Analyzing Music: Mozart's Lacrimosa

Music is one of the greatest forms of art ever conceived. From the earliest days of banging sticks together to make a rhythm, to composing massive symphonies and orchestras in today's greatest music halls, the art of music is among the most influential and impactful art forms ever. This, in no small part, is thanks to the many great musical legends that have come and gone throughout history. Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, just to name a few. Today, wanted to become better at not only listening to music, but also understanding what each piece of music means. To help me, I decided to briefly study the work of the great Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and his piece Lacrimosa.

Mozart stands among the titans of European musical composers in the 17th and 18th centuries. His many famous works are known by all, even people who do not regularly consume classical music. His natural talent for playing music at an 

early age kick-started his career in the music industry, and brought the world one of the greatest artistic minds ever seen. Who better than for me to analyze than one of the greatest? The two works of his I eventually had to decide on for this analysis (if you could call it that) were between Requiem and Lacrimosa, both I instantly recognized, but had never actually known the names of (which is just the power of Mozart, I suppose). I eventually chose the latter of the two.

Lacrimosa is a beautiful piece that carries the emotion of sorrow or mourning with it. The heavenly vocals combined with the powerful horn and percussion lines, led by a string group, make this piece an unforgettable cantata (at least that's what I believe it is). I love how the sound is soft, but heavy with emotion using a calm tempo and soothing flow. Even as I write this post, I am listening to the piece on repeat, and it is not getting boring or dull to me. I can't help but believe this work tells the story of some great loss or failure that led to a time of great sadness. Overall, a very inspiring piece.

My recommendation: I love this piece, and I would recommend it to anyone, especially to those who do not listen to this type of music regularly. Also, listen to it using some surround-sound headphones or speakers, as I did. This was an overall positive experience for me, I had my doubts going in, but I am glad to have done this.

Locke or Hobbes?

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes; two of the greatest early philosophers in western history. The two pondered on ideas like human nature, the role of rulers, and eventually became two of the major contributors to the Social Contract Theory. However, like all good philosophers, both men had differing worldviews; some might say conflicting views, even. So, based on the many works of both men, what they said, theorized, and published, which one do you side with? John Locke, the father of modern Liberalism; or, Thomas Hobbes, the Monarchist?

It is difficult for me to personally side with one philosopher over the other entirely. Both individuals have very strong arguments for their views, and neither is wholly wrong in any way. Hobbes puts forth some hard truths, while also displaying little interest in what many of today's societies are composed of. Locke, alternatively, provides a more positive image of a number of mankind's issues, but fails to realize the possibility, or even reality, of man's violent inclinations. 

Having to pick sides between philosophers, whose ideas each apply to a different form of society, government, and even person, is difficult; but, based on my own values, and the values instilled upon me, I would have to side with John Locke. 

Locke's opinions on issues like the Social Contract, rights, and the role of the state is much more in line with my own pattern of thinking. Hobbes' views are too harsh and restrictive, which is hardly surprising being that he prefers monarchies over democracies, and he simply has too little faith in the society and too much trust in monarchs. Locke sees the world as it works in most nations today. The people, who are endowed with many rights, being governed by people who represent them; "by the people, for the people" and all that. The people give their governments meaning, and, in return, those governments give the people protection. The United States has operated on this principle, more or less, for the extent of its existence; and many other nations, even those with a constitutional monarchy, have followed suit. It is because, I believe, so many nations based their governmental structures on the works of John Locke, that we now have fewer dictators and cruel leaders than ever before. Hobbes said that all democracies are doomed because of their innate and deep contradictions, but I think we will be doing just fine for many decades to come.

Three Postcards from the Rijksmuseum

The Dutch Golden Age was an incredible time of artistic expression for the Dutch people. Today, most of the works of the artists from that time are held in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. If I ever found myself in said museum, I would like to pick out maybe three postcards depicting my favorite works from the museum's halls.

The first work I might buy a postcard of is one called "The Inauguration of King Willem II in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam" by the painter Nicholas Pieneman. 

This incredible historic scene was oil painted in 1840, and features, as the name suggests, the inauguration of King Willem II in Amsterdam. The painting itself is a mid-sized painting standing at 46.5 cm (18.3 in) high and 55.5 cm (21.85 in) tall. I like this painting in particular simply because of the gran scale of the scene depicted. Though not every face in the crowd is detailed, you can still see the sheer number of people in that room, and you can almost imagine the energy and that this event is creating.

Next, I  would have to pick the work "View of Houses in Delft, known as The Little Street" by one Johannes Vermeer in 1658.

This oil painting depicts what seems to be a quiet "Little Street" in the city of Delft, showing an everyday life image of these people. The painting's size comes in at 54.3 cm (21.3 in) high and 44 cm (17.3 in) wide. For me, the height of the painting adds to its glory. The tall buildings appear taller against the visible sky, and the people small in perspective. It is a simple, yet homely picture, which is why I like it.

Lastly, a painting by Willem van de Velde (II) called "A Ship at Sea in Violent Storm, known as 'The Gust of Wind,'" oil painted in the year 1680.

The dimensions of this work are 77 cm (30.3 in) high by 63.5 cm (25 in) wide. This painting depicts two ships, on larger and one smaller vessel, out at sea during a very violent storm. I love the energy resonating out of this picture. The dark clouds combined with the raging waters and the bobbing ships makes this painting feel like a picture taken from reality.  It is dark but lively and exciting, and it almost entertaining to just stare at.

Those are the three works that I would most likely purchase postcards of out of the many works I looked at in the archive at the Rijksmuseum. 

Shakespeare's Play

The scenario: You have awaken this morning to a very interesting prospect. You have been offered all the money in the world -- the only thing you must do in order to receive this sum of money is to attend a live performance of any of William Shakespeare's comedies or tragedies sometime this year (the sooner you see it, the sooner you become rich). So, when, where, and what play?

For me, that's easy. Let's work backwards...

What Play?
Hamlet -- my favorite of any Shakespeare tragedy, and the one that I have seen performed the best in any on-screen adaptation. For myself, the story is much more meaningful and intriguing than any other work of Shakespeare. When reading the play write in high school, I found myself really enjoying the story Shakespeare created. The complex character that is Hamlet, the unique love he has with Ophelia, and the interesting dynamic between Hamlet, his mother, and his uncle, the murderous King Claudius.

Where?
Originally, I thought it would be best for me to find a theater somewhere in my city, as to not be burdened by the worries of traveling. However, this event will grant me more money than any individual could ever hope to spend, so why be modest or cautious? We'll go international, somewhere overseas and nice, but also renowned for their theatrical spectacles, and also English-speakers. That only brings one place to mind... England, the same land that Shakespeare himself originated from.

When?
The sooner the better. In doing some research for a performance of Hamlet in England, I found the perfect showing. The Almeida Theater in London's West End is having its official opening performance of Hamlet on Feb. 28, 2017, five days from today (link to the webpage: https://www.londontheatre.co.uk/show/hamlet-almeida-theatre-2017). If I left tomorrow, I could even have time to tour London before becoming the richest man ever, not that becoming rich would give me less time to work with. From what little I can gather from the webpage, the performance does seem to be some adapted and "revived" form of Shakespeare's original piece, but not much else it given. The cast seems normal, no names pop out at me in the cast listing, and everything besides that appears to be in place. Nothing special I can gather, but that doesn't bother me. As long as the actors put on a great show, I'm satisfied.

So, if the same scenario happened to you, when, where, and what play would you choose?

Poetic Explication: John Donne's "Death be not proud"

"Death be not proud" is the tenth of the 19 holy sonnets written by the 17th century English writer John Donne. In this post, I will try to perform an explication of this poem.

This sonnet's main topic relates, very clearly, to death. Death is personified by Donne as an intelligent, powerful entity that is problematic to the people of the world. His objective in this poem is to almost deflate the idea of death from a monstrous, evil thing, to a permeable, flimsy idea. In his first two lines here, Donne tells Death that it is not as big and bad as everyone makes it out to be, and that it should not be "proud" of its false prestige. The next four lines confuse me, but within them, Donne claims that Death cannot kill him, almost as though he is more powerful than Death. Skipping down to line 7 and 8, Donne appears to admit that, in the end nobody, not even the "best men" can avoid death. He then makes a plea for their bones to rest while their souls are "delivered" (I assume to heaven). In the next two lines, Donne seems to reveal Death's flaw: that Death is a "slave" to the work of man. I believe this means that Death may only come when men kill or are killed, whether by "fate, chance" or the work of man. This idea is supported by the next line wherein Donne describes how Death dwells with things that kill (poison, war, sickness, etc.). Again, I am at a loss, the next two lines are a mystery to me. Donne speaks about poppies and charms (or something) and how they help with providing sleep (perhaps some sort of deterrence from Death?). In the last two lines, I assume that Donne speaks about an eternal wake, likely alluding to the day when all go to heaven, and never have to sleep again. There, Donne says Death dies, meaning the idea, and perhaps even the reality, of people dying ends.

This sonnet is about not only Death, but also about how we perceive it. It is only as strong as we allow it to be, and it is only beyond our power when fate takes the wheel, or when men act wrongfully. It is about religion and a deeper faith in God and the belief that entry into heaven will provide eternal life without Death.

I liked this poem. It was thought provoking and deep, and it gave me a light sense of hope. It taught me that Death may be inevitable, but fearing it only gives it greater clout.

Bosch's Vision on the Future of Humanity

The image above is called "The Garden of Earthly Delights." This legendary triptych is the work of the 15th Century painter Hieronymus Bosch. Its deep, cryptic imagery has many meanings, but the work as a whole tells a very clear message. It is a progression. A progression of mankind through time. It is a warning to us, from Bosch, about our ungodly ways. From the mind of a more religious man, this painting tells of where we came from, where we are, and where we will soon be. Bosch believed that destruction and grief would follow those who were not careful of which earthly delights they partook in, and the result would be what is seen in the last pane of this work: Damnation. Even today, Bosch's work remains a popular, and relevant, commentary on the choices of human kind. Some  say we have already reached that point, others believe we are fast approaching it. Either way, I believe humanity does need to be careful, not only from a religious sense, but from a realistic one, too. Our constant consuming and creating and spending is depleting this world of its life and resources. We, as a species, must realize our flaws and reverse our damage to this world, lest we end up like the poor souls in Bosch's last panel here... or worse.

A Machiavellian Leader vs. A Modern Day Leader

Niccolo Machiavelli's list of principle qualities for a successful leader, outlined in his timeless literature The Prince, still appear to have some semblance of truth and accuracy some five centuries later. It is interesting that, in a world with few powerful autocracies, so many autocratic leader qualities described by Machiavelli apply to the leaders of the world's republics and democracies today. As a reference, here is a paraphrased list of those five "Qualities of a Prince:"

1.  It is better for a leader to be feared than loved
2. A leader must have the support of his or her people
3. A leader must hold, or at least appear to hold, good virtues
4. A leader must only ever rely on his or her own arms
5. A leader should be intelligent

In my opinion, these all make sense. I'm no more a fan of any autocratic government than the next guy, but I can understand how these qualities would prove useful, in that type of government. In a democracy or republic, however, one of these traits becomes problematic. 

The first of Machiavelli's qualities could never really be seen in a leader in a non-autocratic government. If the majority of people fear a particular politician or candidate, then that person is unlikely to be voted into an office by those that fear him or her. (Not making a political statement...) Though, the recent election of US President Donald Trump may provide slight evidence to the contrary.  

All of the other Machiavellian qualities, however, are commonly seen among most governments. From needing support to be elected, to the creation and maintenance of militaries, to elected individuals campaigning with bold promises, but eventually falling back on them once in office. So, if most of these qualities still work, what should be changed?

If I had to change this list in any way, all I might do is switch the wording on the first quality to "it is better to be loved than feared," and call the list "Qualities for a 21st-century President or Prime Minister." Then, most recent politicians could fit on this list. People like Reagan, or Churchill, or Teddy Roosevelt, or Lincoln, or... the list goes on, even applying to leaders today.

In all, a Machiavellian leader is not too different from most leaders today, and in recent history. Everybody wants power, but the rules have changed ever so slightly since Machiavelli's time.