Feeling cheerful? Hopeful? Like anything is possible?

Here. Let me help you with that.

Still a better love story than Twilight.

h/t Vox.

This is interesting

Finally found a recording on YouTube of a closer-to-original version of Allegri's Miserere.

Bad Singing

I was informed by co-workers (I personally never watch the awards)  that Anne Hathaway won an Oscar for her performance in Les Mis.  I never saw Les Mis, so I can't comment on her performance, but I did find one of her songs from the show on YouTube.



This is a performance drenched in emotion and feeling.  It is also an example of terrible singing technique.  For all its expressiveness, Ms. Hathaway's voice is small and weak, barely more than a whisper for most of the song and would never carry off the stage in a live performance, inaudible over the orchestra.  Her singing here is made possible only by the invention of the microphone and the mixer, which allows bad singing to masquerade as good singing.

This is not a condemnation of using microphones per se.  Movies may accomplish whatever effects they may wish in their studios and sound rooms.  Modern rock concerts are utterly dependent upon electronic instruments and microphones and mixers, and- for many 'artists'- pre-recorded music. 

The problem is that this type of electronically enhanced singing and music has so saturated our culture, that many people take it as good and proper singing, and try and emulate it, singing in half voice or less, substituting volume for 'feeling!' where ever they go, including church.

Some songs written in recent years lend themselves to this kind of singing.  Think of the incopetent and incomprehensible schmaltz that is the old seventies standby: "His Peace is flowing Like  a River." There is a song that is meant to be sung like you have tears trickling down your cheeks at all times.  For other hymns, though, a little more technique and less feeling may be required.
I admit, I may not be the best person to discuss this.  I have been given a loud and powerful voice.  I can make myself heard in a full Cathedral. (Don't ask.)  I have been asked to leave choirs as I tend to drown them out, and my singing teacher has told me my voice really isn't well suited to choral work, at least not at this stage. I fully realize that not everyone has my volume available for their voice.  But most people can put out a decent sound without straining their voices with a little practice.  If entire congregations cannot do this, the choir at least should.  They are there to practice, and practice includes training whenever possble.

I see, in one church after another, singers using microphones as they mumble out their hymns.  I have sang with full choirs, twenty voices or more, that have had microphones placed in front of them so they may be heard down in the pews.  I have been in small churches in the countryside, some blest with beautiful acoustics, wherein the cantor and choir sing softly into microphones.  Meanwhile, the congregation joins in the singing, barely audible as they whisper their praise of God.  They are following in the choir's footsteps.

There is no need, and should never have been, any need for assisted singing in most churches.  Yes, there are some very large, carpeted, cushioned pew churches which have all the acoustics of a down filled pillow, wherein a microphone is a must.  But many churches, with decent acoustics, and not too large, have no need of them, yet are fully wired for sound.  A cantor should be able to fill a small church with sound without aid.   A choir of ten should be able to make themselves heard throughout a church easily.   We don't need to get training, but we do need to rethink what it means to sing well, and to listen to those who can project a voice.

He barely moves...

...except for his hand, which strums up and down in a repeating motion. He doesn't say anything, but stares right into your soul, while occasionally looking down to his fingers. He, is ukelele man.*




*Comment from video.  So good I had to reproduce it.

The kids are alright

One final post about Britain's Got Talent, which seems to be the flagship and most successful version of the brand: the winners were Ashley and Pudsy, a trained dog act; second place, Jonathan Antoine and Charlotte Jaconelli, about whom  have written a few times; third place, Only Boys Aloud, a Welsh vocal choir, about whom I have written once. The amazing thing about all these acts is that the oldest among them is nineteen, with the exception of the choir director and Pudsy, should you calculate his age in dog years.  These are all kids. 

Sometimes, when I see things like this, the future doesn't appear quite so dark.

3.5 timeouts, i am hard up for ideas edition.

I have tried to write a few posts these last couple of days, and burned the lot.  I almost completely struck out on a 3.5 Tuesdays post, but then a random conversation with my kids gave me a flicker of an idea for a cheap and easy post, when combined with a rundown on the posts I burned.   So, without further ado, here is something you have long awaited- my top three Disney villains, plus something else.

3.

 The Wicked Queen from Snow White.  Here's someone who gave kids nightmares for decades.  One of Disney's best villains ever, and also their first.  Some people think the scene of her transformation, or the scene where Snow White races, lost, through the woods, are the scariest scenes in the movie.  Me, I think here in front of the mirror is her at her villainous worst.


Strange what you find in a kids' movie, no?

2.

Maleficent. 

Magnificent voice acting, with one of the most chilling laughs in movie history.  Apparently, there is a movie in the works called Maleficent, which tells the story of the Sleeping Beauty from Maleficent's point of view.  Big mistake on two counts. First, as Coleridge noted with Iago, the best villains have "motiveless malignity".  They are just bad.  Giving them a motive, like Hannibal Lector in some of the sequels, or the Joker in the Killing Joke, or the Grinch in the awful live action movie, is most often a  mistake.  (cough star wars prequel cough) Their evil is disproportionate, trying to give it an origins, a sympathy for the devil, if you will, just doesn't work.  There is just no mathematical formula to balance the equation to explain why they went so deep into evil.  Second, the movie is set to star Angelina Jolie.  I don't think she is a match for this cartoon.  I can't picture her uttering the lines: "Now you face me, oh Prince, and all the power of Hell!"


This was a children's movie, right?

1.

Speaking of the powers of hell: Chernabog.



Were they even pretending this was for kids?


.5

I was going to post on the Dan Savage thing, but quickly got verbose and rambling, so I deleted it. Short version: not a fan, when I finally found an actual quotation, I thought his comments were tame for him, though still not good.  Was he acting as a bully when he called the kids names? Yes.  Is this ironic? Also yes.

My reflection:  Sadly, for years I have been saying that bullying is not simply a matter that there are bullies and there are the bullied. The picture I see painted in anti bullying campaigns is too simple and too wrong for what is a complicated situation. Anyone who has been to school should know better than that.  there are circles and cycles, pecking orders and food chains.  Someone who is bullied by a social superior will, in turn, bully someone below.    The fact that they were bullied does not stop them from passing it on.  There have been a few times where I have witnessed someone who was once a victim suddenly finding themselves in a position of power or prestige.  We want to believe that such a person would say:  I was bullied when I was at the bottom, I did not like it, I will not do the same to others.  Perhaps that happens, somewhere, but I never saw it.  Every time I saw someone move up the ladder, their response to the new situation was; "My turn."

Savage's comments were his own version of "My turn."  Having been a victim of hate, he now gleefully passes it on.  The reaction of the audience was the most damning thing of all.  hundreds left, but thousands cheered.  Their anti-bullying campaign is a lie, and a farce, and they are enacting the oldest rules of the playground, even though they seem to be blissfully ignorant of it, and would probably protest if they were accused;  It's okay to be a bully, as long as you bully the right people.

Right now, Christians are the right people, the fair target.  Savage was correct, in one thing: not long ago, gays were the right people, the fair target, and now the tide has turned.  It may turn again, so let this be a lesson.  Remember your catechism, and know that when it comes to spreading hate, it is never your turn.

It's talk like Shakespeare Day

Today is the 396th anniversary of Shakespeare's Death, and also widely believed to be the 448th anniversary of his birth, and in honour of the day, all well meaning souls are to go out and speak in a manner like unto that of the bard.  Poor as I am, I give only my link to previous posts on the mighty Shakespeare, immortal bard of thrice happy memory, and this helpful video, which can instruct all true Christians in the arte of speaking in the manner of William Shaksper.

Britain's Got Talent has done it again. Also, Simon Cowell is a toad.

They've found another surprise talent.


As was the case in previous years, they have a viral sensation on their hands.  Jonathan Antoine is another not particularly physically attractive person who can sing quite well, very well indeed. However, so can the pretty Charlotte Jaconelli.  It is unfortunate that the camera and the sound mixer force her into the deep background, for her talent deserves better treatment.  Simon Cowell's comment that she might be holding him back is flat wrong, and rather evil.  Anyone can see from the opening of the video, where she is just brimming with confidence while Jonathan hovers shyly in the background, that she is not holding him back.  She is holding him up.  And, for a young man, Jonathan has the class to recognize that fact, though her comment to Jonathan at the end of the video shows that Simon's words have taken root.  Even beyond his considerable talent, I applaud Jonathan for being a class act.

The surprise that is seen in this video is the sort of thing that tends to win these types of shows, and it is unfortunately something that is completely lacking from Canada's Got Talent.  It is not always the greatest talent, but usually the greatest narrative that takes the laurel.  We see the winners, or the people who tend to have some longevity after the show, are the people who have a good story, or those who are not merely good, but good for... something.  Paul Potts was good for a short homely fat phone salesman with broken teeth.  Susan Boyle was good for a forty something homely woman with do nothing hair and caterpillar eyebrows.  Jackie Evancho was good for an eleven year old.  And so on.  It doesn't last, usually.  Who today listens to Paul Potts? Cleaned up and in a good suit, he is a solid mid level performer. It is no surprise, now, that he can sing a little.  Charlotte's talent is greater, I believe, than the judges give her credit for.  It's just that it is unsurprising.  Coming out, she is a pretty girl, confident and forward, answering all questions, while he looks uncertain, rather as if he would rather be somewhere, anywhere, else. The viewer expects her to be the talented one, and he is to be her backup.  Instead, she merely meets expectations, while he surpasses them- simply because you had none for him.  That is a large part of the reason why so much attention is focused on Jonathan:  He makes the better story.  Another Paul Potts or Susan Boyle.  The unexpected talent.

It is a new version of the old Horatio Alger/Ragged Dick story. The rags to riches story. The story that anyone, through dint of their own hard work, the use of their own talents, can make it big. I suppose that in economic times such as these, these stories are more popular than ever, and perhaps more necessary. It gives people hope to watch, and to feel, if only vicariously, the possibility that dreams can and sometimes do come true.

Addendum:  What in the name of all that is holy is Carmen Electra doing as a judge on a talent show? What, pray tell, is her talent? Besides looking hawt? While I admit people, particularly women, can go quite far simply by virtue (if that is the appropriate term) of being smokin', I do not believe that should qualify someone to sit in judgement over another's more tangible talents.

Attention all teenagers!

When your parents were young in the ancient, magical and mystical  '80's, they thought this was way cool awesome.



Remind them of that the next time they complain about the garbage you listen to.

3.5 Time-Outs Tuesday

I started to write some quick posts, but I found they were quickly becoming long posts.  I couldn't think of anything else, so today's 3.5 timeouts is a music edition, courtesy of YouTube.

1.

In my music lessons, I often find it useful to listen to various singers singing the same song, taking in the various interpretations.  Today, I'll do the famous aria from Tosca: E lucevan le stelle.  I'll begin with the man Pavorotti thought was the greatest tenor of all time, Jussi Bjorling.


2.

Second is Italian great Benjamino Gigli.  He sang in the early twentieth century, in a much different style than is prevalent today.  Notice how, for his first big rise on the words "O dulci baccio...." he goes into falsetto for effect, rather than maintaining full voice.




3.

Possibly my favourite tenor, Mario Del Monaco, the brass bull of Milan.  Not the greatest singer, but there is something undeniably manly and powerful in his voice.  His version of Nessun Dorma, for instance, is my favourite, though it is not the technical best.


.5

Just to prove that not all voices are suited for all songs, here's Del Monaco singing Panis Angelicus. He had a great, powerful voice, which was actually his problem: he couldn't reel it back in.  He sings this song like he is standing on a street corner, hailing a cab.


Final bonus for those who made it this far:

Here's the man Placido Domingo believes could have been the best tenor of all, Mario Lanza, singing E Lucvan.  Of them all, he is the only one who really enunciates his consonants. I mean that as high praise. Many singers just howl out an undiffereentiated vowel mash and are almost completely imcomprehensible as a result. For instance, Joan Sutherland was well known for it. True story: The day she died, my singing teacher was driving on some errands, listening to the radio play a retrospective on her life and work. They played a song of hers he had never heard before. "She's singing in German," he thought. "No wait, that's Italian. No German. Russian? No, definitely Italian. German." The song ended and the radio announcer named the song. As it turned out, the song was by Handel, and she had been singing in English.

Tomorrow is Superbowl Sunday

I won't be watching.  Let me know if they have a commercial better than this one.

3.5 Timeouts Tuesday.

Written and posted during a fifteen minute break at work, ergo: brief.

1.

I revisited the YouTube video of Legoman in Space.  When I first saw it, it had a few hundred hits.  It is now well over 2,000,00 hits, and an argument has erupted in the comboxes over whether or not the video was faked.

2.

In LarryD's version of the 3.5 timeouts today, he shows some of the comments caught by his spam filter.  I checked my filter and found... nothing.  This blog is so bad, even spam can't stand it.

3.

I understand the Superbowl is happening soon.  Most of the excitement I've come across is over the commercials.

3.5

Any teenage kids or spambots out there:  When your parents were young in the ancient, magical and mystical  '80's, they thought this was way cool awesome.

Watch this....

...and, magically, you won't feel so bad about the singing at your local parish.

You're welcome.

3.5 Time Outs Tuesday

1

Dead, gone, buried, forgotten- manhood, that is.  The stories of the Costa Concordia show that clearly enough.  Best quote from the news stories:

In the words of one newspaper account, “An Australian mother and her young daughter have described being pushed aside by hysterical men as they tried to board lifeboats.” If the men of the Titanic had lived to read such a thing, they would have recoiled in shame. The Titanic’s crew surely would have thought the hysterics deserved to be shot on sight — and would have volunteered to perform the service.

2

Tied to the first post, there is now a debate as to what killed manhood, or chivalry, as it is often called.  The usual suspects are the feminists.  Fair enough, but the attacks and insults they heaped upon men and their values only goes so far.  A woman may insult a man, but he need not abandon his values because of it.  No, in the end, chivalry's death was a suicide.  It is unmanly to say otherwise.

3

Watch this violinist react to a cell phone, if you have not seen this already.



3.5

G.K Chesterton quotation for today, and possibly tomorrow:

“It is an old story that, while we may need somebody like Dominic to convert the heathen to Christianity, we are in even greater need of somebody like Francis, to convert the Christians to Christianity.”

A few thoughts...

On the latest Voris controversy.  I know, I know- after saying I had no interest in this matter, I am now going to post on it.  What has piqued my interest is Voris' response to the Archdiocese of Detroit.  My interest is not in the content so much as his rhetoric, as rhetoric was my old field.  I am not going to address the question of whether he is right or wrong as much as I am going to look at how he constructs his position as the right one.  I have transcribed his statement. or, more accurately, the statement he read, for purpose of examination.

But first, a few observations.  The debate, such as it is, (and I believe that it really isn't a debate at all, but I'll get to that in a moment,) turns on a few points:  first, whether or not Detroit has jurisdiction in this matter;  second, whether or not RealCatholic is in violation of Canon 216; third, a curious argument over why the Diocese has or has not gone after other groups which also have seemingly run afoul of Canon 216.  This is either the crux of the entire matter, or irrelevant.  Voris' supporters say that the diocese has not gone after the others, the supporters of the Diocese point out that the bishop has gone after some of them.  More on this later.

My focus will not be on his arguments, such as they are, but rather on the way he forms and the terms into which he puts them: how he goes about constructing his position, and how he attempts to persuade the reader or listener that he is right.  At its heart, rhetoric, the art of persuasion, is about power, and the ability to persuade and even control one's audience.

Now, on to the statement, with my observations.

The board of St Michael's media has requested that the following statement be issued by me in response to the recent spat of press releases from the Archdiocese of Detroit. 

His first step is to distance himself from the actual statement.  He is reading at the request of the board.  Also, notice the clear view of the letterhead at the start of the statement:  "St Michael's Media:  Overcoming the Darkness."  Though not read out loud, it is prominently displayed, and may be considered part of what is to follow.  They are fighting the darkness.  Also notice he is not using the name "RealCatholic", the name which has started the whole affair.  Watch how that name pops up later.  Also notice how he has minimized what has started this affair: mere press releases.  Documents with no real power whatsoever.

St Michael's media and its President, Michael Voris, request all of the faithful of the Archdiocese of Detroit to pray for Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron.

Well and good.  Pray for the Archbishop. 

Elements within the Curia, as well as forces outside, continue to impede the Archbishop from effectively dispelling grave doctrinal dissent and deep seated moral depravity. (cf Catechism of the Catholic Church section 2357)

Here he has set up an opposition:  The Archbishop is opposed, not by RealCatholic or St Michael's Media (who ask that everybody pray for him), but by 'forces' within the Curia and without.  These forces are not named yet, and are left vague.  Voris is here setting up an opposition:  Bishop vs forces within the Curia and without.

St Michael's Media and Michael Voris have been, and remain, the repeated targets of those same hostile elements as the former strive to see realized the reformation of the Archdiocese of Detroit and be of service to the Universal Church and her Supreme Pastor, Pope Benedict XVI.

Here the statement returns to its support of the Archbishop, and now claims to be fighting the same fight as the Archbishop.  The use of the word 'former' in this sentence is curious: the verb 'strive'- rather than 'strives' indicates that former refers to St Michael's media, rather than the bishop.  He and St Michael's Media have been striving to reform the Archdiocese.  He is subtly equating his efforts with those of the bishop.  The opposition between the archbishop and the Curia and forces without is now expanded:  Archbishop and Voris et al along with the Church and the Pope vs.  forces within the Curia and without.  This theme is going to be worked on and expanded by Voris.  But first, a statement to the point.

Neither St Michael's Media nor Michael Voris are in violation of can. 216 of the Code of Canon Law.

If this were a debate, then here is the heart of the matter. This is the only sentence in this statement which addresses the issue which started this affair:  Is Voris and Company in violation of Canon Law?  Voris baldly states the answer is "no".  He does not expand at all on this, merely states it as a fact.  The reason?

They underline that the "burden of proof falls upon he who makes the allegation" against them.  (cf. can. 1526, 1 CIC)

He doesn't have to. 

Whether or not this is the correct interpretation, and whether or not the burden of proof has or has not been met is not a question I am qualified to discuss. I am not a canonist.  Voris' defence, the only words to speak to the point, is to claim he and the group of which he is the president is not in violation of the law, and he doesn't have to say anything more about that.  He does, however, have more to say on other things, like the forces that oppose him.

Neither plan on providing fodder or canonical arguments to self-serving or simply misguided bloggers who fail to see how easily they are being manipulated into giving aid to the enemies of Jesus Christ and Holy Mother Church, who rejoice at seeing internecine bloodshed among the fold.

Having allied himself with the Archbishop, the Pope, and the Church as a whole, Voris now draws the natural conclusion:  Opposition to me is opposition to the Church.  Oppose me, whether it is for self-serving reasons or simple mistake, and you are being manipulated and allying yourself with The Enemy.

It is for this reason that I don't call this a debate.  This is a conflict of competing narratives, filled with what would be non-sequitors and irrelevancies in a formal debate.  Take, for example, the most common themes that come up in other blogs.  Voris' supporters ask why the diocese hasn't condemned other groups which have also used the word Catholic in their name?  Diocesan supporters point out that the Bishop has condemned several such groups, only it has not gotten as much press as this dust up with Voris.  For a debate, this is irrelevant to the question.  Let me use an extreme analogy as an example to illustrate this point: the police arrest a man on a charge of petty theft.  The man says "Why are you picking on me?  Shouldn't you be arresting murderers?" to which the officer replies: "What do you mean?  We arrested a murderer just last week."  Both the original question and the response are irrelevant to the case at hand.  But they are relevant to a narrative, and what Voris is pushing here is a narrative.

St Michael's Media and its President call upon all the faithful of Detroit to be real Catholics (emphasis mine) by adhering entirely to the Deposit of Faith as taught authoritatively only through the Magisterium of the Popes and the Bishops of the Catholic Church in Union with him.

 Voris here finally invokes the name that sparked this little dust-up in the most surprising- even shocking- way, and it cannot possibly have been accidental. Voris has carefully constructed a narrative in which the Curia, which issued the original release, is on the side of Satan, and he is allied with the Bishop, the Pope, and the Church.  He has now invoked the name of his company as the true name of the Church.  Oppose me, and you oppose the bishop the Pope and the Church itself.  After all, if you accept his narrative, he is not disobeying the ordinary of the archdiocese which issued the first statement, but with the forces of Satan within the curia who are the real forces which oppose him and who, presumably, actually issued the statement.

So Voris offers no logic and no debate, and instead offers a narrative that may be accepted or rejected on faith, and has to be, as he offers no proof.  I have nothing more to say on the matter, really.  I leave it to the readers to agree or disagree with Voris as they please.  I have my own thoughts about what will happen, eventually, but which I will keep to myself at this time.  I will say that, as my old interest was rhetoric, I will conclude by saying a few more words about Voris' rhetoric.

As I said earlier, rhetoric is about power, an exercise in power and control.  It has many tools.  One possible tool of rhetoric is logic.  However, as C.S.Lewis stated in his Screwtape Letters, where three hundred yerars ago, people knew when a point was proven and when it wsan't, and an educated man was ready to change his life baed on a chain of reasoning, now people barely know the first thing about logic at all.  Jargon, slogans  and cant are more effective tools of rhetoric than logic.  Another common tools these days is narrative.  People may know nothing about logic, but they still like a good story, and Voris tells a good one.
 
Voris's narrative is a narrative of power.  He is claiming a great amount of power to himself, and you must accept his claim if you are to accept his narrative.The claim to power is the  very assumption that underpins his statement. The assumption that Voris has the power to say who is to be obeyed and who is not; who has the power to speak, and who has not;  who is right, and who is not;  and who is Catholic, and who is not; and who has the right to say who is Catholic, and who does not.  This all began when the Archdiocese of Detroit, in response to question, issued a statement which said, in short, that Voris and RealCatholic television does not speak for the Church.  Voris' response is "Yes, I do.  In fact, mine is the only group that speaks for the Church."


As a last note, here is Voris' statement as he read it, with his own intonation and emphases. 

Merry Christmas

Preach it, brother Linus.

O Holy Night

Joan Sutherland.



That top note is killer.

Joan was well known for having an incredibly beautiful voice and for being totally incomprehensible. True story:  My singing teacher was listening to he radio the day after she died, and they were playing an all day tribute to Joan.  They played a song by her he had never heard before.  At first he thought she was singing in Italian, then he thought it was German... no wait, Italian... it could be German... and so on.  When the song ended, the announcer came on and revealed the song had been written by Handel, and was in English.

Another version by another great, the incomparable Leontyne Price.



You may now return to earth, and Merry Christmas.

Sensitivity training

A note I sent to one of the managers yesterday regarding our training pamphlet on the new currency and its security features.  (For those who don't know, Canada is issuing new polymer fifty and one hundred dollar bank notes, mainly to try and deter counterfeiting.  I don't much care, as long as they keep the Mr Spock five.)

Dear xxxx

While the photocopies you handed me on the subject of security features in the new currency were useful, I found the instructions a little vague when it came to the subject of informing a customer that the currency they have handed over is not of the realm, and I believe it possible- nay, likely- that the other bookstore associates and cashiers have the same problem.  Fortunately, resident expert Senator Vreenak has helpfully supplied us with a video explaining how to sensitively and courteously explain to a customer that their money may quite possibly have been forged.




Feel free to share this information with the rest of the staff.

You are welcome.

bear

It's the most overdone time of the year

From Straight No Chaser, the guys who brought us The Twelve Days of Christmas, comes another soon to be classic, The Christmas Can Can!