On The Constitution and Military Action
Ask ten random people who has the power within the U.S. Constitution to declare war, and I would predict the following results. One would say, "What Constitution?", two would say "Congress", three would say "The President", and the rest would say "Charlie Sheen". Just kidding (sort of). The Libyan mess has brought up the issue of who actually has the power within our society to initiate military action. Thanks to my tutor, Judge Andrew Napolitano (whom you can see on Fox News Business every night at 8:00pm or 11:00pm), and spending a few minutes reading the Constitution I have a much better understanding of this answer.
The Constitution addresses the concept of war in two parts; one directly the other indirectly. For the direct language we have Article I, Section 8 which specifically says that Congress has the sole authority to declare war. Now, I'm no genius, but I don't think the Founders wanted any deviation from this very basic edict. Unless exigent circumstances exist (such as an invasion or some kind of surprise attack) a state of war can only exist if Congress so declares. End of story, right? Not so fast....
Modern thinking has vastly strengthened the power of the Presidency in this area. The indirect route taken by these thinkers cite Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution where The President is named the Commander and Chief of the military. In their view, this title grants the President the power of a monarch. He can use the military where he sees fit regardless of the situation. I have no idea where this view came from or how it is so easily justified by our leaders (enabled by our silence and "support the troops" rah-rah), but it is almost as if they simply ignore the Constitution as if it's irrelevant.
In an effort to curb the power of the President regarding the use of military force Congress passed what is known as the War Powers Resolution in 1973. In short, the War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of initiating military action, and such action can only last a maximum of 60 days without congressional approval (or a declaration of war). The constitutionality of this resolution is dubious at best, even among supporters of limiting presidential power, and all Presidents basically ignore the intent of the Resolution; effectively neutering it's supposed check on military adventurism.
After President Obama's address to the nation last night it is clear we are heading towards a constitutional crisis in regards to the use of military force against sovereign nations. Obama basically said that where massacres of a population COULD occur the United States can intervene militarily to prevent this future tragedy. The authority to commit the United States to such a military exercise comes from the President's own hubris, and completely removes Congress from the equation. In the case of Libya, Obama has justified his actions because the United Nations Security Council gave him the go ahead. Since when has the United Nations Security Council superseded our own Congress? Finally, in an act of ultimate hypocrisy,
then-Senator Obama said on the floor of the Senate that he believed Bush the Younger's invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional. This fact alone shows the utter contempt our leaders hold not only for the Constitution, but for us, as well.
Even though it may seem as if the Constitution is beyond saving there is hope. Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) have banded together with Democrats like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to stand up to this trouncing of our beloved republic. Whether they are successful depends on us. Take a look at your Representative or Senator's stand on this insanity. If they are being a good lemming and jumping off the cliff because the pied piper said so, then maybe it's time for that person to be retired.
Our country is not a dictatorship, monarchy, or military junta. While throwing despots like Gaddafi and Hussein into the category of Lucifer with our right hand, with our left we do business with repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and China who are in the exact same category. Worse, our President has assumed for himself the power of a dictator while at the same time destroying his enemy for assuming that same power for himself. It is a wrong that cannot stand in a country that claims, "In God we Trust".
George Washington, the first President, knew that he could not assume the powers of a King even though the whole country was ready to anoint him as such. The genius of our form of government is that our Founding Fathers understood history; that for every Julius Caesar, there is a Nero; that for every Peter the Great, there is an Ivan the Terrible. We cannot put our fate in the hands of one person; it is the surest way to tyranny ever devised, and the greatest con in history.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Post Eighteen
On Libya
I try not to stray into the wild and woolly world of foreign affair op-eds as these subjects are highly controversial, and could provoke unwanted chagrin from those who read this blog. However, the media has so badly handled the Libya conflict that I thought I would dedicate a short blog to getting the facts straight. When you study or read about a civil war one must at least have some historical perspective beyond that being provided by our traditional media sources. Here is a brief history lesson.
The first thing you should know about Libya is that Libya is not a country in the normal sense. After World War II, the victorious Allied powers drew a few lines on a map, and put a king in charge of the newly-drawn country. It says something about the creation when the king, Idris-al Sanusi, wanted no part of the plan. He was first and foremost a tribal ruler of a section of what became Libya, and had no ambition beyond that role. This king was overthrown by a military coup lead by a junta of ambitious junior army officers in 1969, and that was when Muammar Gaddafi came to power. Throughout the Cold War, Lybia was a pawn of the Soviet Union, and like Castro in Cuba, was given generous amounts of military equipment in order to stay in power.
During Libya's time as a Soviet client-state it embarked on foolish terrorist operations (like the Pan Am disaster over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988) which made the regime a pariah and embarrassment even to it's Soviet benefactor. In recent years, Gaddafi has tried rebuilding his status in the world, and until recent events, has been a trusted trade partner with several Western European nations including Great Britain.
The country of Libya is actually composed of three tribal regions: 1. Tripolitania (western Libya which includes the largest city and the capitol, Tripoli) 2. Cyrenaica (eastern Libya which includes Benghazi and Tobruk; the two cities that are involved in the rebellion) and 3. Fezzan (southern Libya which is primarily desert and oasis). These are tribal regions in the literal sense. The only thing that really binds them together is their religion, Islam. Of these two loyalties, tribe and Islam, tribe holds more sway with most people.
Of course, the only real reason anyone cares about Libya in the first place is oil. Europe is the prime consumer of the substance from this region, and the regional powers have been fighting over the area for a very long time. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the leading countries pressing for a no-fly zone are European.
It also says something when the Arab League, an anti-democratic alliance of Arab despots, supports the European call for the destruction of the Gaddafi regime. Common sense would indicate that when democratic western countries and dictatorial despotic regimes agree on something this significant then something stinks. I'm not saying that Gaddafi is a good guy because he isn't. He is a murderous despot who has no respect for human rights or the welfare of his people. But I could say that about most of the Arab League and OPEC.
Here is the bottom line: Libya is not a country, and it never has been. We have no right to dictate it's fate because the people who actually live there don't even want to be part of the country we created in the first place. Instead, this situation should be allowed to run it's course without the intervention of Western or Arab powers whose interests lie in nothing greater than their own greed and avarice.
For centuries, outside powers have decided the fate of "countries" like Libya. It's high-time we start letting people be truly free by deciding for themselves what is best for them. Gaddafi's days are numbered in any case; his position has been irreparably weakened, and you can only pay a mercenary army so long before the money runs out.
I am not a fool, and I do realize that oil is essential to our economy. But consider that Libay only represents less than 2% of the world's oil reserves. Also consider that Libya's contributions to the U.S. oil supply is negligible. And, finally, consider that a far more cost effective strategy would be to allow new oil drilling and refining in the U.S. rather than involving ourselves in another civil conflict. What makes more sense?
As Galadriel in Lord of the Rings says, "The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fail to the ruin of all." Let us hope that our leaders have the prescient wisdom to see the situation for what it is, not what they want it to be. The time for Wilsonian Democracy and Manifest Destiny is over. We can either accept this fact, or proceed down a very dark road indeed.
I try not to stray into the wild and woolly world of foreign affair op-eds as these subjects are highly controversial, and could provoke unwanted chagrin from those who read this blog. However, the media has so badly handled the Libya conflict that I thought I would dedicate a short blog to getting the facts straight. When you study or read about a civil war one must at least have some historical perspective beyond that being provided by our traditional media sources. Here is a brief history lesson.
The first thing you should know about Libya is that Libya is not a country in the normal sense. After World War II, the victorious Allied powers drew a few lines on a map, and put a king in charge of the newly-drawn country. It says something about the creation when the king, Idris-al Sanusi, wanted no part of the plan. He was first and foremost a tribal ruler of a section of what became Libya, and had no ambition beyond that role. This king was overthrown by a military coup lead by a junta of ambitious junior army officers in 1969, and that was when Muammar Gaddafi came to power. Throughout the Cold War, Lybia was a pawn of the Soviet Union, and like Castro in Cuba, was given generous amounts of military equipment in order to stay in power.
During Libya's time as a Soviet client-state it embarked on foolish terrorist operations (like the Pan Am disaster over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988) which made the regime a pariah and embarrassment even to it's Soviet benefactor. In recent years, Gaddafi has tried rebuilding his status in the world, and until recent events, has been a trusted trade partner with several Western European nations including Great Britain.
The country of Libya is actually composed of three tribal regions: 1. Tripolitania (western Libya which includes the largest city and the capitol, Tripoli) 2. Cyrenaica (eastern Libya which includes Benghazi and Tobruk; the two cities that are involved in the rebellion) and 3. Fezzan (southern Libya which is primarily desert and oasis). These are tribal regions in the literal sense. The only thing that really binds them together is their religion, Islam. Of these two loyalties, tribe and Islam, tribe holds more sway with most people.
Of course, the only real reason anyone cares about Libya in the first place is oil. Europe is the prime consumer of the substance from this region, and the regional powers have been fighting over the area for a very long time. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the leading countries pressing for a no-fly zone are European.
It also says something when the Arab League, an anti-democratic alliance of Arab despots, supports the European call for the destruction of the Gaddafi regime. Common sense would indicate that when democratic western countries and dictatorial despotic regimes agree on something this significant then something stinks. I'm not saying that Gaddafi is a good guy because he isn't. He is a murderous despot who has no respect for human rights or the welfare of his people. But I could say that about most of the Arab League and OPEC.
Here is the bottom line: Libya is not a country, and it never has been. We have no right to dictate it's fate because the people who actually live there don't even want to be part of the country we created in the first place. Instead, this situation should be allowed to run it's course without the intervention of Western or Arab powers whose interests lie in nothing greater than their own greed and avarice.
For centuries, outside powers have decided the fate of "countries" like Libya. It's high-time we start letting people be truly free by deciding for themselves what is best for them. Gaddafi's days are numbered in any case; his position has been irreparably weakened, and you can only pay a mercenary army so long before the money runs out.
I am not a fool, and I do realize that oil is essential to our economy. But consider that Libay only represents less than 2% of the world's oil reserves. Also consider that Libya's contributions to the U.S. oil supply is negligible. And, finally, consider that a far more cost effective strategy would be to allow new oil drilling and refining in the U.S. rather than involving ourselves in another civil conflict. What makes more sense?
As Galadriel in Lord of the Rings says, "The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fail to the ruin of all." Let us hope that our leaders have the prescient wisdom to see the situation for what it is, not what they want it to be. The time for Wilsonian Democracy and Manifest Destiny is over. We can either accept this fact, or proceed down a very dark road indeed.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Post Seventeen
On Classical Music
I love classical music. I know, I know, that's "elevator" music to most people, or if you're feeling really cruel, "old fart" music. While I do agree that some classical pieces are downright horrible, I could say the same for any kind of music. What most people fail to grasp is that most of what we hear today was inspired, in no small measure, by the masters of what is known as classical music.
Like any genre, classical music is just a broad description. Classical music consists of genres within genres, and is not something that is very easy to define by a few simple words. For example, the genre is defined by three "Periods" set by a period of years: Baroque (1600-1750)), Classical (1750-1830), and Romantic (1830-1910 and my favorite) are the three accepted ages of classical music. These periods are broad; they are not meant to be hard and fast rules. You have various overlap, and some composers defy classification. For example, based on the time he lived Mozart was so varied in his musical composition you could put him in either Classical or Romantic; some lovers would put him in his own Period.
Each Period was defined by notable composers who stood head and shoulders above most of their contemporaries; Baroque with J.S. Bach, Classical with Beethoven and Romantic with Tchiakovsky. Each of these composers were the veritable "rock gods" of their day. I am not taking away anything from other composers, but I think most people have heard of at least one of these composers. I doubt you will be seeing the same staying power out of 99% of the musicians today.
To me, classical music is a very personal kind of music. At it's best, this music can take hold of your heart and move it like few things can. One of my favorite pieces is Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Everyone knows the piece because of the famous "Ode to Joy" chorus, but the symphony itself is a miracle on paper. Four movements (most symphonies have three) combining and forming into a work of genius and virtuosity. Beethoven's works inspired an entire generation of German people to forge a nation that eventually rivaled that of the great superpower of the day, Great Britian. His works are a remarkable achievment right up there with any scientific breakthrough.
I think one of the reasons classical music gets the shaft in the modern era is that it is a music that requires focus and patience to truly appreciate. What's more, the music is best enjoyed live which few young people seem interested in doing. Going to the symphony, instead of an all-night rave? No. It's funny as some of the best classical works, like symphonies, can be quite a taxing experience. Some run an hour long, and once you get caught up in their power it's as addictive as any drug.
If you are fortunate enough to have a local symphony in your area you really owe yourself a favor to try it out. Some of the greatest musical experiences of my life took place watching my local symphony perform my favorite works. Last week, my wife and I had the thrill of seeing Beethoven's 5th Symphony peformed at a very high level; as good as most CD recordings. For those of you who don't know, the 5th is the symphony that begins with "Da Da Da Duh". It's so much more than that, however. The majesty of the 2nd and 3rd movements eclipse the opening movement in every way. The conductor, a young man from Canada, had the orchestra moving at a furious pace which is quite untraditional for this piece. Usually, the 5th is peformed "dignified"; which, to me, equals boring. I have only heard one other recording of the 5th that was better than this performance. It was that good.
One the best parts of classical music is it's sheer variety. Want large-scale, earth-shaking, full orchestral works? Check. Want small-scale, intimate chamber works:? Check. Want virtuoso solo peformances from piano to cello? Check. Want opera? Check. It's amazing how many choices one has when starting to explore this world, and that can be both good and bad. With so many choices one can simply become overwhelmed. Worse, the person hears one piece that they hate, and conclude they hate classical music.
In conclusion, liking or not liking classical music is just the wrong way to look at the genre. I don't like all kinds of classical music. Most small-scale works put me to sleep no matter the performer or composer. While I love solo piano I'm not a big fan of the cello. Opera? Most of it is not my thing save for Wagner and some Mozart. What classical music requires above all other kinds of music is patience and commitment. It demands participation from the listener that simply is not part of the times in this instant gratification world. And that's sad.
Here are some of my favorite recordings. All of them are available for purchase on Amazon. I am also including a couple of book and movie references to help the initiate get underway without feeling overwhelmed. Give it a chance. You might just be surprised what you might find thereby opening yourself up to a whole new world.
Beethoven-Harnoncourt: 9 Symphonies (Box Set)
http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Harnoncourt-Symphonies-Ludwig-van-Beethoven/dp/B000000SDB/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1299072784&sr=1-2
Beethoven the way it was meant to be played. A reviewer once described the conductor, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, as "scary". Pretty much says it all. If you are looking for clinical interpretation where one agonizes over getting every note perfect this is definitely not for you. But if you are looking for passion beyond measure this is where it's at. The best cycle in existence. Affordable if bought used.
Rachmaninoff: Concerto No. 3 in D minor, Op. 30 / Tchaikovsky: Piano Concerto No. 1 in B flat minor, Op. 23
http://www.amazon.com/Rachmaninoff-Concerto-minor-Tchaikovsky-Piano/dp/B0000041DF/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1299073277&sr=1-1
Martha Argerich is the best classical piano player alive, and this is her signature performance. The Rach 3 is one of the hardest, if not the hardest, concerto ever written, and Argerich is more than up to the task. Consider this is peformed and recorded live, and one simply marvels at her super-human talent. The Tchaikovsky concerto is also very impressive, and is simply icing on the cake. If you love piano it doesn't get any better than this.
Bach - The Complete Brandenburg Concertos / Pearlman, Boston Baroque [Box set]
http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Complete-Brandenburg-Concertos-Pearlman/dp/B000003D1F/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1299073778&sr=1-4
I am not a huge fan of Baroque Period music, but of all Baroque works I like Bach's Brandenburg Concertos the best. A complete recording of all of the concertos is the most desirable, and Telarc's recordings tend to sound very, very good. Well worth the investment.
Wagner - Der Ring des Nibelungen (Ring Cycle) / Sir Georg Solti [Box set]
http://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Nibelungen-Cycle-Georg-Solti/dp/B0000042H4/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1299075062&sr=1-2
With opera, for me, it's either go big, or go home. Nothing is bigger than Wagner's Ring cycle. While old, this recording is the best complete version available. Not cheap, but opera fans (or fans of musicals) should really enjoy this set for years to come.
Chopin: Favorite Piano Works
http://www.amazon.com/Chopin-Favorite-Piano-Works-Frederic/dp/B00000427J/ref=sr_1_11?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1299075602&sr=1-11
Chopin is my favorite piano composer, and Ashkenazy is my favorite Chopin pianist. Whiile hardly complete, this very affordable 2-CD set is a great introduction to some of the most passionate piano works of all time.
Mozart: Requiem in D Minor, K. 626
http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Requiem-Mozarts-Original-Manuscript/dp/B00022UO9I/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1299076189&sr=1-1
The work Mozart never completed due to his untimely death is one of his best. Harnoncourt is the perfect conductor for this massive endeavor. One the greatest masses ever written.
Orff: Carmina Burana
http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Requiem-Mozarts-Original-Manuscript/dp/B00022UO9I/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1299076189&sr=1-1
Used as a background piece in many movies involving massive amounts of testosterone this is one of those pieces you either love or hate. The best way to describe this work is "primal". Not for the faint of heart, but if you like big, bold music this is one of the best works out there.
Star Wars Trilogy [Box Set]
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=star+wars
Modern Classical Music! Yes, it exists. Movie soundtracks have taken the place of massive symphonies. Still, John Williams' music is a worthy successor to the masters of the past. I never get tired of Darth Vader's entrance theme.
Copying Beethoven (DVD movie)
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=star+wars
Ed Harris plays a very believable Beethoven in this movie centered around Beethoven's 9th Symphony and one of his most controversial works. It's a fictional story based on historical facts, but I enjoyed this movie more than it's competitor, Immortal Beloved, because of the strength of Harris' performance. Well worth a couple of hours of your time.
Amadeus (Blu-ray or DVD movie)
http://www.amazon.com/Amadeus-Blu-ray-Book-Murray-Abraham/dp/B001JNNE64/ref=sr_1_5?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1299083433&sr=1-5
The best movie about the classical music genre by a huge margin. Hulce is spectacular as the genius Mozart and Abraham is even better as his rival, the composer Salieri. This Academy Award winner has some of the best set design and costumes ever seen in a modern movie, and it perfectly captures the feel of the time and place. It's long, but never feels like it. One of my favorite films of all time.
The NPR Guide to Building a Classical CD Collection : The 350 Essential Works
http://www.amazon.com/NPR-Guide-Building-Classical-Collection/dp/0761104879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299083605&sr=1-1
This book is all you need to start really enjoying classical music. It's a great guide for the beginner, and will steer you in the right direction. Indispensable.
I love classical music. I know, I know, that's "elevator" music to most people, or if you're feeling really cruel, "old fart" music. While I do agree that some classical pieces are downright horrible, I could say the same for any kind of music. What most people fail to grasp is that most of what we hear today was inspired, in no small measure, by the masters of what is known as classical music.
Like any genre, classical music is just a broad description. Classical music consists of genres within genres, and is not something that is very easy to define by a few simple words. For example, the genre is defined by three "Periods" set by a period of years: Baroque (1600-1750)), Classical (1750-1830), and Romantic (1830-1910 and my favorite) are the three accepted ages of classical music. These periods are broad; they are not meant to be hard and fast rules. You have various overlap, and some composers defy classification. For example, based on the time he lived Mozart was so varied in his musical composition you could put him in either Classical or Romantic; some lovers would put him in his own Period.
Each Period was defined by notable composers who stood head and shoulders above most of their contemporaries; Baroque with J.S. Bach, Classical with Beethoven and Romantic with Tchiakovsky. Each of these composers were the veritable "rock gods" of their day. I am not taking away anything from other composers, but I think most people have heard of at least one of these composers. I doubt you will be seeing the same staying power out of 99% of the musicians today.
To me, classical music is a very personal kind of music. At it's best, this music can take hold of your heart and move it like few things can. One of my favorite pieces is Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Everyone knows the piece because of the famous "Ode to Joy" chorus, but the symphony itself is a miracle on paper. Four movements (most symphonies have three) combining and forming into a work of genius and virtuosity. Beethoven's works inspired an entire generation of German people to forge a nation that eventually rivaled that of the great superpower of the day, Great Britian. His works are a remarkable achievment right up there with any scientific breakthrough.
I think one of the reasons classical music gets the shaft in the modern era is that it is a music that requires focus and patience to truly appreciate. What's more, the music is best enjoyed live which few young people seem interested in doing. Going to the symphony, instead of an all-night rave? No. It's funny as some of the best classical works, like symphonies, can be quite a taxing experience. Some run an hour long, and once you get caught up in their power it's as addictive as any drug.
If you are fortunate enough to have a local symphony in your area you really owe yourself a favor to try it out. Some of the greatest musical experiences of my life took place watching my local symphony perform my favorite works. Last week, my wife and I had the thrill of seeing Beethoven's 5th Symphony peformed at a very high level; as good as most CD recordings. For those of you who don't know, the 5th is the symphony that begins with "Da Da Da Duh". It's so much more than that, however. The majesty of the 2nd and 3rd movements eclipse the opening movement in every way. The conductor, a young man from Canada, had the orchestra moving at a furious pace which is quite untraditional for this piece. Usually, the 5th is peformed "dignified"; which, to me, equals boring. I have only heard one other recording of the 5th that was better than this performance. It was that good.
One the best parts of classical music is it's sheer variety. Want large-scale, earth-shaking, full orchestral works? Check. Want small-scale, intimate chamber works:? Check. Want virtuoso solo peformances from piano to cello? Check. Want opera? Check. It's amazing how many choices one has when starting to explore this world, and that can be both good and bad. With so many choices one can simply become overwhelmed. Worse, the person hears one piece that they hate, and conclude they hate classical music.
In conclusion, liking or not liking classical music is just the wrong way to look at the genre. I don't like all kinds of classical music. Most small-scale works put me to sleep no matter the performer or composer. While I love solo piano I'm not a big fan of the cello. Opera? Most of it is not my thing save for Wagner and some Mozart. What classical music requires above all other kinds of music is patience and commitment. It demands participation from the listener that simply is not part of the times in this instant gratification world. And that's sad.
Here are some of my favorite recordings. All of them are available for purchase on Amazon. I am also including a couple of book and movie references to help the initiate get underway without feeling overwhelmed. Give it a chance. You might just be surprised what you might find thereby opening yourself up to a whole new world.
Beethoven-Harnoncourt: 9 Symphonies (Box Set)
http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Harnoncourt-Symphonies-Ludwig-van-Beethoven/dp/B000000SDB/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1299072784&sr=1-2
Beethoven the way it was meant to be played. A reviewer once described the conductor, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, as "scary". Pretty much says it all. If you are looking for clinical interpretation where one agonizes over getting every note perfect this is definitely not for you. But if you are looking for passion beyond measure this is where it's at. The best cycle in existence. Affordable if bought used.
Rachmaninoff: Concerto No. 3 in D minor, Op. 30 / Tchaikovsky: Piano Concerto No. 1 in B flat minor, Op. 23
http://www.amazon.com/Rachmaninoff-Concerto-minor-Tchaikovsky-Piano/dp/B0000041DF/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1299073277&sr=1-1
Martha Argerich is the best classical piano player alive, and this is her signature performance. The Rach 3 is one of the hardest, if not the hardest, concerto ever written, and Argerich is more than up to the task. Consider this is peformed and recorded live, and one simply marvels at her super-human talent. The Tchaikovsky concerto is also very impressive, and is simply icing on the cake. If you love piano it doesn't get any better than this.
Bach - The Complete Brandenburg Concertos / Pearlman, Boston Baroque [Box set]
http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Complete-Brandenburg-Concertos-Pearlman/dp/B000003D1F/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1299073778&sr=1-4
I am not a huge fan of Baroque Period music, but of all Baroque works I like Bach's Brandenburg Concertos the best. A complete recording of all of the concertos is the most desirable, and Telarc's recordings tend to sound very, very good. Well worth the investment.
Wagner - Der Ring des Nibelungen (Ring Cycle) / Sir Georg Solti [Box set]
http://www.amazon.com/Wagner-Nibelungen-Cycle-Georg-Solti/dp/B0000042H4/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1299075062&sr=1-2
With opera, for me, it's either go big, or go home. Nothing is bigger than Wagner's Ring cycle. While old, this recording is the best complete version available. Not cheap, but opera fans (or fans of musicals) should really enjoy this set for years to come.
Chopin: Favorite Piano Works
http://www.amazon.com/Chopin-Favorite-Piano-Works-Frederic/dp/B00000427J/ref=sr_1_11?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1299075602&sr=1-11
Chopin is my favorite piano composer, and Ashkenazy is my favorite Chopin pianist. Whiile hardly complete, this very affordable 2-CD set is a great introduction to some of the most passionate piano works of all time.
Mozart: Requiem in D Minor, K. 626
http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Requiem-Mozarts-Original-Manuscript/dp/B00022UO9I/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1299076189&sr=1-1
The work Mozart never completed due to his untimely death is one of his best. Harnoncourt is the perfect conductor for this massive endeavor. One the greatest masses ever written.
Orff: Carmina Burana
http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Requiem-Mozarts-Original-Manuscript/dp/B00022UO9I/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1299076189&sr=1-1
Used as a background piece in many movies involving massive amounts of testosterone this is one of those pieces you either love or hate. The best way to describe this work is "primal". Not for the faint of heart, but if you like big, bold music this is one of the best works out there.
Star Wars Trilogy [Box Set]
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=star+wars
Modern Classical Music! Yes, it exists. Movie soundtracks have taken the place of massive symphonies. Still, John Williams' music is a worthy successor to the masters of the past. I never get tired of Darth Vader's entrance theme.
Copying Beethoven (DVD movie)
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=star+wars
Ed Harris plays a very believable Beethoven in this movie centered around Beethoven's 9th Symphony and one of his most controversial works. It's a fictional story based on historical facts, but I enjoyed this movie more than it's competitor, Immortal Beloved, because of the strength of Harris' performance. Well worth a couple of hours of your time.
Amadeus (Blu-ray or DVD movie)
http://www.amazon.com/Amadeus-Blu-ray-Book-Murray-Abraham/dp/B001JNNE64/ref=sr_1_5?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1299083433&sr=1-5
The best movie about the classical music genre by a huge margin. Hulce is spectacular as the genius Mozart and Abraham is even better as his rival, the composer Salieri. This Academy Award winner has some of the best set design and costumes ever seen in a modern movie, and it perfectly captures the feel of the time and place. It's long, but never feels like it. One of my favorite films of all time.
The NPR Guide to Building a Classical CD Collection : The 350 Essential Works
http://www.amazon.com/NPR-Guide-Building-Classical-Collection/dp/0761104879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299083605&sr=1-1
This book is all you need to start really enjoying classical music. It's a great guide for the beginner, and will steer you in the right direction. Indispensable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)