Ayn Rand's Play Ideal in NYC

Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:10:00 GMT

I saw Ayn Rand's play "Ideal" in New York two weeks ago with my fiancee and friends. It is directed by Jenny Beth Snyder at the 59E59 blackbox theater. Since the reviews of the play in the lamestream press have been what they've been, I feel obligated to say something.

I love the play and knew it well before attending. Since I had known the work only as a dry script, the main thrust of my interest was in seeing Ideal made real. In that respect I give the performance highest marks. To see and hear the play with the full immediacy and reality as the work was meant to have was very moving and was a special experience for me--one which I will never forget. We are very fortunate to have the benefit of a production to see--even Ayn Rand herself never saw the work produced.

The story: the extraordinary screen actress Kay Gonda is accused of murder and disappears on a quest to find purportedly a place to hide, but in fact to find a soul with the virtue of integrity. The progression of the play is a brilliant structure, a set of variations on a theme. In each scene the audience first hears a fan letter read aloud, a letter that had been written to Kay Gonda by an admirer. We then see the letter writer in the context of his life, and see his response to the arrival of Kay Gonda herself, in the hour of her darkest need. Her presence is what Gonda intends it to be: a test of man's devotion to his own professed ideal. With each visit we see a new character, a new motivation, and a new kind of response to the dilemma posed by Gonda's presence and predicament.

As Leonard Peikoff wrote in the introduction to the play, the theme of the work is "men's lack of integrity, their failure to act according to the ideals they espouse. The theme is the evil of divorcing ideals from life." The story is the quest of the stunning beauty and powerful ideal of Kay Gonda to find a soul who matches hers, who wants to live life in the way with the kind of idealism Gonda portrays on the screen. The climax of the story is the resolution of Gonda's crisis of being alone as an idealist.

Given this kind of theme and drama, it is no suprise that the snarky, faux-humble New York intelligentsia has unanimously desired to dismiss the play as silly and childish. There is psychological protection going on here. A man who has let his own ideals slip doesn't care to have it rubbed in his face--so he writes a sardonic, pseudo-intellectual review attempting to poop on Ayn Rand's grand and vaunted Romanticism.

The reviewers at the trashy New York Post, at the washed-up, bankrupt old socialist rag the New York Times, and the theatre-biz site backstage.com understand Ayn Rand's viewpoint about as much as she respected Stalin. Consider the ending punch by backstage.com's Snark in Residence David Sheward: ""Ideal" is far from ideal as a drama of real people in real conflict." It is against precisely that sort of "realistic" repudiation of ideals that Ayn Rand wrote the play, you moron.

Now what did I think of the production? I found it very powerful overall--very dramatic and intense. I loved hearing Ayn Rand's brilliantly terse and focussed dialogue.

From the point of view of what can be expected from our cynical, grey, pragmatic, unprincipled culture I think the production was as good as can be expected. I don't think the director or actors grasp Ayn Rand's viewpoint very deeply. But can you believe it--the play was performed with no postmodern irony, no anti-Ayn Rand parodying or snobbish double entendre. It was given straight, as it deserves to be.

Dan Pfau, Ted Caine, and Kim Rosen deserve to be singled out as the actors who best understood the meaning of the play, and therefore best put accross their characters.

Kim Rosen was, I'm afraid, miscast in the role of the bitter, nagging old mother-in-law, but she was razor-sharp in her role as Ms. Shyly--which is exactly what the play needs. In that role Rosen was excellent in her searing bluntness and in the piercing intensity of her gaze. That is what Ayn Rand would have wanted.

Ted Caine was a convincing Mr. Perkins--the dutiful husband who feably clings to his ideal, but only until he is confronted with the immediate and very real onus of acting on it. The scene developing his character was very powerfully done, which is Caine's achievement.

Dan Pfau plays the two roles that are most in accordance with the heroine's ideals: Mick Watts who is Kay Gonda's only annointed press agent, and Johnie Dawes, whose character is the culmination of the story. These characters have the remarkable and rare devotion to Kay Gonda's "like nothing you bastards ever dreamed of" ethos, even though both of these characters are psychologically defeated from the get-go. Pfau succeeded in conveying all the reality and complexity of these figures; he made them very ideally real.

Playing a pure character, a fully integrated and whole, healthy, strong, virtuous and ideal soul--like Kay Gonda--is something I have never seen an actor do successfully. Gary Cooper failed in the film of The Fountainhead. With thousands of years of religion behind us, people are unfamiliar with and cannot feel the feelings of a pure, uncorrupted, non-sacrificial ideal. But that is what Ayn Rand's worldview makes possible and that is what her work requires.

In this play, Jessie Barr played Kay Gonda as a traditional female heroine, with traditional female emotional suppleness and sloppiness. That was a disappointment because it seemed that Barr didn't understand Ayn Rand very well. But I admire her intensity even if she was missing the austerity and severity characterstic of an Ayn Rand heroine. It is important to remember that the character of Kay Gonda is, in essence, Ayn Rand herself. So an excellent way to understand the psychology would be to watch video of Ayn Rand, such as her interviews. Ayn Rand was not sloppy and "sensitive," she was penetratingly and passionately rational.

I'm reminded of the story I once heard about a visitor to Ayn Rand's apartment who asked about one of her cats, something to the effect of "is that Ayn Rand?" (She thought the cat had been named after its human mommy perhaps?) --to which AR's husband replied: "That can't be Ayn Rand, she doesn't have any claws." (!)

I thank Jenny Beth Snyder for directing this play. I thank her for taking it seriously. I thank Karina Martins for producing it. I thank her for taking on the herculean task of making it happen--as someone who has produced artistic events in New York I know how hard this is. I thank the cast for their efforts. And most of all, I pray that these efforts and similar ones will continue.

Repeal Obamacare

Sun, 28 Mar 2010 02:35:00 GMT

Democrats were willing to Kamikazee-dive the Obamacare bill into America because the passage is a matter of principle: a nationalized healthcare system is a 180 degree reversal of the Constitution. This bill completely destroys the principle of the sovereign, self-sufficient, self-responsible individual. It completely destroys the principle of independence and individualism that was the essence of the Founding Fathers' political outlook.

In place of the inalienable rights of man, in place of the the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of one's own happiness by one's own effort, the Democrats have attempted to establish a permanent welfare state. They have done all they could to turn the USA into the USSR--to establish an economy that is centrally controlled and ruled from the "top" down by politicians and bureaucrats wielding total power over citizens.

If this bill is permitted to stand, it is the end of the Land of the Free. Obamacare must be repealed.

I am pleased that 14 states' Attorneys General have filed suit against this bill and hope that the courts will find it to be unconstitutional--because it is.

According to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution--which is the supreme law of the land, preceding and superceding any act of Congress:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It can never be stressed enough that the government is permitted to to nothing except that which is expressly permitted by the Constitution, while private citizens are permitted to live their lives as they choose. Individuals are limited only by the fact that they may not violate the rights of others, which means no force or fraud. That is America's founding principle.

The Constitution does not grant the government the power to control the medical field. Therefore it is not entitled to do so.

If the courts fail to serve their Constitutional function as a check on the tyranny of Congress, then a new Congress must repeal the bill. Establishing a new Congress devoted to repealing Nationalized Healthcare is the responsibility of every American--a duty that we must dispatch beginning on November 2, 2010.

For now, I support further Tea Party demonstrations (peaceful ones) and suggest that everyone sign the various petitions demanding the repeal of Obamacare. We must demonstrate the sheer number of people who recognize that Obamacare is a monstrous attack on our liberty.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/repealthebill/Default.aspx

http://repealitpledge.com/

http://treygrayson.com/repeal-obamacare

Arts & the Economy

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:25:00 GMT

Here is an interesting article about the rates of job loss in various sectors of the economy since the 2007 start of the depression/recession, as measured by jobs listing agrregator Monster.com.

It shows that of all areas, the worst rate of loss was in arts & recreation. Notice that rates of job loss in utilities, manufacturing, and especially mining were much lower. This shows that Maslow's hierarchy of needs is indeed true: man's attentions and efforts go first to his most basic physiological needs such as breathing, eating and drinking; once those needs are met he is free to attend to a need for clothing and shelter, and so on up the hierarchy of needs to wider values of safety and security, friendship, and at the highest level, in the most successful society, he is free to meet psychological needs such as the need for self-esteem and art.

And when economic conditions become more dire, we see an opposite progression. Men have no recourse but to retreat down and attend to more evolutionarily primitive and more pressing and dire needs. They no longer have the resources to support that which is uniquely human, that which is creative as well as idealistic. Men are forced to concern themselves primarily with physical requirements and abandon, out of unfortunate necessity, the pursuit of spiritual values.

I would mention however, that there is the phenomenon of "escapism"--according to which people want to (for instance) go to a film or the theater to enter a world that is brighter and lighter than the one they face in daily life. That is certainly true, and it is not just as an anecdotal matter. This relates to the very purpose of art which is to sustain and nurture man's psychological health and his positive view of the world. Perhaps people still meet their need of art, but with minimal expenditure--through borrowed books or through various free offerings of music and public domain material on the internet.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that investment in the arts comes to a radical halt when economic conditions become dire. I think that there is a connection between freedom and economic prosperity. Let's hope, for all our sakes, that the increase of government power we have seen is reversed soon in favor of a renewed respect for individual liberty as the founding father's intended. Then men will be free to prosper and once again turn their resources toward not only the basic necessities, but also to man's higher potentialities.

The Head and Heart in Music

Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:28:22 GMT

This summer I’ve made rapid progress on my book “The Head and Heart in Music.” I’ve drafted about half of the book so far. “The Head and Heart in Music” upholds an ideal of the marriage in music of intelligence and passion. It presents a comprehensive theory of music built around the basic duality of cognition and feeling, of reason and emotion. It begins with a new theory of the survival value of music, continues with a theory of emotion as motion of consciousness, and culminates by connecting music to man’s moral nature. The latter part of the book draws on some Greek ideas including “ethos” and the Apollo versus Dionysus distinction. The book is against both prudishness and destructive rebellion; it is based not on religion but on the morality of the pursuit of one's own happiness and fulfillment in life on earth. Music is viewed as a part of the process of learning and growing throughout life, and as a part of the life course of the noble and heroic man.

The Parthenon and Classicism

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:30:00 GMT

In working on my book, I've been thinking a bit about what it means for art to be "classical." It's not a concept I'm very fond of in application to music because people think it means purely formal, the opposite of self-expression. It's a very problematic term. But if you think of classicism as it pertains to ancient Greece, you can see why people started using the word for music like Haydn and Mozart. The Parthenon in paricular is a good example since it has the same clarity, neatness of proportion, eternal and iconic nature, and clean rational structure as the compositions of these Enlightenment era composers. Here is an amazing video produced by director Costa-Gavras for the Acropollis Museum. I find it interesting not only because of the beutiful re-creation of the Parthenon, but also for the dramatization of the history of the structure in future eras--a history of horrible abuse by barbarians, christians, and muslims.

Salute to Schuyler Chapin

Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:40:00 GMT

Mr. Schuyler Chapin—former general manager of the Metropolitan Opera, dean of Columbia University’s School of the Arts, and New York City Commissioner of Cultural Affairs—passed away yesterday, March 7. He had recently turned 86 and died peacefully at home in the arms of his wife Catia, whom he adored without bound.

The New York Times’ obituary, which does not do him justice, may be read here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/arts/music/08chapin.html?_r=1&hp

For the past four years, I have had the honor of serving as Mr. Chapin’s secretary, assisting him with his business affairs, letters, and writing projects. I want to say how personally important it was for me to know him, and to place on record what a special and great man he was.

What young person would not admire a man who had served both as a pilot in the Second World War, and as the general manager of the Metropolitan Opera? Who would not admire a man who would tell you, at lunch, a wide range of the most unbelievable and fantastic stories—which were absolutely true? He would tell you how he had been spared a recall to the military by meeting the dependents requirement—because his wife had unexpectedly had twins just before he was scheduled to report. He would tell you of speaking to Glenn Gould in his office when he received a phone call that resulted in Gould leaving absorbed in a plan to record Strauss’s unusual setting of Tennyson’s Enoch Arden. He would tell you of Horowitz and Bernstein, of exchanging “opera gossip” with then-new Mayor Giuliani; he would tell you of princesses, Presidents, and playing cards with Rachmaninoff.

Schuyler Chapin’s life was itself a history book.

When the world recently lost Beverly Sills, Luciano Pavarotti and Brooke Astor (three of Mr. Chapin’s many illustrious friends), I felt much the same as I do now: that their deaths represented a loss of the living links to the sensibilities of a prior era, to the values and culture of the pre-counterculture, pre-modernist world.

I wrote that Beverly Sills was “of a generation that had grown up at a time when the sense of life, and the standards of the nineteenth century were still strongly present in American culture, and she was the kind of person to take them up, propagate them further, and add her own artistry to the sum.”

I feel similarly about Schuyler Chapin.

I grew up in post-counterculture, post-60s America, and have never liked the nature or results of the counterculture upheavals or the ideas behind them. Rather, I have for a long time admired the art, manners, and many of the basic values of pre-WWII culture. The 19th century had nevertheless been distant for me; the era was something I learned about from books and film, not something I had had firsthand contact with.

Schuyler Chapin was for me a direct link and immediate manifestation of that world. I cannot tell you how important this was for me personally, particularly given the kind of music I write. Knowing Schuyler was a concretization and affirmation for me of a part of myself.

What I want to communicate is, simply, what kind of man he was.

It may seem strange to focus on his manner as something of great importance, but you must know what an unusual and strong impression Schuyler made on the people who knew him.

Schuyler Chapin was an aristocrat in the best possible sense of the term. He was a man of arts and letters (which fact came across immediately upon meeting him), and one of the most educated and erudite people I have ever known. He had become so on his own, he had had very little formal education (a fact which interestingly was the bit of common ground that led to Schuyler’s friendship with Peter Jennings).

For most of his retirement, Mr. Chapin read more books than I (and I read a lot of books). Keeping up with him became a good challenge—and, of course, he always had good books to recommend.

His letters are models of personal expression—of his unique blend of articulateness, directness, purposefulness, charm and politeness. In assisting Mr. Chapin with his letters and other writings, I learned a great deal about using the English language. Above all, I was impressed by his florid, fluid prose. When I first started working for Mr. Chapin, he had one bone to pick with my typing from dictation: “Too many commas.” That was quickly corrected.

I don’t think it was a coincidence that Mr. Chapin especially loved Wagner’s “endless melody”—his favorite opera was Tristan und Isolde.

Mr. Chapin published three books, all of which are fascinating reading:

his autobiography Musical Chairs: A Life in the Arts;

the story of his experiences with opera stars, Mezzos, Sopranos, Tenors, Bassos and Other Friends;

and the testament of his experiences with the great conductor, Leonard Bernstein: Notes from a Friend.

Schuyler could be piercingly direct, and one would sometimes see the merciless incisiveness of his wit (he was a fan of Oscar Wilde). Yet he had the irreproachable correctness and politeness of a genuine gentleman. When I discussed with him some of my students at the Mannes College, one of the first things he asked me, with a pointed tone, was: “Do they have any manners?”

He was a man of demanding standards; he was delightfully charming and lighthearted, and at the same time, beneath that, quite serious. He had a way of inclining his head to look at you with a direct (and I must say, riveting) gaze from below his brow—that simply made you pay attention. And what he said, you would not forget.

He was an unassuming but natural and formidable leader.

He had a brilliant dramatic flair (witness the storytelling in his books). He was utterly unpretentious, had no trace of pompousness or affectation, and hated any type of obsequiousness. I remember every once in a while Mr. Chapin would receive a visit from some person or other who was fawning or ingratiating, and I could see his manner change immediately. He got a little squirmy at first, became quieter and more withdrawn from conversation with the person, and after not too long would put an abrupt yet perfectly polite end to the visit.

Schuyler Chapin was a consummate hero-worshipper, a lover of human competence who was impatient with anything less. He loved art, which he repeatedly dubbed “the signature of man”—a concept that he had seen inscribed on a new arts building and which he attributed importance to—and he loved artists.

If I had to sum up Mr. Chapin in a word I would say that he conveyed, quite unmistakably but totally unselfconsciously, that mark of moral greatness which is personal dignity.

Looking back over his life, Schuyler was able to make a statement rare, beautiful, and the very proof of a life well-lived: he told his family that he had done in life everything he had ever wanted to do.

Schuyler was a prolific and skillful letter writer, a man of the age of letters who had mastered the form; when he faced the task of writing a letter of condolences he was fond of referencing a line from Thomas Campbell’s beautiful poem “Hallowed Ground.” It is with a heavy heart that I quote that stanza now, in memory of Mr. Chapin himself:

“But strew his ashes to the wind
Whose sword or voice has served mankind,—
And is he dead, whose glorious mind
Lifts thine on high?—
To live in hearts we leave behind
Is not to die.”

During these past years of his retirement, I was Schuyler Chapin’s secretary.
He was my hero.
I consider having known him to be one of the great honors of my life.

Sincerely,

Matthew Zachary Johnson
Secretary to Schuyler Chapin

with Mr. and Mrs. Chapin at Steinway Hall in 2005.

P.S. The Mayor ordered that flags in New York be flown at half mast this week in honor of Schuyler.

P.P.S. Schuyler Chapin as impressario knew the art of getting a packed house. I think he would have been pleased to know that even his funeral was "standing room only."

New Review of Serenade Album

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:28:01 GMT

I'm pleased to announce that our new album, Serenade: Music for Saxophone & Piano has gotten a lovely little review with Midwestrecord. The reviewer writes that the CD "will be grandly enjoyed by listeners looking for some music with depth that isn’t impenetrable."

Read the review at:

http://www.midwestrecord.com/2009/01/18/011809/
(It's down the page under "Sound Artist Records, Brian Horner - Elizabeth Avery.")

Purchase Serenade: Music for Saxophone & Piano at

http://cdbaby.com/cd/horneravery

It is also available at amazon.com, borders.com, iTunes and at many other online retailers.

Commentary on my PRO-IP Article

Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:45:00 GMT

I just discovered that Patrick Ross, the prolific and insightful writer at the Copyright Alliance, wrote commentary on my article about the PRO-IP Law and the moral basis of copyright.

http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/11/rights-education-and-morality/

PRO-IP, Rights, and the Roots of Copyright Opposition

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:28:04 GMT

President Bush recently signed into law the "PRO-IP" bill, an act for "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property." The purpose of the bill is to enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws.

The law creates a copyright protection office in the executive branch of government and provides for more extreme penalties for pirates. The level of the penalties is a secondary issue; the most important thing about this law is the creation of a proper authority for protecting intellectual property—and the fact that this law makes a much-needed moral statement.

Antagonism to the PRO-IP Act has focused in part on the fact that it was backed by "big content," including the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association, thus portraying the issue as a war between pressure groups, with large corporations as the ones who happen to have won. But this misses the principle of the matter, that the creator of a piece of intellectual property owns the product of his work.

If a baker bakes a loaf of bread, he therefore owns it, and anyone who wishes to acquire the bread must do so by meeting the baker's terms. The baker may set any price he wishes for it—even a high price if he so chooses. It is also within his rights to give it away for free, which he might do for promotional purposes. But in all cases, it is the baker who sets the terms for acquiring his creation. No one has the right to acquire the bread in disregard of the baker's wishes.

The same is true of music, movies, software. The fact that it is easier to copy these things does not eliminate the creator's sovereignty over his own product. The price of his work, even if it is $0, is his to set.

A major root of the opposition to copyright is the altruist morality—the premise that self-interest is evil and that sacrificial service to others is the moral ideal. This premise makes people antagonistic toward selfish rights. And it gives them a rationalization for piracy: according to the premise of sacrifice, it is morally good for creators to give things away for the benefit of others—and if sacrifice is the imperative, the question of complying with a creator's terms doesn't even enter one's mind.

Think for instance of the way in which the press vilified the RIAA when it brought lawsuits against file-sharers, and threw a pity-party for the defendants. The "greedy," self-interested, profit-seeking businessmen were regarded as inherently suspicious even though they were defending the rights of music creators whom they lawfully represent, while some destitute single mother in middle America (who was not "greedy"?) was portrayed as a helpless victim, with no mention made of the fact that she engaged in theft.

What is needed is a stern reminder that the Constitution protects not the Robin Hood type of theft, but the right of the individual to pursue his own happiness by means of his own work.

In order to grasp the concept "property rights"—the idea of ownership, which is a matter of moral justice—one must function conceptually. The same toaster has a different moral and legal status in the hands of a man who paid for it, versus the hands of a thief as he runs away. Possession is not everything, since the thief possesses it wrongly. Rights are not a matter of the physical position of the object, but of ownership—of moral status.

In the case of intellectual property, the need for conceptual thought is particularly acute. An author's right to his novel, a composer's right to his composition, a filmmaker’s right to his movie—these rights are more abstract still. If you buy a copy of Joe Smith's novel, you own that copy. But Joe Smith owns the particular sequence of words that are printed in that novel. So you have the right to use your copy as you wish, but you do not have the right to create a new copy of that sequence of words.

Suppose you own a copy of the novel "The Grapes of Wrath" and also an audio-book version on CD. You own both of those physical objects, and can give the book to your mother and the CD to your brother if you wish. The author, on the other hand, owns what is common to both of those. He owns the particular sequence of words embodied in the book and the audio-book. The forms of these two things are different: one form you look at, the other you hear. But both of them are instances of the same piece of intellectual property, the same novel, "The Grapes of Wrath."

Copyright is a matter not of what a monkey sees looking at a page full of words, but of what a human mind sees. Unlike a monkey, a man is able to grasp the particular meaning expressed in particular language.

So a creator's right is not per se to the particular physical instance, but to the creative content that is embodied in these objects. And the only practical way for a creator to control and profit from his work is for him to hold by right the power to decide when, where, how and under what conditions new physical instances of his creation may be made and distributed. That is the meaning of the right to copy.

These facts and distinctions have no reality for, and are completely unconvincing to, a person who does not think. Unfortunately, that category includes a very large number of Americans today. The anti-thought mentality comes about as a combination of personal lethargy and evasion, and an educational system that stultifies the mind.

A large portion of the guilt for the piracy problem lies with the American educational system. This is not primarily a matter of the content of education, but the method. For decades the dominant approach to teaching in America has been Progressive Education, which holds emotion and socialization as primary, and facts and logic as secondary—or even denounces facts and logic as repressive. Americans have been taught to be driven by emotion and to cast off thinking as a restrictive straightjacket. That is where the hippies came from.

Combine that with a lot of personal immorality—meaning refusal to think—and the result is a widespread practice of operating by whim. The practice of controlling one's own choices and behavior by reference to moral principle is completely alien to the hippie mentality. This mentality's automatized method—as a result of his own shortsighted laziness and as a result of years of schooling that encouraged shortsighted laziness—is to see something, desire it, grab it. It is the same method as that of a spoiled child or a pre-civilized savage.

It costs the creator nothing, these types argue, to copy one piece of software or music. What harm does it do? First of all, the very question evades the existence of anything other than that which immediately stares into the pirate's passive face: in a few mouse clicks he is able to have the content he wants. He is at best ignorant of the actual costs involved in creating the content. What about the cost of the musician's years of training, the income he forewent in order to spend the time developing his skills and creating his music, the cost of music paper, his instrument, the recording expenses? And let's not forget the cost of marketing, without which the pirate could hardly know about the content he so nonchalantly expects to take for free.

What harm does it do, at root? Man lives by the productive work of his mind. He creates and he trades his product. Trade is by mutual voluntary agreement. A unilateral taking is the opposite of a fair trade. The pirate deprives the creator not only of the relatively small amount of money to be paid for the product. He deprives the creator of his very means of living, his ability to control, trade and profit from the work of his mind. That is a crime legally, morally, and on the deepest philosophical level, metaphysically. It is a matter of the creator's ability to maintain his own existence.

What the pirate fails to grasp is that to take or "share" copyrighted content in disregard of the creator's wishes is to kill the creator's capacity to live.

The pirate's desire for the content makes him act to destroy its source.

The PRO-IP Act is one much-needed remedy. As Tom Donohue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stated: "By becoming law, the PRO-IP Act sends the message to [intellectual property] criminals everywhere that the U.S. will go the extra mile to protect American innovation." It is a welcome law and a welcome message.

The Copyright "Czar" and What Makes Rights Right

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:59:51 GMT

During the proposal of the PRO-IP Act and continuing after it passed into law, commentators have been referring to the new head of the copyright department under the president as a copyright "czar." This is an improper and prejudicial term.

It is true that the given name, Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER), is hardly useful. It is not surprising that people have had to fish for their own term.

But the term "czar" obviously implies a totalitarian overlord--when in fact the purpose of the position is to protect the rights of content creators. It is a very insidious reversal.

This is once again a result of the altruist morality--the view that selfish rights are evil and that working to help others is morally good. Because of altruism, people's sympathies lie with pirates, not with creators.

Notice that no one is calling Paulson or Bernanke an economic "czar"--even though, with their sweeping new powers, that is what they are. Here, the totalitarian implication would be completely right and justified. But why doesn't anybody want to call them dictators?

Thinkers today have it all backwards. They smear the protector of rights and treat rights-trampling overlords with deferential respect. Why? People's political concepts are all screwed up because their moral concepts are all screwed up. Americans need to learn that individual rights in the George Washington Thomas Jefferson definition are good, while "rights" in the FDR/Marx definition are wrong. The fundamental basis for straightening this out must be an acceptance that to work for one's own benefit is morally good. That is what makes rights right.

Article on Liz Avery

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:13:15 GMT

An article about pianist Elizabeth Avery, and our new album Serenade--Music for Saxophone & Piano, just appeared in the Watertown Daily Times, her hometown newspaper.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20081104/CURR07/311046921/-1/curr/North+Country+People

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel's Lecture at Fordham

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:10:11 GMT

Tonight I attended Judge Marilyn Hall Patel's lecture at Fordham University. She is a judge who heard the famous Napster case, and told us (an audience of the Copyright Society) about that case and related ones. Near the end of her talk she gave a very broad new suggestion about how to handle copyright law going forward.

I found her description of the cases involving file sharing to be very interesting and informative. I also can see her point that up to now, the law's handling of copyright has been slow and piecemeal. However I find her suggestion for how to solve this problem--the creation of an "association"which is a "partnership of public and private" to administer copyright--to be half-baked.

I object to any institution that blurs the line between actions of government, which are backed by the threat of punishment by force, and actions of private individuals, which are not. That is an essential distinction and should not be obfuscated.

Where you do see that line blurred and unrecognized? Under socialism.

One of the problems in this country is the ongoing abrogation of the constitutional structure of the balance of powers, with checks and balances to safeguard individual liberty and limit the government. I think a quasi-government agency handling copyright would be a disaster. It would operate, like the alphabet agencies, outside of the proper authority of congress to make law and the courts to apply and check the law.

So I am against the creation of the institution she suggests.

On Music & Vision Daily

Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:10:00 GMT

Our new CD Serenade--Music for Saxophone & Piano is listed in the New Releases category at Music & Vision Daily, complete with an audio sample.

http://www.mvdaily.com/articles/2008/10/serenade-music-for-saxophone-and-piano-info.htm

That means their review should be up soon.

Another Interesting Response

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 06:03:45 GMT

I'm pleased to report that someone on the "sax on the web" discussion forum has provided the perfect antidote to my complaints below in "Review of a Review" about a split between "planning" and "emoting" in music. This post-er, named "jazfyrski" gives the specs on our album and writes: "The same duo recorded many of these pieces in a "live" CD at Steinway Hall. This CD, recorded sans audience, loses none of the excitement of the earlier CD. M. Zachary Johnson's music is immediately intriguing and refreshing if only because it is so unabashedly tonal and romantic. But accessible, in this case, doesn't mean simplistic; the harmonies and rhythms show careful craftsmanship. The "old" is new again!" Here's the link.

Reviewing a Review

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:10:00 GMT

Some of you may know that I am writing a book called The Head and Heart in Music. It's a rejection of the alleged choice in music between calculated, rational intelligence, and mindless, freewheeling, uncontrolled raw emotion. I uphold what I call “the marriage in music of intelligence and passion.” A review of our new album, Serenade, came out yesterday; it is fascinatingly wrong, and right on topic for my book. The reviewer does state that "When M Zachary Johnson composed Serenade it is evident that he never lost sight of his musical vision." But his overall opinion is encapsulated in the sentence: “This album’s flaws may lie in its pursuit of perfection.” I must say, if some people hate my music for the same reason they hate Martha Stewart—for being “too perfect”—I gladly accept the compliment. In a different review at Music and Vision Daily, Anna Franco had written that "the instruments take on an especially lyrical, singing quality, igniting the rarely-tapped Romantic potential of the saxophone-piano combination which Johnson has mastered." But this guy continues: “With everything so carefully planned and mapped out for the musicians, there is little room for them to let loose and expose the human side of the music.” This is the point that is philosophically interesting. I think this writer is a hippie who can't conceive of an actual union of intelligence and passion, because what he really wants is out of control emotion. If the music is highly structured, so he seems to think, then it simply must be rigid and cold. Right? No. You can read this guy’s obliquely styled review here (and, for god’s sake, judge the music for yourself!): http://www.muzikreviews.com/reviews.php?ID=278 Thankfully, there are dissenting opinions. First, you may notice that the album is, at the moment, sold out on CDBaby. Second--another piece of good news that's not directly about this album--I’ve been awarded an ASCAPlus Award for 2008, the second year in a row. "The ASCAPLUS Awards Program is for writer members of any genre whose performances are primarily in venues not surveyed; and/or writer members whose catalogs have prestige value for which they would not otherwise be compensated." Also, saxophonist Brian Horner’s hometown newspaper did a story on him with the starting line “On The Bright Side.” http://www.thedailystar.com/local/local_story_284040032.html If you have thoughts on whether Serenade debuts music that is "rigid" or romantic, I'd encourage you to express them in the reviews at www.CDBaby.com/horneravery -- or on the guestbook of my website at www.mzacharyjohnson.com/forum

Concert Yesterday

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:30:00 GMT

It seems from the traffic patterns on my website that people are actually interested in reading my blog. It's a pleasant surprise, so now I'll make more use of the blog--starting with a little report on the yesterday's concert, the first performance of the MZJ Ensemble.

We were at the Liederkranz Society on NYC's upper east side, a beautiful venue and just the right size for us. Our group had really come together in the dress rehearsal--I was very pleased with that. We got a bit of a shock when we warmed up in the ballroom for the concert, because the hardwood floor made the sound very loud and live for the musicians--and paradoxically this made it harder for players to hear each other. But things went very well, musically and when I asked people from the audience, they didn't seem to have noticed. The music, I was glad to hear, came across.

We played the opening theme and first two variations of "Portrait of a Woman" and the audience had a lively interest in the inspiration for the piece (so much for my hopes of getting out of discussing that ). Naturally, everyone wanted to know who the inspiration was, whether the variations were intended to say something about the woman (my response: women are multifaceted), etc. Shy plus talking composer = problem.

Someone asked how I came up with the piece, and I gave an analogy that I've found helpful, which is that it's like a ball of pizza dough dropping down (in your mind) and then you have to squish it out, spread it out, knead it, and lay it out to make a pizza. I think the epistemological point there was lost when somebody chimed in with "So, she's Italian." Hardy har har. And yes, she is.

We played the first of my Two Military Pieces. My ultimate conclusion after thinking this over is that this first one, the Memorial (a lament for a fallen soldier) just doesn't work by itself. It has an unresolved ending and is very down--which changes entirely when you hear it with the Victory March afterward. We'll play them both next time, I just have to find us a drummer.

Javier Oviedo did a great job as the soloist on Adagio for Saxophone & Winds--this was definitely the most substantial and complex piece on the program. But I'm happy to say that people loved his playing and the feedback I got indicated that the audience was glad to have the explanation I gave and the "taking apart" of the music with examples played by the musicians.

The last piece was an arrangement of Schubert's "Ave Maria." I chose the piece because I think it's a beautiful melody and because I thought the song would give a sunnier, more emotionally positive ending to the concert. Chris Brellochs played a great soprano sax solo; so did Benje Daneman on trumpet.

I did have the concert video recorded, so we'll see if we can't find some good examples to put up on Youtube so people can see what the concerts are like--and come to the next ones!

Interpretation of Scherzo

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:48:12 GMT

A few weeks ago I received an email via MySpace from a music teacher in the UK who has a student playing Scherzo; he asked me for some comments about the interpretation of the piece. Here's what I wrote: Regarding how Scherzo should be played, it's tricky to communicate with just words. The essence of the piece is fire and intensity. Sometimes that is a smoldering soft, controlled kind of intensity and sometimes it is an overt vigor. For instance the crescendo leading into the last measure makes a transition between very soft and all-out forceful. On whether to "throw caution to the wind," my answer depends on what we mean by that phrase. If you mean don't hold back and play cautiously, then yes, throw caution to the wind. If it means modify the tempo too much or play too fast, I don't think that will work in giving the right effect. The precision of the rhythm is part of the effect of the piece--that accurate darting motion of the melody is curial. So the tempo should be steady. Also the piece shouldn't be too rushed so it doesn't seem like it's in fast-forward--then it wouldn't make as much sense. On the other hand, too slow would de-activate the driving motion. With many of my other pieces, I have a lot more back story, but Scherzo was sort of "just there" for me--it came more or less inspirationally. I wrote it very quickly compared to some of my other work, so it required less pondering. I do like its "Hungarian" or "gypsy" feel--so it can definitely be likened to pieces like Brahms's Hungarian Dances, e.g.: http://youtube. com/watch?v=IG05yLlt_FA

On Being a Composer

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:00:50 GMT

Re-posted from April 13, 2007

I recently received an email from a music student in Australia doing a project on careers in the arts, asking me about my profession. She wanted to know some examples of prerequisites of being a professional composer, and some examples of the activities that a composer engages in. I thought you might be interested in my response, which I include below:

"I would say the most important prerequisites (in no particular order) are 1) fluency in being able to write down, to notate, sounds from hearing -- basically a lot of experience taking music dictation because when one goes to write a piece, one has to be able to have a clear mental grasp of the musical materials, an ability to "move notes around" in the mind, and put
them down on paper in the correct way. This means having a developed auditory discrimination and ability to identify musical sounds; 2) an active mind, so that you are always generating musical ideas and evaluating them, thinking about how to improve them or use a particular theme in a musical development; 3) something to say -- a strong, uniquely personal vision of consciousness, the mind, and emotions -- which is the motive behind the whole project of being an artist, which is what makes one original (not just an imitator) and which is the basis for one's artistic integrity. Every great artist has a distinct voice and a unique style; this is absolutely essential to the career.

"In the field of practical activities, a composer nowadays has to do a lot more than just compose. Of course there is a lot of time spent trying out musical ideas, improving them, making sketches, writing out a full version of a piece, and perfecting it. One has to make sure there is enough time for that. But there are also a lot of jobs a composer (usually) has to do today which he didn't have to do in the past. These include doing the layout and formatting of the music and making parts, arranging performances and recordings with all their financial, logistical and legal complexities, and doing promotional work (especially if one goes the route of being self-published). Other activities more directly related to the music itself include attending rehearsals and giving the musicians feedback on interpretation."

Symphonic Band Premieres

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:45:00 GMT

Re-posted from Feb. 14, 2007 I just returned from the 2007 Governor's Honor Band Festival at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee, where I served as Composer in Residence. It was a fantastic and tumultuous weekend. I attended rehearsals of the Austin Peay State University Wind Ensemble and coached them on the preparation of my new *Scherzo-Concerto*, which they premiered with Brian Horner on solo saxophone on Friday the 10th in the Concert Hall of the School of Music. Mr. Horner played with excellent tone and flair, and the Wind Ensemble backed him up with a good, energetic rendering of this rhythmically difficult piece. The audience was a good size and the piece was well-received. Many commented on its "tango" flavor—its dark, sultry quality. I also attended rehearsals of the Symphonic Honor Band, the older of the two honor bands, and coached them on the preparation of the work I had composed expressly for them: *Two Military Pieces*. The first piece is a Memorial, a lament for a fallen soldier, and expresses the grief and emptiness of loss. The second is a Victory March, and expresses the energetic optimism and self-confidence that lead to heroic victory in battle. The ensemble's rendition of the pieces took shape well over the course of the festival and the premiere took place on Saturday the 12th. The Concert Hall of the School of Music, which seats 600, was packed. The performance was not flawless, but the effect of each piece did successfully come across, and the audience received the music with warm applause. A number of the student musicians came up to me afterward to say how much they enjoyed the pieces and to ask me to sign their sheet music. Some asked for advice about becoming a composer. So I was very pleased to know that the experience was a positive one for the students.