Some Thoughts on Classical Music

Thank you Bernard for your inspiration. I will write some thoughts on my favorite pieces of classical music.

If the earth is to be destroyed tomorrow, and Apollo descends to ask me to save one piece of music in each category, I should have a very hard time in answering the mighty god (who probably has an answer already and would shoot me with his arrows if I get the wrong answer). There are just too many canadidates for each category. Nonetheless, I will pretend that this is the case and that I must make a choice.

There are many categories of music, and here I am strictly considering the classical, instrumental ones. Here are the categories (feels like the Academy Awards): piano solo piece, piano sonata, violin sonata, other instrumental sonatas, piano concerto, violin concerto, other instrumental concerto, string quartet, chamber music in general, symphony, other orchestral music, and one more piece that is worth saving.

Piano solo piece: Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier
- The candidates to beat the WTC are few: Bach's own Goldberg Variations and Beethoven's Diabelli Variations. Bach's preludes and fugues are perhaps the most important pieces of music for solo piano ever written. The preludes, in its Baroque clarity, controlled expressions and mathematic harmonies are beautiful; the fugues are absolutely sublime. The two sets, each set in every key, are perfect craftsmanship. Apollo would no doubt love it.

Piano sonata: Beethoven's Piano Sonata #31 in A-flat Major Op.110
- The canadiates include Mozart's #15 in C major, Beethoven's #21 "Waldstein", #29 "Hammerkavalier", #32 in C minor and Schubert's #14 in B-flat. The sonata form is really completely mastered by Beethoven and matched only by Schubert. I picked the #31 over the #32 because of the beautiful simplicity yet expressive pathos of the sonata evokes. The brief sonata in the first movement is absolutely heavenly, as is the fugue at the end (here one recalls the finale of Mahler's fourth symphony). The polyphony of the fugue is not dense; rather it is like a beautiful silk scarf. For me, this beats the variations of the last sonata.

Violin sonata: Cesar Franck's Violin Sonata in A major
- The candidates include Beethoven's 9th "Kreutzer", any of the three by Brahms, Faure's Violin Sonata #1 in A major and Grieg's third in C minor. Many of you may not have heard of Franck, but in my opinion he is as good of a composer as Mendelssohn or Schumann, if not better. Franck is an intense romantic composer, yet at the same time a master of form. His music - and especially his Violin Sonata - is a wonderful synthesis of the intellectualness of the Germans and the lightness of the French. He is a master of the cyclic form, in which certain themes put forth in the first movement comes back in other movements, in different musical contexts. The finale to the sonata is some of the most dazzling contrapuntal music ever written.

Small piano pieces: Chopin's Nocturne #8 in D-flat major
- Candidates include Schubert's G flat major Impromptu, Schumann's Romanza, Brahms' Intermezzo Op.118 No.1 and Liszt's Paganini Etude "La campanella". This category is essentially a separate one for music from the Romantic period. The art to the small piece, I think, is in its ability to say as much as one can in as little notes as possible. The D-flat Nocturne is a passionate piece capsuled in formal symmetry. Chopin here has his most original moment: the piece is very pianistic; the pedaled spreading of the harmony in the bass, the small-note runs and the controlled volume all contribute to the beauty of the piece. At the last time the main theme comes back, Chopin changes the chord from the root position to the second inversion, resulting in a sublime sense of loss, and that is the moment that seals the deal. This nocturne is the epitome of romanticism.

Piano Concerto: Brahms' Second Piano Concerto
- Candidates include Mozart's 23rd Piano Concerto in A major, Beethoven's 4th, Schumann's A minor concerto, Liszt's A-flat concerto, Prokofiev's third concerto and Khachaturian's piano concerto (many of you may not have heard of him; he is a 20th century Russian composer who is now chiefly known for his "Sabre Dance"). Brahms' second piano concerto is no doubt the greatest piano concerto ever be written. He takes on the tradition of Mozart (intimacy - Brahms' third movement), Beethoven (cathedral-like grandness - Brahms' first movement) and Schumann (romanticism - Brahms' second movement ) and adds his own sense of romantic humour (the final movement). The concerto is absolutely monumental in its scheme: extremely difficult to play, very philosophical in its interpretation. It is the greatest marriage of form and content, and I would argue that this is Brahms' greatest work of all (perhaps with the exception of his fourth symphony, which, in my opinion, is too colourless).

Violin Concerto: Elgar's Violin Concerto
- Candidates include Mendelssohn's E minor concerto, Bruch's G minor concerto (virtually his only known work, and rightly so), Sibelius' D minor concerto and Berg's Violin Concerto (Berg's concerto is one of the easier atonal pieces to understand). The real debate is between Sibelius and Elgar. Both composers are brilliant symphonists, scoring with beautiful harmonies, textures and colours. While Sibelius' harmonies and rhythms are wonderful and original, Elgar's sense of form is in perfection. Elgar's concerto is huge - nearly one hour long - yet each movement and musical ideas are very intimately tied together. In its vastness one does not get lost. The concerto is warm and very exciting at the same time. Elgar has his own version of the cyclic form, in which the opening theme always come back at the pivotal moment of the finales - orchestrated differently - to conclude the work. The concerto is profound and absolutely rousing, although I must also add that one has to be patient enough to listen to it a few times before really appreciating it. (It took me at least five times; I hated it the first time.)

Other instrumental concertos Mozart's Clarinet Concerto
- Candidates include Bach's Brandenburg Concertos (in which the sixth is absolutely sublime), Dvorak's Cello Concerto, Elgar's Cello Concerto and Richard Strauss' Oboe Concerto. There aren't many very popular concertos outside of the three real major instruments of violin, cello and piano. Yet Mozart's Clarinet Concerto has achieved its immortal status. It should not be a surprise because it is Mozart's final concerto (he was dead a few months after the competition of this concerto). The late Mozart is a philosophical and reflective Mozart, but never without a touch of humour, love, melancholy and sunshine. More than ever content is united with form - this is classicism at its very best: expressive but not indulgent, logical but never dry. The concerto, just as a note, is voted as Canada's favourite Mozart piece by CBC radio 2.

String Quartet: Beethoven's String Quartet in B-flat major Op.130
- Candidates: Mozart's late quartets? I have not had the opportunity to really learn about Mozart's quartets, so I can't say if Mozart's are legitimate candidates. But apart from Beethoven's own A minor Quartet, I don't think any one else come even close to. Beethoven's final quartet is an hour of humanity: the contemplation with four voices is stunning. There is something very captivating even in its very opening dissonant introduction, before we are launched into an exciting Allegro. The quartet proceeds in many fragments of ideas, before everything is recaptured back in the Grand Fugue finale.

Chamber music in general: Mendelssohn's Octet in E flat major
- Candidates include Mozart's Clarinet Quintet, Schubert's Trout Quintet, Brahms' Piano Quintet and Clarinet Quintet, and Franck's Piano Quintet. The reason for saving Mendelssohn's Octet over other works, even though they are probably better, is because this is a work by a 17 year old young man. This work really shows the unlimited potentials of human creativity. Don't get me wrong: even if this work is written by someone older, it will still be a strong candidate. The complexity of the Octet is stunning: this is not simply two string quartets put together. The rhythmic drive, the texture, the colours and the formal considerations are in absolute perfection. The fact that this work is written by a 17 year old is stunning. No one, perhaps other than Korngold (a musical genius in early 20th century who ends up writing Hollywood music - he practically invented Hollywood music), has accomplished more than Mendelssohn at age 17.

Symphony: Mahler's Fifth Symphony
- It is not even fair that I have to pick one symphony out of so many fine ones. Symphonies are difficult to pick because one has to consider the musical context as well as its universal quality (if that even exists). There are so many candidates: Mozart's 40th in G minor, Beethoven's 9th in D minor, Schubert's 8th in B minor (although it is unfinished), Mendelssohn's 4th in A minor, Franck's D minor symphony, Brahms' 4th in E minor, Dvorak's 9th in E minor, Tchaikovsky's 6th in B minor, Bruckner's 5th in B-flat major, Elgar's 1st in A-flat major, Sibelius' 2nd in D minor, Prokofiev's 5th in B-flat and Shostakovich's 5th in D minor. Each of these works are brilliant masterpieces, all of them equally as good as others in their own ways. I did not even mention some of the more obvious candidates: Mozart's 41st in C major, Beethoven's 3rd in E flat major, Schubert's 9th in C major, Schumann's 1st in B-flat major, Brahms' 1st in C minor, Nielsen's 2nd, Vaughan William's 5th, etc. But I have to go with Mahler's 5th partly because this is an instrumental category (or else I would have picked either his 4th or his 8th) and partly because I believe he is the greatest symphonists to have ever lived. Symphonies cannot get any better after Mahler - that, to me, is inconceivable. Mahler takes all the things his forefathers have done and made it all his own. The fifth is an example of melancholic romanticism, perfection in balance and form, boldness in harmonies and orchestration and brilliant contrapunctal writing. I don't think the fifth is a philosphical symphony (like his next two); rather it is a musical description of the human situation, ending on an optimistic note. It is definitely Mahler at his best.

Other orchestral music: Debussy's La Mer
- Other candidates include Mendelssohn's Overture to Midsummer Night's Dream, Faure's Pelleas et Melissande, Brahms' Haydn Variations, Elgar's Enigma Variations, Korngold's Sinfonietta, Richard Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra, Scriabin's "Poem of Estascy", Debussy's own Prelude l'apres midi d'une faune and Schoenberg's Transfigured Night. Debussy's La Mer is one of Debussy's most popular works, and rightly so. The harmonic colours of Debussy is so original that no one has ever surpass him. His musical sense is also very different from the traditional, German school: for Debussy, form is inherent in the piece; one does not have to have formal elements. In La Mer, Debussy gives us more than the sea; we get both the external and the internal world synthesized together as we move along the stream of melody.

The final piece: Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe
- Too many candidates. But honourable mentions include Stravinsky's The Rites of Spring, Sibelius' 4th symphony, Chopin's 2nd piano concerto, Bach's solo violin music, and Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. But Ravel's ballet is just too good: it's absolutely Bacchic, there is no other description.

Notes on some obvious absenses: Handel, Haydn, Tchaikovsky and the Americans
- I am not at all familiar with the music if Handel and Haydn, but I do know that they are overshadowed by their contempories Bach and Mozart, so they would not have made it onto any of the list anyway.
- Tchaikovsky, for some people, may figure into a few more categories, e.g. Piano and Violin concertos. I don't think they are extremely good pieces. Both of his popular concertos are just very good themes stacked together; I don't particularly like that. His 6th symphony is also like that, but that symphony is just too good.
- America has not produced a single composer who can rival the Europeans. The closest they get is Ives (who I don't really understand; I need more exposure of him), Copland (second tier at best) and Barber (who, although he has some wonderful melodies, is not really that profound). Although this is probably not fair to say because Europe did have 200 years head start. In Bach's time America is still British colony. But if there is one piece of American I can save, it is Copland's Applachian Spring. Its beautiful orchestration is unmistakably American and it is worth listening to many times

Haiku #41

For Jenny

Twin needles weaving
Fragmentary memories -
Streams of tapestries.

Musings on Marriage (again!)

Back home from Mozart's Don Giovanni, and hair is still wet. So I thought I would amuse myself by asking the marriage question and coming up with some hypothetical answers.

Question: Will you marry me?

Answers:
1. We have been friends for too long.
2. Umm...I just met you...
3. Would any sane woman marry a poet?
4. I'm sorry, I'm not looking for a poet who writes in couplets. How unromantic.
5. I won't be mothering you like your mother, will I?
6. Why would I marry a guy who spends his free time talking about vaginas to highschool students?
7. I'm sorry, your father is too conservative.
8. Is this a joke?
9. You'll have to be my concubine if that's okay.
10. Where is the ring?
11. You probably don't want to marry me. I'm imaginary.
12. Where is the guitar and the serenade?
13. I never talk to you except on MSN. I don't know if I can coup with you in real life.
14. Sorry. You're just too young. I am 20 years older than you are.
15. Sorry. You're just too old. You're 20 years older than I am.
16. Only if you are not going to have kids.
17. Only if you are going to have eight kids.
18. Come back in 10 years, when you are a millionaire.
19. Come back in 10 years, when I am a millionaire.
20. You're just trying to get inside my pants aren't you?
21. Hey, I'm just trying to get inside your pants!

etc.

Opus 41: "Make Yourself at Home!" - The Concept of Home (abridged)

Make yourself at home, we say. There is, however, something odd about this expression: how is that possible? How can we pretend to be at home when we fully know that we are under the roof of someone else's home? This leads to the main question of my presentation: what does “home” mean? I would like to argue that home is built by differences. Differences, significantly, is grounded on language, which is imaginary. By language, I take the more general meaning of a system of signification. My meaning of “language” then is not restricted to natural language, such as English or Chinese. One’s conduct, dress or habits are also systems of signification and therefore considered as language.

The most common usage of the word “home” usually describes a house that we live in. One might wonder: how is it possible that “home” as a house, which is a physical space, be an imaginary construction, built by differences and on language? After all, I may do all kinds of things at my home without speaking a single word. If I step outside of my home, I physically step outside of it. My home is not imaginary like my imaginary friend. This argument, firstly, fails to recognize the distinction between the concept of “home” and the physical manifestation of “home” in a house. “Home” is really the idea of a space where one invests certain qualities to, such as familiarity, comfort, protection and privacy. A house does not inherently have any of these qualities. Houses may have home-like qualities only if we make a conscious or unconscious investment.

Secondly, there is no idea of “home” without differences or ideas of that which is not home. The reason why I know where my home is is because I know when I am not at home. How I come to know that is through differences marked by language. For example, one may take a chair from my home to a lecture hall, and that chair will come to function differently. The chair is a signifier, which has its meaning through differences. At home it might mean that I can put my shoes on it; in a lecture hall, it definitely functions as a seat for human beings. Language constructs differences, which differences in turn distinguish that which is “home” and that which is not.

“Home” does not have to refer to a specific house. It can also refer to city, country, family, religion and culture. But in all different categories of home the principle of home as built by differences on language remains the same. The only difference between all of these categories is the language that is used to signify the differences. The different boundaries of home in these different languages can be contradictory within or without their specific category, but they gain meaning when an individual decides to make an investment for home. In some cases, these boundaries have real, material existence: I am at home in Lulu Island, not Whistler. In some cases the boundaries are political: I am at home in Canada, not in the United States. Still in other cases the boundaries are more oriented in a specific group of people: I am at home because I can have a family dinner, not dinner at some random restaurant with some random people. All of these, however, are investments. They are arbitrary markers of differences grounded on language.

This formulation of the concept of home as grounded on language is important because it suggests that home is not an essential, stable concept. On the one hand, language, as I have suggested before, is materially influenced and therefore evolves through time and space. Hence, differences as marked out by language also changes through time and space. On the other hand, and perhaps more importantly to our specific enquiry, the concept of home is complicated by the fact that human beings communicate in more than one language, language being taken in the most general sense. Not only do many signs clash with each other in meaning, some signs find no direct translations between the languages an individual might have. If languages change, and differences erupt, then there exists ever changing and challenging contentions in the boundaries of home.

This leads us directly into the question of home especially for the diaspora. What is “home” for the diaspora? Well, I have been arguing that home is always built, not an everlasting essence. It is a continuous construction. The construction, however, is very complex. The complexity has many layers. But overall, one can summarize the complexity into three categories: resistance, assimilation and accommodation. Resistance is the exclusion of other languages outside the home language. Assimilation is a hybridization of the home language and the exterior language to form a new language and therefore a new home space. Accommodation is fitting the home language into an empty space within the exterior language without altering the home language. By no means are all three attitudes toward the construction of home mutually exclusive. In fact, there is really no such thing as successful resistance (because by virtue of resisting one is already changing); and assimilation and accommodation often blend into each other.

* * *

Resistance, accommodation and assimilation: as I have tried to show, “home” for diaspora is always changing in these three ways. Indeed, these are three ways in which home space are constructed. The boundaries of home are ever fluid, never essential. One resists, accommodates and assimilates differences through language. Language, however, is imaginary: the landscape of Canada is physical, but the meaning of the landscape is imaginary.

So what if home is fluid and imaginary? What is the significance of “home” if we now modify our definition of home from an essential one to a constructive one? Home, too, is a site for power. It is a site where one can include and, more powerfully, exclude. Diaspora is often left behind in the politics of home because they do not seem to belong to anywhere. Chinese-Canadians, for example, has a difficult time of finding a space of belonging: dominate Canadian culture (whatever that is) has a difficult time in opening up its boundary to include Chinese-Canadians as Canadians; dominate Chinese culture (whatever that is) are also very protective of its home boundaries. The term “banana” refers to someone who is yellow or Chinese on the outside, and white or Westernized on the inside. If “home” is always a construction, then diasporas have a place of belonging. They are no longer either here nor there, because there is no here nor there. It is with language that we come to construct our homes. At the same time, by understanding the constructive nature of home, we also come to understand, accept and respect other people’s homes, and therefore their identities and differences. The expression “make yourself at home” is very profound: we literally have to make ourselves at home.

Application for my son's marriage

Greetings. My son has just turned 21, and I thought it is a good time to prepare for his future great works of procreation. It is, however, not yet time for him to taste the honey of matrimony. But it is time to plan ahead, hence here is an application form for anyone who is interested to be my son's wife. My son, as all of you will no doubt know, has a great potential ahead of him and hence will be a fantastic investment for martial bonds. But given the rare qualities of my son, I have certain restrictions for applicants to be my daughter-in-law. Here are the restrictions, and they are divided into two categories:

I - non-negotiable ones (in no particular order)
1. Must be female
2. Must be willing to have at least three sons

II - negotiable ones (in no particular order)
1. born in Hong Kong (the closer in radius you are born the better your chances)
2. Chinese (the closer in radius your race is located from Hong Kong the better your chances)
3. with wealth (the more the better)
4. literate in English(the closer in radius your education is to a bachelor's degree the better your chances)
5. knowledge in Chinese (the more chinese you know the better)
6. a virgin
7. feminine
8. pretty but not jaw-droppingly beautiful
9. witty but not argumentative
10. strong minded but submissive
11. relatively tall and not fat

Applications may be submitted anytime. If you believe you are qualified, please let me as well as my son know. Friendship/acquaintance with my son is an asset but not necessary.