FOUR RUSSIANS in four minutes

For all of James's blogposts, books, music, and more, visit his website at

https://www.jameschanningshaw.com

It is humanly impossible to discuss even one Russian composer adequately on a blog post, but have a quick read anyway. Anyone who takes music seriously must know something about these four men.

Stravinsky came first. To be fair, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rachmaninov and many others came before him, but for this discussion, Igor Stravinsky started it all.

Igor Stravinsky 1882-1971

He didn’t invent it; he just tweaked everything that had come before him so it sounded like he invented something new. His invention, sometimes called neoclassical, became 100 years of new music. That’s what great artists do: They tweak conventional thinking, and riots ensue. They blow art out of the water with new beauty, painful at times, but ultimately, lasting, inspirational beauty.

In 1913, Igor Stravinsky instigated riots in Paris with the premiere of The Rite of Spring. Le Sacre du Printemps’ or simply ‘Le Sacre’. This music was so new and challenging that the audience began screaming and booing within minutes; all mayhem broke out in the theater and spilled out onto the streets.

Le Sacre can be uphill listening for novices, so you might try Symphony of Psalms instead, a three-movement piece written nearly twenty years after Le Sacre and possibly one of the two or three best compositions ever composed for orchestra and choir. Intense from the outset, the first movement of full-on symphony and choir requires the wearing of a seatbelt, and the choral lamentations in the third movement leave one either breathless or in tears.

Sergei Prokofiev 1891-1953

Our second Russian composer is Sergei Prokofiev, who, while only nine years younger than Stravinsky, became widely known with Peter and the Wolf and Romeo and Juliette, but there is so, so much more to Prokofiev. Unlike many twentieth century composers, this man had the amazing talent for combining challenging contemporary harmonies with the most beautiful of melodies. You might start with his string quartets. Then try his Concerto for Violin and Orchestra no.1 and no.2. I prefer No. 1, but both are gorgeous. Try also his piano concertos and sonatas. Totally mind-blowing power and beauty.

Dmitri Shostakovich 1906-1975

Dmitri Shostakovich, our third on the list, has become a household name and needs little

introduction. Only fifteen years younger than Prokofiev, he takes music further still. He is known best for his fifteen symphonies, many of which have strong socio-political themes. However, Shostakovich’s essence is more easily uncovered in his other works. My favorite? His Preludes and Fugues for piano. The string quartets are a must listen, as is his Cello Concerto No.1.

Alfred Schnittke 

The fourth and last in this discussion is Alfred Schnittke (1934-1998). Schnittke’s works show influences from all three of the above composers, but he took them further, into new frontiers of harmony and rhythm, while always featuring beautiful melodies that are heart-wrenching at times. In most great works, there is tension and resolve; in Schnittke’s works, tension and resolve often occur simultaneously, creating huge emotional and musical impact. His works even explore early minimalism. Try his Requiem. Try his concerto for piano and strings. Explore his Symphony No. 8. Then move to violin sonatas and piano sonatas. There is much more.

So there. You have four influential composers from Russia who have changed the world of music. Humanity should consider themselves extremely fortunate to have lived in a time when the musical genius of these giants was accessible through recordings, published works, and performances. 

 

Mid-term election madness (Grrrrrrr!)

Remember this date: November 2, 2004. 

Ten years ago. A major turning point in American history occurred that day. It was the day George W. Bush got re-elected legitimately by the American people. On that day, the handwriting on the wall was written: what America wants is God, guns, and greed. Despite that election being close, a majority of Americans, including those who stood to benefit most from affordable healthcare, gun control, fewer tax loopholes for the rich and more regulations on Wall Street, seemed instead to favor ignorance (translate: Creationism and God), the NRA, market driven healthcare, oppression of women’s reproductive rights, military bravado without follow-through, and unfettered abuses by Wall Street.

The historical impact of that election was this: Americans will never be interested in making policy changes to provide an inclusive societal approach to human well being. Instead, the every-man-for-himself approach, answering only to a higher power, and an ever-increasing gap in income inequality, will likely continue. This will lead to a gradual decline in the financial and international stature of the United States. Sound familiar? Rome anyone?

We’ve already seen the evidence.

Despite numerous mass shootings in the last decade, Americans cannot manage to put the lid on ownership of major weaponry. Local candidates choose to please the NRA above their constituents, though most constituents would probably agree with the NRA. Congress, of course, opposes gun laws because Obama is in favor of them.

State laws, pushed through by bible-thumping Republicans, have eroded women’s reproductive freedoms.  Dressed up as  protection of life, defended in the name of God, it is really male-driven misogyny and oppression. The fact that many women vote for this legislation is an astounding example of misguided ignorance and belief.

Job-creators don’t care about creating real jobs for Americans. They care about creating profits for themselves. And they seem only do this if they are allowed to out-source to the cheapest, run-down labor force they can find in the developing world. They fight tooth and nail any tax code changes that might impede that behavior and reduce their profits.

Every person in finance likes to blame the ’08 recession on Bill Clinton’s freeing up of mortgage money to the middle class, way back last century. They accept no culpability for banks figuring out how to game the system, how to make oodles of money and dump all the risk back downstream to unsuspecting homebuyers who shouldn’t have been given mortgages in the first place. "Clinton made me do it", the banks say. Well, it came back to bite some of them, except, of course, the smartest and richest, who figured how to game the new system. Those same gamers still talk of deregulation, fewer taxes and ‘job-creators’ as the solution to all our national and international problems. In a word, GREED.

So America is nearing a midterm election. Obama has lost respect from some of his supporters. Yes, he could have done better. He might have taken advantage of Democratic majorities in both houses during his first two years to change the tax code and start to rein in obscene wealth while funding an infrastructure of well being. Then he could have banished health insurers who are beholden only to investors. He could have brought in the public option, which would have been (and could still be) immensely popular and successful.

Solutions? There will be oases of hope, such as eight years of President Obama; such as Governor Brown’s handling of California recently that brought the state into the black through tax code changes and selective spending cuts. But that can change on a dime. Clinton created a surplus during his presidency the same way. How long did that last after W took over?

If President Obama loses control of both houses in 2014, Republicans will celebrate, having effectively ‘thrown the bum out’. Without knowing it, what they will be celebrating is the unstoppable decline of the United States of America that began November 2nd, 2004, when George W. Bush was given a second term.

The Assassination of President Kennedy

On this 50^th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy, it is possible that the true story will soon be understood. It has taken fifty years, but thanks to the indefatigable efforts of a small number of freelance journalists and authors, a clear picture is emerging which is even uglier than conspiracy theorists first imagined. Print, video and blog media have been busy at work, and much can be found to enlighten and confuse.

The short version is this: Conspiracy is no longer crazy theory. It is certain, albeit convoluted. The frontal shot from the grassy knoll is indisputable evidence supporting triangulated gunfire. 

Still photo from Zapruder film showing right frontal impact of bullet

One man, James Files, has come forward as the Mafia hit man behind the fence on the knoll who fired the right frontal shot that spewed blood and brain matter out of the back of JFK’s head onto witnesses who have testified being hit by same. Of course there are those who dismiss James Files’s videotaped confession as unreliable, but his story is worth considering seriously. See for yourself by starting with Hillel Levin’s 2011 article in Playboy entitled How the Outfit Killed JFK and Files’s confession on video (2 URLs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfT1I9CqREw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFhu-yeyb_Y

Who actually killed JFK is one question. Who organized the assassination is more complicated. The most startling evidence, however, is that which implicates Lyndon Johnson as the person who ordered the assassination. The nine part video series The Men Who Killed Kennedy has aired over the last decade on the History Channel, but after the airing of the ninth episode which focused on LBJ’s role in the murder, law suits from LBJ supporters forced the series off the networks. Episodes can still be viewed on youtube. The first six episodes covered material used in Oliver Stone’s film JFK, but episodes 7,8, and 9 shed important new light on the case, especially the LBJ connection in episode 9, entitled The Guilty Men.

Most recently, Roger Stone’s anticipated book The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ could turn out to be the analysis that undoes the Warren Report. It is not a certainty, though, because a government-orchestrated cover-up continues to be robust. Materials that were released piecemeal over the years had much edited out with black marker.  Supposedly all remaining evidence will be released either in 2017 or 2029 depending on whom you read. Either way, full truth requires transparency with access to all evidence, and it is already too late for that.  

In a recent op-ed in the LA Times, Richard M. Mosk, former staff member of the Warren Commission, finished his piece with “I hope on this 50^th anniversary the public will be skeptical of new criticism of the commission and be more doubtful of the new conspiracy theories than of the Warren Commission.” Who would use such language without an agenda?  It is hardly a truth-seeking statement. The Warren Report had trouble from the start and has lost credibility gradually over the years as courageous individuals have slowly come forward to make statements. A better hope to have is complete transparency from the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and other government bodies involved so that the truth about JFK’s murder, ugly or not, coup d’etat or not, becomes known and we can start the process of healing this long-standing national wound.

 Best regards,

https://www.jameschanningshaw.com

Oyster stew, please, glass of Chablis

Mr. Uddin

Quick trip to New York City a few weeks ago (see also Everyman Espresso posting) and made my requisite pilgrimage to the Oyster Bar Restaurant at Grand Central Terminal. Open stool at the bar directly in front of the master oyster chef who’s been performing magic there as long as I can remember. Order my usual: “Oyster stew, please, glass of Chablis.”

Tall, silent and aloof, facing the bar and tables, the master performs his magic with an elevated gas-heated single-portion cooker, one of two he has going simultaneously all day: butter and nectar first, short sizzle, scoop of about 8 small oysters, Worcestershire, paprika, stir, heat it up, finally rich milk and spices, heat to near boil. With an arm-wrestle-like twist of the wrist he empties it into the bowl. Takes about one minute.

The master steps down to a wash-basin directly in front of me. I ask permission, then, “How long have you been doing this?”

“Twenty-four years.”

That’s fits with my recollection of my first visit: oyster stew and Chablis about twenty-four years ago. The gentle man’s name is Komor (or Komy) Uddin, originally from Bangladesh. “May I write a little something?” “Sure.” “With your picture? I took your picture.” “That’s fine.”

Thank you. Until next time, Mr. Uddin.

Cheers,

for all of James's blogposts, books, and more, visit his website:

https://www.jameschanningshaw.com

HELPING PATIENTS

Sir Luke Fildes: The Doctor

            For centuries, our heroes in medical philosophy have extolled the importance of 'first, do no harm', and 'treat the patient, not the disease'. In today’s world of sub-specialization, the concept of helping patients can get overlooked and unfortunately, you, the patient, are at the mercy of doctors.   

Do physicians actually have a duty to help patients? Is that what society expects of us? Many doctors might say no, that if, for example, a patient is referred to a gastroenterologist for abdominal pain and nothing is found after 'both-end-oscopy', it is perfectly acceptable to discharge the patient back to the referring doctor with no answers or recommendations. Others might think that patients should expect a specialist to actually search for the cause of the pain and help manage the problem.

            It can be argued that helping patients is the primary goal of doctoring. It is when diagnoses or treatments are less than definitive that the concept of being of some help to patients becomes most relevant.  

            So. What does ‘helping the patient’ mean beyond the basics of Hippocrates and Osler? This is my short list. 

FOR PATIENTS:

•   More than anything, it begins with the doctor regarding you as a human being, worthy of respect, whether you are a CEO or homeless.

•   It means the doctor never talking down to you.

•   It means that the doctor acknowledges and respects the family or friends who accompany you into the examination room.

•   It means teaching you, when possible, about your condition, not merely saying, "I'll notify your family doctor."

FOR PHYSICIANS:

•   More than anything, helping patients means putting the interests of the patient above our interests of revenue production, academics, teaching and career.

•   It means being willing to admit failure with one treatment, while continuing to find an alternative.

•   It means being more concerned about a patient's health than about our own legal liability, even when there are risks from a particular therapy.

•   It means never using the phrase ‘there is nothing I can do for you’ except when it is absolutely true, and then still not using it.

•   It means knowing that even if cure cannot be achieved, the caring, teaching, hand holding and outlining of expectations are important parts of management.  

•   It means knowing when to stop treatment (chemotherapy, for example).

•   It means rethinking difficult cases that don’t make sense. Start again from the beginning. 

•   It means combining evidence-based knowledge with experience to arrive at the most appropriate treatment for every patient.

•   It means learning to use new effective drugs, or at least referring to someone who knows how to use newer drugs.

•   It means prescribing off-label drugs if those are the most appropriate treatment.

•   It means getting help from those with more expertise, not for the purpose of getting rid of the patient, but to help arrive at a diagnosis and treatment.

•   It means taking extra time during the day if needed, to deal with an urgent problem.

•   It means sometimes providing treatment even when there are relative contraindications.

•   It means assisting a patient with an urgent problem outside the realm of one’s specialty by facilitating a referral to another specialist or having a discussion with the primary care doctor or contacting home health nurses or calling an ambulance if necessary.  

•   It means prescribing narcotics when needed, even if we suspect drug-seeking behavior. The risk of a one-time prescription is nil for the physician. 

•   It means being available personally or through shared 'on-call' arrangements, and to take responsibility for complications of treatments originating in our offices. 

•   It means never allowing one’s own beliefs or moral convictions to stand in the way of proper medical management.

•   Finally, it means never overlooking the fact that even as specialists, we are doctors first, specialists second.

March 18, 2013

https://www.jameschanningshaw.com