paul mitchinson.com

Charles Rosen opens his magnificent book, The Romantic Generation, with a meditation on “inaudible music.” What could this possibly mean? Rosen explains that when we listen to music, we purify and enhance it, eliminating “extraneous” noise such as coughing, traffic, or snoring. We ignore the rattling of a clarinet’s keys, the scraping of a violin’s bow, the characteristic “decay” of a note on the piano, and construct an idealized sound in our head. Thus, musical details that are literally inaudible or unperformable — a crescendo on a single held note on the piano, for instance — can still be perceived by our musical imagination.

Rosen argues that the limitations of musical instruments often enhance their expressiveness, since a listener’s musical imagination must fill in the blanks, as it were. He calls this the “pathos of the gap between idea and realization,” a gap cunningly exploited by composers. If you can follow a musical score, even a little, you should read a few pages from the first chapter yourself; it’s well worth it. (Popular musicians regularly exploit this same gap for pathos. Think of Miles Davis’s cracking trumpet on “My Funny Valentine.” Or Joe Cocker leaping an octave in the final notes of “You Are So Beautiful,” only to end up with a strangled whimper.)

Which brings us to Robert Moog, inventor of the synthesizer, who died last Sunday. As is widely known, Moog was inspired in his researches by the work of Russian inventor, Leon Theremin, whose eponymous instrument became a 1950s horror-movie staple. It’s important to note that the impetus for Theremin — and for his electronic-music successors — was to eliminate this “gap between idea and realization.” As Theremin once told an interviewer, he was intent on proving that electricity was a “means for man to control the finest nuances of musical sound.” A Soviet newspaper review of a Theremin concert encapsulated this ideology perfectly. The Theremin was “the solution to the problem of the ideal instrument,” the newspaper enthused. “Sounds have been liberated from material ‘adulterations.’”

This is a beautiful expression of the cruel ideology of early Soviet communism. Material “adulterations” — including the imperfections of human beings — must be eliminated. Liberation to follow. Stay tuned.

But I digress. Electronic music does not usher in the Communist apocalypse, but it does change the way we create music and listen to music. It has vastly expanded the universe of sound, and given a power to composers previously undreamed-of. But it has, by necessity, severely restricted the power, the imagination, and – dare I say? – the intelligence of the audience, who are no longer asked to assist the composer in perceiving musical nuances. This is the root, I think, of the “coldness” that many people perceive in electronic music. By asserting absolute control over every aspect of his music, the composer has unwittingly disposed of one of the most powerful tools of expression — the audience’s own imagination.

Michaelle Jean, Canada’s Governor General-designate, has taken a few weeks to think about it, but she’s finally admitted that she and her husband are “proud” to be Canadians. “[W]e have the greatest respect for the institutions of our country. We are fully committed to Canada.” Unfortunately, nobody was asking how much she liked Canada. Many sovereigntists claim to “love” and “respect” Canada, though they believe that Quebec should not be a part of it. Nothing in Jean’s statement, including her claim to be “committed to Canada,” precludes this interpretation. As the Toronto Star points out this morning, how hard would it have been for Jean to affirm her “allegiance to a ‘strong, united Canada’”?

Even her most unequivocal statement manages to equivocate: “Let me be clear: we have never belonged to a political party or the separatist movement.” Well, that’s not really what was being alleged either, was it? No one claimed that she was a card-carrying member of some sovereigntist group. Only that she supported sovereignty, expressed this support publicly, and likely voted for it. The fact that she refuses to deny any of this suggests that all these allegations are true.

There’s very little to add to this after Andrew Coyne’s devastating analysis in yesterday’s National Post.

Suppose Prince Charles had chosen for a wife a woman whose idea of a good time was to go down the pub with a few mates from the IRA. Now suppose Charles himself, at one of these gatherings, raised a glass to the cause.

Imagine the President of the United States hoisting the Confederate flag.

But while her commitment to a united Canada remains questionable, her character is blindingly clear. Former FLQ member Jacques Lanctôt has recently portrayed Jean and her husband as conceited salon intellectuals. That, of course, is about as obvious as it gets. (Jean: “Independence isn’t given, it’s taken.” Jean-Daniel Lafond: “So, a sovereign Quebec? An independent Quebec? Yes, I applaud with both hands and I promise to attend all the St-Jean Baptiste Day parades.”)

What a sorry mess.

Colby Cosh is convinced that nothing has changed on CBC radio since its workers went out on strike Monday:

[A]ll that’s on at the moment [on CBC-1]–and presumably this is true nationwide–is a low-key broadcast of syrupy lite jazz, introduced brusquely by a Toronto CBC manager. Aside from the periodic apologies for any disappointment or inconvenience, it’s just about indistinguishable from the CBC’s regular programming.

Wait a minute. Syrupy lite jazz? I was sure the CBC was choc-a-bloc with feminist propaganda, neo-Marxist sermonizing, and anti-American screeds. How’d they manage to shoehorn in all that jazz too? Maybe it was Diana Krall doing double duty, crooning “Smoke Gets in Your Eyes (When You Protest Globalization).”

I love this shot. There is a starkness to the photo — the single basket, the single zucchini. The low vantage point accentuates the loneliness. (It helps to be three years old to get this perspective.) So many of C’s photos seem self-consciously arty that I often wonder whether she is achieving this effect deliberately. (I know, I know … another one of those insufferable parents who believe that their children’s every scribble is evidence of pure genius.)

I see that the good folks at Western Standard magazine are maintaining the same high standards of journalism of their predecessors at Alberta Report and Western Report. [Full disclosure: Our family subscribed to the Alberta Report for years, and my first ever letter to the editor was published by Alberta Report.] Their latest smirk-worthy headline claimed that an “exclusive Western Standard poll shows more than a third of westerners are thinking of separating from Canada.” Or as the Xinhua news agency helpfully summarized: Western Canadians want separation: poll

So, were Western Canadians asked if they wanted to form their own country? Nope. Were they asked if they wanted some watered-down version of sovereignty-association? Nope. Were they asked if they wanted to “explore the idea of forming their own country?” Nope again. (Bruce Garvey is just making stuff up when he writes in the National Post that a third of Westerners say it’s time “to seriously explore the option of getting out of Canada.”) Apparently it’s too difficult for a pollster to pose such simple questions. Instead, Western Canadians were asked to agree or disagree with the following statement:

Western Canadians should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country.

This is laughable nonsense. No self-respecting pollster of Quebec sovereigntist opinion would dare ask such a mealy-mouthed question. (Sovereigntists themselves, of course, ask even worse ones in their referendums. See here and here)

Most people are generally willing to “begin to explore” just about any idea. That’s not the sign of a passionate desire to destroy a country. It’s called open-minded intelligence — which is why it’s disappointing to see that only 36% of Western Canadians were willing to embark on the exploration.

Drug gangs in Toronto have recently adopted the tactic of spraying gunfire into crowds. The intended target might or might not be hit, but innocent bystanders generally get mown down. The latest victim was a four-year-old boy who remains hospitalized after being struck in the leg by two “stray” bullets.

The Toronto Star seems perplexed by this phenomenon. So they went straight to the experts to clear up the mystery of, to quote their August 6th headline, “Why gunmen choose to fire into a crowd.”

Heading the list of causes are “low self-control,” “psychopathic behaviour,” and the “devaluing” of human life.

Yes, it’s true. Shocking, I know, but true. Thank God for experts.

There are no easy answers to explain the motivation or mindset of a gunman who appears to feel no compunction about possibly injuring innocent bystanders, said Scot Wortley, professor at the University of Toronto’s Centre of Criminology.
…

Many criminals don’t perceive the long-term consequences of their actions, he said. They’re angry, they want to do harm and they don’t think about who will get hurt in the heat of the moment when they are driven to act.

“It’s a devaluing of those they shoot and their own life,” he said.

[Dr. Mark] Berber suggested that this behaviour might be caused by a lack of bonding between the mother and child and an absent or transient father. The child in turn may have trouble attaching to adults and have a low level of tolerance for frustration, and a sense of self-importance.

Remember, you read it here first.

Oh dear. A week has flown by with no posts at all. So much for high hopes and good intentions for a new revamped site. Oh well — not much to do but another of C’s photos — this one of her baby brother, T.

From July 26′s National Post:

Don Mills man killed wife out of mercy, police say

A Don Mills couple chose to end their lives last week to halt the mysterious chronic pain that Patricia Kirk, 60, had suffered for six years, police said yesterday. [ed: Um, how would the death of the husband help end the chronic pain of the wife?]

Investigators called the scenario, which led to Mrs. Kirk’s death by drowning and put her seriously wounded husband in custody, facing a charge of first-degree murder, a “tragic event” they would wish upon nobody.

…

Mrs. Kirk had for years been heavily medicated for an illness causing pain to her back that doctors struggled to diagnose, said Det. Sgt. Cashman, who speculated the pain had taken its toll on the couple.

“Here she is,” he said yesterday, “she’s suffering from an illness that’s undiagnosed, that she’s medicated for — and it’s been going on for six years.

“I guess, obviously, she feels — I can only imagine, I’m only speculating this — that she’d feel at her wit’s end.”

He added: “It is a sad case and it’s tough to comment on … but you can read between the lines.”

Who needs to read between the lines? It’s all there in black and white, isn’t it? A woman is drowned by her husband. She lived a life of agony, which was brought to a merciful end by having her head held underwater until she stopped kicking. Thank goodness we have the police to tell us not only what was in the mind of the killer, but of the victim as well.

Police aren’t generally accused of being soft on crime, but perhaps there are exceptions if the victim is aged and infirm.