for their own place on the nuclear world stage.

Politicians allege that Iran develops its (perhaps ill-advised) civilian nuclear energy program only to front a desire to obtain nuclear weaponry, conveniently neglecting to mention that in order to produce weapons-grade material from uranium enrichment reactors, Iran would require thousands of centrifuges which they do not have, not to mention a nuclear warhead and delivery system. Iran’s nuclear energy initiative is also protected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who monitor for the diversion of fissionable materials to military programs.[3] The mainstream media plays its role in supporting this agenda by blurring the lines between the Shia Muslim nation of Iran and the Sunni Muslim extremist group we know as Al Qaida, despite the fact that in their own words, Al Qaida are “sworn to kill Jews, Christians and Shias.” What is more the US accepted Iran’s help in Afghanistan against the Taliban as they were a mutual enemy.

As for North Korea, the television coverage has been extremely selective, such as recently when they reported that North Korea was threatening to launch military strikes against the South, while failing to give equal notion to the fact that South Korea and the US were joining in running provocative military drills in which shells were fired close to the North Korean border. South Korea fired thousands of shells into waters within the standard 12-nautical-mile-limit of what North Korea may claim as it’s own waters. Such provocations could easily be stopped by simply instituting a no-fire zone running from the Yellow Sea to the Sea of Japan between the 37^th and 39^th parallel,[4] but where is the profit in peace?  

Warfare, coupled with a culture of fear, is the health of the state, allowing the justification of costly corporatist military programs such as nuclear weapons which play into the hands and pockets of the military industrial complex, the biggest industry in the world, trading at $500bn yearly. Our nation sells weapons to other countries to win influence and to reduce the unit cost of producing our own, claiming to stand up for human rights while at the same time supplying arms to dictators and despots. A great deal, perhaps over 50%, of publically funded research goes into arms development, yet it is a myth that arms spending is an effective way to create jobs. as the technology becomes more sophisticated and mechanised, it becomes less labour intensive. A Lucas aerospace worker said: “the taxpayer buys Harrier jump Jets and kidney machines. Lucas say it’s not profitable to buy kidney machines. We collected pennies on street corners to buy a machine for a little boy who was dying because the NHS couldn’t provide one. I wonder if it became unprofitable to produce aircraft , how many people would give pennies when the government wanted a new Harrier.” We could say the same of nuclear weapons, if ministers want them so badly, let them raise the money by donation, not at the cost of our vital public services. In the meantime, weapons are more profitable because government often guarantee manufacturers costs as well as an agreed profit, which is hardly to incentivise cost-efficiency.

It's time to start shaking hands instead of fists. At this point, the best thing the west could do in the interests of peace is open up communications and trade with countries like Iran and North Korea in good faith. As soon as there is a commercial stake in maintaining peace between nations the risk of conflict diminishes as neither nation stands to gain from losing any mutual benefit. Nato, which has been a block to disarmament since its inception, could be replaced with a much more loose alliance of non-nuclear European countries, each of whom would have their own independent arrangements but would agree to come to the aid of anyone who was attacked, because you don't need parity in weapons to fend off an aggressor, all you need is to create a situation where initiating aggression would come at great cost with no eventual gain to be had from success. Just look at the hiding our troops continue to receive from resistance fighters after over 9 years in Afghanistan, a poverty stricken nation!

There may be an argument for maintaining military strength in order to prevent terrorism, but far from serving as a deterrent to terrorists, nuclear weapons have no anti-terrorist application. On the other hand, they would provide fertile ground for any terrorist organisation who may become resourceful enough to buy, beg, borrow or steal one. This horrific scenario belies the tragic irony of the case that states that the more weapons you have the more safe you are, it seems our security is inversely proportionate to the size of our nuclear arsenal.

The biggest nuclear threat is not from any enemies, real or perceived, but by accident or mistake. Lets not forget the horrors caused by the Chernobyl incident, and that was only a tenth of a kiloton of fallout, one nuclear missile can involve 6,000 kilotons! No one in their right mind would use such a weapon because while the target gets the blast, the aggressor gets the fall out, and the whole planet gets a nuclear winter.  The idea that maintaining nuclear weapons makes the world safer is to assume that although there are tens of thousands of these weapons, none can ever be released by mistake, in response to a false alarm or worse still fall into the hands of terrorists who would love to get their hands on one. The only safe nuke is a dismantled nuke.

In 1980 the decision to replace our Polaris-Chevaline nuclear weapons system with Trident was made by Maggie Thatcher without any parliamentary discussion at all, let there not be a repeat! We want nuclear disarmament at home to stimulate multilateral agreements. Brazil and Argentina mutually agreed to end their rival nuclear programmes, South Africa abandoned their nuclear programme post-apartheid, and when the Soviet Union was no more, Ukraine and the former soviet states renounced their inherited nuclear capacity and offered America a pact to permanently eliminate all atomic weapons, but no response was fourth-coming. If Britain gave up on the idea of renewing Trident, dismantled our weapons, and began a phased withdrawal from Nato, it would undermine the justification for nuclear weapons abroad and put us in a position to make a strong case for a nuclear convention, banning the weapons world-wide.

---

[1] Myra Butterworth 22/10/10 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8080294/Poorest-households-hit-15-times-harder-by-Government-cuts.html

[2] http://www.debtbombshell.com/

[3] Debunking Iran Nuclear Propaganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2h2duVmkVI

[4] No Korean War: http://TinyURL.com/NoKoreanWar

Does Music Express Emotion?

Were we to approach the question of whether music expresses emotion too literally we would perhaps be immediately faced with an insurmountable obstacle in that a piece of music is not animate in the way that a person is animate, therefore, in the strictest sense, a piece of music has no emotions to express,[1] much as a stone has no emotions of its own, a stone merely is. And yet a stone can be sculpted, a stone can be turned into a work of art that can also be understood in our vernacular to ‘express emotion,’ thus it is not uncommon to ask of art, ‘What is this trying to express?’. If we are to make any progress in dealing effectively with the task of ascertaining whether music expresses emotion we must attempt to address the question in the figurative form in which it is intended rather than a crude literal form that yields little scope for consideration. That is to say, we must examine whether music, of itself, conveys emotion, and indeed, what emotion does it convey if it has no emotion of it’s own to express?

In the first instance I am highly dubious about the proposition that music expresses emotion because in my experience as a composer of songs I rarely seek to write music that expresses emotion. Generally I attempt to tell a story (through instrumentation and verse) or give some insight into human condition (to quote Voltaire, “I particularly like the ones which, from beneath the veil of the plot, reveal to the experienced eye some subtle truth.")[2] However, the fact that I do not aim to express emotion in my work does not logically entail that the work produced does not (albeit inadvertently) express emotion, less to speak of leading to the definitive conclusion that music as a medium does not ever express emotion at all. Those things considered we need apply an effective means of investigating the question extensively.

An apt way to do this would be to examine the most plausible examples in which we could imagine that music is likely to express emotion because it follows that if we can establish that the statement is true in one instance then it is likely to hold credit in others, the extent of which we can examine. In contrast, if the most plausible cases fails to satisfy us sufficiently then it naturally follows that less plausible cases will fail by the same lights. This method also adheres to the philosophical principle of logical positivism which states that the burden of proof lies on the positive claim (in this case that music expresses emotion.) That is to say, that rather than beginning with the assumption that music expresses emotion and attempting to discredit it we should see how evidence in favour of the proposition stands to scrutiny. With this in mind let us begin by examining the hypothetical case of an extremely gifted composer writing a piece of music with the aim of the work expressing emotion and, in so doing, achieving the greatest success afforded by what is possible. We will later also consider the role of the performer in music. If we can establish that in some instances music certainly does express emotion then we are in a better position to gauge to what extent it does so in a more general sense, and perhaps may infer when it does and when it does not.

        In order to give our composer a task which is sufficiently meritorious of gleaning insight on the matter, it will be necessary for us to draw a clear distinction between expressing emotion and eliciting emotion. As to the question of whether music can evoke emotion, to my sense of reason there seems little doubt. People often talk of music being happy or sad because listening to certain music entrains them into particular moods or states of consciousness and consequently individuals decide on what music is appropriate to put on when they take a relaxing bath, exercise and want to set the right mood for a party. Music effects the emotional states of people in various ways, that is not in dispute, but it also does little for our discussion, because music does not have to express emotion in order to evoke emotion![3] When the roulette wheel falls on black or red the gambler feels calamity or elation, yet no emotion was expressed by the roulette wheel. If the piece of our composer merely evokes emotion he does not necessarily succeed in having created music that expresses it.

Should our composer create a piece that not only evokes but truly expresses emotion what outcomes entail his success? It seems extremely difficult to be precise on this point. On one hand we could propose that if the listener is able to identify what emotion is being expressed then the composer is successful, on the other hand it is inconsistent with our experience of regular human interactions to say that an emotion needs to be correctly read in order to have been expressed. A further objection I would add is that this criterion is that it is so demanding that if it was the case hardly any music would be thought to express emotion at all because music is a very imprecise art in that respect. As Ridley put it, “Music can show us no objects... All that music can do is to resemble pieces of expressive behaviour in isolation from the contexts in which what they express is fully distinctive.”[4] How then to identify a suitable criterion for success in composing a work that expresses emotion?

Having earlier established that music, having no consciousness of its own, has no literal emotions to express, perhaps we must identify what manner of emotion a composition which purports to express emotions may be expressing. I can conceive of three possibilities: it could be the emotions of the composer, emotion that the composer instils within the creative elements of work in its genesis, or it could be emotion which is simply conjured into existence by the creative process, regardless of the composer’s intent. Each of these possibilities could potentially satisfy the criteria for establishing that music expresses emotion and yet each yields its own controversies. If, as stated in the first instance, the emotions expressed are those of the composer we must consider how they would then be relayed by the music. Does music have the power to communicate the emotions of the composer? Alan Goldman, while considering features of art which are linked to emotional states of the artist mentions the “agitated brushstrokes of van Gogh” but concludes that “our independent knowledge of van Gogh’s personality and mental problems makes his paintings seem so much an expression of his troubled mental states.”[5] An analogue of this in music could be the first movement Smetana’s first string quartet[6] which also seems to be an expression of troubled mental states. We are aware that it was written not long after Smetana went deaf and the subtitle: “Z mého života” (from in my life) is an indication of the personal nature of the piece. Smetana spoke at reasonable length on what it was intended to depict: “The inexpressible yearning of something I could neither express nor define, and also a kind of warning of (my) future misfortune.”[7] This knowledge allows us to relate what we hear to the mental states of Smetana, but without it perhaps we would consider the piece to simply be an effectively haunting composition.

If the emotions expressed in music are the emotions of the composer then it would seem that only a sad composer can write sad music when sad. Accepting this premise would not lead to the definitive conclusion that no music expresses emotion, but it doesn’t seem a very realistic suggestion. We are aware of how compose Brian Wilson spent years of his life thoroughly depressed, reportedly spending weeks at a stretch in bed while composing cheerful pop songs for his band The Beach Boys.[8]  It seems more credible to suggest that one can draw upon their experience of having had those emotions to create music that expresses them, or can seek to create a work which captures and recommunicates (expresses) their essence. This brings us to the second proposition: that the composer can somehow instil emotional expression into the creative elements of a piece.

Alan Ridley calls those elements of music which strike as particularly expressive “melismatic gestures.”[9] I would argue that if the emotion expressed in music is held within the melismatic elements crafted by the composer into his work, then expressing emotion in music becomes a discipline that can be learned and should be tangible enough to be pointed out in the score. It should be possible to isolate particular gestures and quantify what they express succinctly. I return the reader’s attention to the agitated brush strokes of van Goug. Goldman mentions that these can be copied and, until it is revealed that they are not a product of the same painter, they will appear “similarly expressive.”[10] This suggests that the strokes themselves are not truly expressive of emotion, but it is our interpretation of them which superimposes emotional expressiveness upon them. Following this line of reasoning into music, we would be able to document an array of melismatic gestures (styles of brush stroke) - features of timbre, harmony, melody and rhythm - that corresponded to the expression of particular emotions. I present this as a reductio ad absurdum: it is meaningless to isolate small pieces of music as say “this is expressive of happiness” or “this is expressive of sadness,” the meaning of a gesture “derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece,” to use the words of Theodor Adorno.[11]

This criticism raised may however be countered by the proposition that the expression of emotion by music is something ephemeral that arises through the performance of a piece, but which cannot be identified in the score. In considering this point we move towards the third proposal of what manner of emotion a composition may express, which is that the creative process simply conjures the emotion the piece is said to express into existence. In such an instance the emotion is a characteristic feature of the composition being rendered. If indeed that is the case then the successful expression of any such emotion would surely depend on the quality of a performance of the piece given as the amateur performer could easily err in the communication of the intended emotion just as in any other element of the performance. Failing to proceed without considering the importance of the performer would be only to discuss notation not music, and yet in so doing we will perhaps make the composer entirely redundant because when performance is considered, the music we concern ourselves with could just as easily be improvised. The blues for example is an improvisational style of music often closely associated with the expression of emotion. The lyrics concern misery, and melismatic guitar licks closely associated with the idiom are thought to be soulful and expressive of angst,  although some claim that while “to feel blue is to be sad, melancholy or depressed… when Blues are played or sung, it is not to succumb to sadness but to find relief while expressing it.”[12] (My emphasis added.) When one listens to a heartfelt performance of blues music it is hard to deny that emotions are being expressed, and yet we must question whether it is the music which is expressing the emotion or in fact merely performing artist through his playing. Returning to our composer, if the expression of emotion is in the rendering of the piece what role does that leave for him to express his emotions? Perhaps it is in creating melismatic gesticulation which performers can interpret in order to relay those intended feelings to the audience, much like the copyist can emulate van Goug’s “agitated brushstrokes.” Thus there is a final argument to the effect that if someone intends that their art expresses emotion then perhaps it does. Indeed it would be as difficult to argue against an artist’s claim that their work expresses a particular emotion as it would to dispute the underlying meaning of the plot of a book proposed by the author. One would think the artist would be the authority on the matter, though I believe I have provided some grounds for doubt.

It appears to me that when one tells a fairy tale, the telling of that story is not necessarily of itself an expression of emotion. Perhaps the story expresses a view on morality, on heroism, or social norm, or is simply the relaying of an adventure. Similarly a painting may not necessarily covey an emotion, it could just be a picture of a bunch of flowers. That being said, it is not impossible to conceive of someone painting their representation of anger and in such a case, who is to say that anger is not what the painting expresses? Music seems to have a very close relationship to emotions as it has the power to evoke them, yet in many cases it seeks only to create an atmosphere, tell a story or to be beautiful, horrifying or moving simply of itself. Perhaps music is used by some artists as a means of expressing emotions (such as in blues music) but it remains in question whether Smetana’s string quartet and the songs of the blues singer, like van Goug’s brushstrokes, are indeed the expression of the artists mental states, or merely a product of them.

Bibliography

·     Adorno, T. W. (1941) “On Popular Music” Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, New York: Institute of Social Research.

·     Goldman, A. (1995) “Emotion in Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 59-69

·     Kivy, P. (1980) “The Corded Shell: Reflections on Musical Expression” Princeton University press

·     Ridley, A. (1995) “The Experience of Expressive Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 49-57.

---

[1] Aaron Ridley appeared to fundamentally agree with me upon this point, stating: “Melisma (musical gesticulation) itself isn’t expressive–it only resembles something expressive.” Ridley, A. (1995) “The Experience of Expressive Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 49-57.

[2] Voltaire (1774) “The White Bull”

[3] Peter Kivy seconds my point succinctly in his work The Corded Shell, “No one should doubt that music can and does arouse emotion in this way… What we deny is that this has anything to do with musical expressiveness.” (p30)

[4] Ridley, A. (1995) “The Experience of Expressive Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 49-57

[5] Goldman, A. (1995) “Emotion in Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 59-69

[6] Work without opus number, in E minor, written in 1876.

[7] Way, J. http://www.fuguemasters.com/smetana.html#Quartet_No_1

[8] Fischer, D. corroborated by interview conducted by Friedman, G. available online: http://www.abilitymagazine.com/past/brianW/brianw.html

[9] Ridley, A. (1995) “The Experience of Expressive Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 49-57.

Also see footnote 1.

[10] Goldman, A. (1995) “Emotion in Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 59-69

[11] Adorno, T. W. (1941) “On Popular Music” Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, New York: Institute of Social Research.

[12] “The Blues and How” Claire Music Co. Inc.

The Pragmatist

I consider myself a pragmatist. I wouldn’t say I’m in any way an immoral person, I mean, I’m not the kind of guy who would harm someone for the sake of it, I’m not a sadist. So I blackmailed a gullible politician. A crooked one at that. It’s not something my conscience is going to eat at me for because I don’t see it as a moral issue, it’s a matter of pragmatism. He had the power to get what I need, and he was foolish enough to believe I was capable of what I threatened, so a transaction took place. Do you have pangs of moral conscience buying something that will benefit you in a half price sale? Of course not! Why should you?

I have no use for God. Well, I’m not saying definitively that it’s impossible that the universe has a creator, it’s just that if it does he she or it is really rather unconcerned with my affairs. I have no use for him so I will spare you the other clichés alternatively proposing that he just has a weird sense of humour or is away on sabbatical. Maybe he’s just a pragmatist too. I have no time for philosophy.

I believe in science. Well, as far as anyone really believes in science, which is to say that I believe what suits me and interpret what happens to me in a way that supports that worldview while making a concerted effort to avoid evidence which contradicts my biases. See? I’m a pragmatist.

There’s a reason why Tories read the Telegraph and Lefties read the Guardian.

Maybe it’s fairer to say I believe in success. Look at me though, I’m successful!

The bottom line is, I’m not actually in the habit of stepping over people to get what I want. Most of the time all I do is sense what people expect and serve it up for them. I provide a service, like supply and demand. Yeah! It’s just like responding to market forces!

It just so happens that most people actually expect calamity, disaster, and, well, being fucked for a buck, if you’ll pardon the French. Who am I to judge? I’m just pointing out the chink in other peoples armour…
With the sword they put in my hand.

It’s not rocket science, you just need to pay attention. You see, most people are sleep walking - they talk when they should be listening – and they’re self absorbed, so they miss absolutely everything. I don’t miss anything. That’s why I’m a pragmatist.

It’s not a gift or a talent, it’s a discipline to be highly developed. If you’re busy thinking of what you’re going to say next time it’s your shot I guarantee you’re missing 99% of the information that is being communicated to you. People fail to use their eyes, so they stumble around bumping into on another until one of them falls off the edge of a cliff. And sometimes that’s where I come in. If it wasn’t me it would be someone else. Like I said, I’m a pragmatist.

Hymn for the Redemption of Humanity

May we cope with every struggle and find hope in every loss,

Lest the world that we’re creating die like Jesus on the cross,

May we dare to show our neighbour all the love we show a friend,

And may Gaia our sweet mother bloom in harmony again,

May all children of creation live as Buddhas and as Christs,
May we each be our own saviour and leave no one sacrificed,

May the road that reaches Heaven meet the road that leaves from Hell,

May we all find our salvation in the moment that we dwell.