Eccentric Flower:201011/Budget Wagner Cartoons
From Eccentric Flower
«November 2010 «Eccentric Flower
Budget Wagner Cartoons
Sorry to disappoint you, but that title refers to three separate topics.
1. The Economist this week devotes a fair bit of space to the task of reducing the American federal budget deficit. As it turns out, they conclude what some of us already knew, which is that balancing the budget in the medium-term future is surprisingly simple, but that it is likely most of our American politicians are too partisan and too chickenshit to do it.
(They did not use the word "chickenshit." However, they did say in their leader, "If Mr Obama lacks the guts even to start tackling the problem, then ever more Americans, this paper, and even those foreign summiteers will get ever more frustrated with him," which is as close as The Economist ever comes to saying, "Man up, fool.")
There are many good and important sentences in their briefing on the American deficit, but there is only one Most Quotable quote that you absolutely must have, in my opinion - one block that everyone really needs to read and absorb because until we all absorb it, no progress on this matter is possible.
Read that again and again and again until it sinks in. We are too heavily taxed on income; we are not heavily enough taxed based on what we actually consume. Why is this? Because to most Americans, income tax is invisible or nearly so; the politicians have been able to get away with increases there because the system is designed so that most of us don't notice what we're missing. Consumption taxes get noticed immediately, because Americans immediately have to pay more for the goods and services they use, which (spoiled brats they are) they feel they should not have to do, because they are accustomed to artificially undervalued commodities. The correct answer would be to tax income much less and consumption much more, but since Americans seem to feel they should have everything but not have to pay for any of it, this approach is (perhaps correctly) felt by politicians to be Instant Death.
There. Now you know everything you need to know about the American financial situation. If you are cynical, like me, you also now know why we will not solve the problem until it is already too late.
2. I am no fan of Wagner. I posted some items on Twitter earlier today endorsing the QI Elves' reposting of negative quotes about Wagner. (Samples: "I have been told that Wagner's music is better than it sounds." - Mark Twain; "Wagner has lovely moments but awful quarters of an hour." - Gioacchino Rossini)
I proposed, overhastily, that no German classical music composed after 1800 was good, and our local classical/symphonic geek (he is also our local chemistry geek), replied
"You're mad. Early 19th century Germany was responsible for Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann, and the rise of Romanticism."
And he has a point. Furthermore I am rather fond of Brahms, Schumann, Schubert, and Mendelssohn, not to mention some non-German Romantics such as Lizst and Chopin. What I was really trying to do with the "1800" statement was clarify a division between the end of the time when religion was the prime driver of "classical" musical composition - e.g. a time pretty much ending after the Bach dynasty - with the rise of people composing on a secular and far more idiosyncratic basis. But, understand, I am not very good at historical trends in musical composition; I am the canonical example of someone whose standards are "I know what I like." And what I don't like is Wagner, or much Beethoven.
Still, it strikes me there has to be some thematic connection. I mean, I can easily identify the kind of classical composition I don't like - bombastic, unsubtle, overblown, militaristic, slow, pompous, and possibly jingoistic. Triumph of the Will style music. So is it enough to say "I don't like musical nationalism?"
No, apparently it is not. My favorite Lizst composition - in fact it may very well be my favorite solo piano composition of all time - is the fiendish Hungarian Rhapsody #2, and if that ain't a nationalist composition (based as it is on Hungarian and "gypsy" folk music), I don't know what is. I see Smetana, Grieg, Vaughn Williams, and Copland on that musical nationalism page, and I like all of them - or at least what I have heard of them.
But I don't like everyone on the list, for what it's worth. What I have heard of Elgar bores me, for example, and I could live happily without being exposed to another shred of Dvorak for the rest of my life. In fact, it strikes me that that page breaks down to four broad categories:
- Clever, quick musical compositions I do like
- Plodding, bombastic compositions I don't like
- People I haven't heard enough of to form an opinion (I'm sorry to say this is the majority category)
- Charles Ives (who is so abstract that he fits no other categories)
It seems clear, however shallow this makes me, that I like fast, tricksy, clever pieces of music. This is not to say I don't appreciate slow music, because I would hate to rule out contemplative pieces like "Claire de Lune" or the "Moonlight Sonata." But in general my sentiments are always going to be with the drawing-room and the minuet, the age where music was written and performed to impress Society with its precociousness. Others, I'm sure, find this twee, and would be happy if they never heard the Minute Waltz (which Chopin called the "Little Dog Waltz," by the way - he thought it sounded like a dog chasing its tail) again.
In terms of nationalism, I think this means that what I don't care for is specifically German nationalism - the Triumph of the Will stuff again. I'm sure this is partially Hitler's fault, but when I hear Wagner, I find it hard to envision anything other than an ideal that blonde, fair übermenschen will inevitably conquer the world. And it is not done in a particularly interesting way. The best thing that ever became of Wagner was "What's Opera, Doc?" precisely because it punctures those images - because the tall blonde hero is revealed to be ridiculous little Elmer Fudd; and Brynnhild is revealed to be Bugs Bunny in drag. That is about what Wagner deserves, to my mind.
3. This whole musical topic has been much on my mind lately because the project I have been working on when the sets "Has Energy" and "Has Free Time" have a non-null intersection (which ain't often enough) involves cartoons. Specifically, Warner cartoons, and more specifically, Alfred musical cues in Warner cartoons.
Yes, folks, among other things I am going through cartoons and trying to identify all the pieces of music quoted therein, and it's been quite an interesting ride so far. I have learned many things, and picked up a number of good pieces of trivia, and some day when I Have Energy I will share some of the more interesting ones with you, like how Chuck Jones did his best to destroy the reputation of Bob Clampett, and why a particular excellent cartoon can now only be seen via the parts of it which were recycled to be used in another cartoon, and so forth.
In the interim - and it may be a long interim, I only do two or three cartoons a week, and at four-and-a-half discs of the Golden Collection sets done, I have a lot more to go - you can find the project here. I think you'd have to be pretty bored, or a True Zealot, to find it interesting, but perhaps I am underrating its interest value. I'm only linking it because that way when I allude to it from time to time, you'll have a context.
Well, I figure it's for the True Zealot because I don't actually provide the cartoons, so it means that to appreciate the site you must either 1) have the cartoons handy or 2) know them well enough to at least have some context for what my notes refer to. But I'm glad you enjoyed what's there so far! I eventually do intend to do all 24 discs of the Golden Collection - and who knows, by the time that's done maybe Warner will have decided to release a proper Golden Collection 7 to pick up some of the strays (but don't hold your breath).
-- 20:33, 22 November 2010 (GMT)
After you finish that project, maybe you can do a guide to the origins of all of the old-timey catchphrases that turn up in Warner cartoons. "Welllll now, I wouldn't say that," "Monkeys is der craziest peoples" and all of that. A lot of them come from old radio shows that have been pretty obscure for 50 years or so.
-- 21:22, 22 November 2010 (GMT)
What do you think of Sibelius? He's kind of late nationalism, and yet.
-- 21:23, 22 November 2010 (GMT)
I'm truly surprised you have been suckered in by the VAT crowd. You're usually really good at seeing through Rich Bastards' BS. The multimillionaires like the people to whom The Economist panders lurrrrve the VAT because it is a highly regressive tax. Poor people spend a much higher percentage of their incomes because of necessity they must buy food, clothing and in many areas, automobiles. Even if I'm Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, and I buy a mansion and a yatch, I'm still paying less percentagewise than someone who lives in a hole and only buys carrots and drag costumes.
What this country really needs is, if not to go back to the confiscatory rates of the '50s-70s, then at least to a much more steeply graduated income tax. If you're earing $10 million a year, how is a 50% marginal rate unreasonable?
-- 21:51, 22 November 2010 (GMT)
Ursula: Since the purpose of the project is to demystify any references in Warner cartoons that are slightly incomprehensible lo these seventy-some years later, I have tried to also include those when/where I find them. I didn't start out with the musical cues becoming the biggest part of the project - but they became the biggest part because that's where most of the in-jokes are. A contemporary audience got the point instantly when "Oh! You Beautiful Doll" was played when an attractive female came onscreen. A modern audience has no idea that's what that piece of music is.
Mrissa: Peter asked me the very same question. I haven't heard enough Sibelius to form an opinion. In fact, I don't know that I've heard any piece I could definitely tag in my mind as his. I clearly need to find some and deliver a verdict!
-- 21:53, 22 November 2010 (GMT)
I knew "Oh! You Beautiful Doll" when I was a kid and could still sing some of it now, but I'm not sure where I picked it up. Actually I can recognize a lot of the old songs in those cartoons - "Beautiful Dreamer," "A Pretty Girl is Like a Melody," etc., but I have no idea where I learned them! That's a weird realization.
When I was a kid, we were regularly exposed to a lot of old pop culture stuff - the Little Rascals, WB cartoons from the 1930s, I Love Lucy, etc. That stuff was just around, I didn't have to seek it out. I get the feeling that kids today don't get exposed to much from before 2005 or so, and that's kind of frightening.
-- 22:02, 22 November 2010 (GMT)
Robert: I support a steeply graduated income tax AND use taxes of various kinds. (Not so much a VAT though; it's too across-the-board for my tastes.) I don't see a problem with taxing commodities based on use, especially scarce ones like gasoline.
[And yes, I realize that this would be a burden on the poor, since they don't get a choice but to pay the gasoline tax or not be able to get to their jobs (if they have jobs), but are less able to pay that tax than the rich. My response to that is that perhaps once the rich realize their workforce can't afford to get to the job to be exploited, someone will start actually throwing some cash at alternate-fuels research or sane public transit in some meaningful way at last in this country.]
Do you have a problem with punitive taxes on cigarettes and other 'sin taxes' even though the poor tend to smoke and drink more than the rich? I don't. I believe you should pay for your sins. I believe if you eat more food than your neighbor you should pay more for it than your neighbor. And so forth.
Bottom line is, while my basic motivation is "tax the rich until they bleed," this is unlikely to ever happen until we manage to wrest control of our government from the people with the deepest pockets. Use taxes are slightly more likely to actually happen, and strike me as considerably fairer than just taking a whack off the top of everybody's income in a not-especially-equitable manner. If you manage to get an income tax that is almost nothing for the poor and soaks the rich for all they can bear, then I'm willing to back down on use taxes. Until you win twenty in the bigs, though, keep the mold off your shower shoes.
-- 22:03, 22 November 2010 (GMT)
The most recognizable Sibelius is probably Symphony #2. I don't know your musical tastes well enough to guess if you'd like it, but it takes a few movements for it to get to the bombastic part.
I'm not the best person to try to talk to you about Wagner. I'm not the biggest opera buff, and I think Wagner is one of those composers whose work really only makes sense in context. His philosophy of opera composition was to reflect the themes of the action on stage into the music. So compared to, let's say, Puccini or Mozart, it's hard to pull an aria out of context and appreciate it on its own without knowing where in the story you are and who the characters are.
I tend to like Wagner that comes from the orchestral interludes. You might appreciate the Prelude in the second act of Lohengrin. If you recognize the music, it's what Charlie Chaplin semi-ironically used under his monologue at the end of The Great Dictator.
Let's see if I can figure out how to embed a link. [1] The music starts around 6:45.
ETA: Bleh, that performance sucks. Here's Klemperer's take: [2]
-- 23:10, 22 November 2010 (GMT)
When I was working for the gummint, I thought user fees were a fine idea, to pay for marinas and waterway dredging and other needs of the pleasure boating community. Why should Joe Couch Potato have to pay so some guy can run his yacht up and down the CT River? Sounds fair to me. The fees would need to be selective, kinda like luxury taxes, but I think they make sense.
As for cigarettes and other "sin" taxes, I don't think poor people should be spending their money on those items to begin with. So I'd have no problem taxing them, and heavily. HOWEVER. Who decides what constitutes a sin? Can I still go to KFC and get fried chicken for dinner, without paying huge taxes on it for its fat content? One man's sin could be another man's dinner. Not true of cigarettes. It all gets subjective, here, and nothing's going to please everyone.
I can't and won't sit through much of the Ring, but there are portions of it that I find spectacular. I'm perfectly happy with a "greatest hits" dosage of Wagner. I find the buildup of passion in Tristan & Isolde to be some of the more moving music I've ever heard. I used to be fascinated, watching the orchestra play Bach, for instance, and then set up to play some Wagner piece. Four more double basses, infinitely more strings, just more and more of everything. You call it bombastic, I call it rich and lush and encompassing. Tomatoes, tomahtoes.
My favorite of all the Romantic composers is Brahms, hands down. But there are many others, and I make no apologies for it. Understand, I'm of a slightly older generation than you. I grew up with all of this romantic stuff. Maybe that explains it.
-- 23:24, 22 November 2010 (GMT)
Well, I listened to the "Lohengrin" prelude, and I will say in its defense that it does not have as much of the stuff I dislike about Wagner (although I feel that about 6:30 it gets a little overdramatic). But it also sounds to me like the kind of music they play when lovers are running toward each other in slow motion over a background shot of sunsets and wheat fields. (I know, I'm a Philistine.)
Gonna go try to dig out some Sibelius now.
-- 01:21, 23 November 2010 (GMT)
"Until you win twenty in the bigs, though, keep the mold off your shower shoes."
Thank you. Mood has just lifted significantly.
I do wonder if we understand some of these music cues without knowing the specific song. If you watch enough cartoons and old movies where "Oh, You Beautiful Doll" turns up as a cue, you're going to figure it out even if you don't know the song title or words.
-- 02:00, 23 November 2010 (GMT)
OK so Sibelius. I had heard three things before: "Valse Triste," which among other things is used for the incredibly maudlin sequence with the cat in Allegro non Troppo; "Finlandia"; and bits of the "Karelia" suite.
If all of Sibelius sounded like "Finlandia" I wouldn't bother listening to any more. This is pretty much the canonical example of what I don't want - like Wagner except more depressed, except for a break near the end where the hymn portion comes in, which sounds like a national anthem (that is not a positive statement - I've never understood why national anthems are so uniformly uninteresting).
I like "Valse Triste," as long as one is willing to accept that it is what it says on the label - a sad waltz. It's worth quoting a YouTube comment, though (amazingly):
His music does definitely seem to reflect what I have seen of the Finnish character - very direct, rather depressed (yes), but also subject to wild fits of occasional joy, fatalistic yet robust. The robustness and the flashes of joy may be what saves him from the Wagner bin. I'd like his music to have more humor, but he doesn't give me the impression that I'd have to shoot him if I lived with him.
I rather like the Karelia intermezzo, even if it does make me think it should be behind a medieval film where horsemen with lances are lining up in ranks preparing to ride into battle. The ballade, which was the part of the three I hadn't heard before, does very little for me, which is a shame because I like the sound of the cor anglais and think it should be used more. The march is okay. Actually, it's a very weird march, and if Sibelius hadn't labelled it a march I would not have guessed so from its skipping-through-the-daisies rhythm.
Symphony #2 I will have to get back to you on. It is ... tricky.
I listened to one movement (allegretto) and every time I thought it was going to get repetitive, he upended the orchestra and said, in effect, "OK, now we're going to do something totally Stravinsky for four bars, or change themes completely without warning, just to make sure the audience is awake." I admire that. So then I listened to the vivacissimo (promising word that), and it was certainly vivacissimo, and also nicely random, but somehow less interesting. I give this a suspended sentence until I can listen to the whole symphony a couple of times through - which in itself is praise, because let me tell you, every time I've heard a Wagner symphony in full, I have never had the slightest desire to hear it again.
-- 02:00, 23 November 2010 (GMT)
Jette: I agree, and I comment on a similar phenomenon on the Cue Sheet page. The cue comes to have contextual meaning even if you have no idea what the actual cue is. On the other hand, it's pleasant to know that a frantic highwayman chase in "The Scarlet Pumpernickel" is a theme from Franz von Suppe's overture to "Jolly Robbers" (performed here on a genuine theatre organ - the part used in the cartoon begins at about 3:15), a piece obscure even by von Suppe standards (and that's pretty obscure).
OK, well, maybe I find it pleasant to know and I'm just a weirdo.
ETA: "The Scarlet Pimpernel" is also the cartoon for which I needed help identifying the Boccherini piece. I know I thanked everyone who helped me identify it on Twitter; I am thanking you all again.
-- 02:13, 23 November 2010 (GMT)
Speaking of Wagner, if you pretty much have "What's Opera, Doc?" memorized, you might find this link a real shocker. I did. (You won't need more than about the first minute of it.)
-- 02:31, 23 November 2010 (GMT)
I'm feeling the need to try to rescue Beethoven for you, since he's my favorite composer.
First of all, given what you've said about your tastes in music, I think the symphonies may be leading you astray. Beethoven was responsible for expanding the size and range of the modern symphony orchestra. He was trying to play with notions of acoustical size. Not all of his work is as much of a deliberate spectacle.
You might like better the chamber music, which has a lot more subtlety and playfulness. I'm going to recommend the "Harp" quartet (which doesn't actually involve a harp): [3]. I have always loved the funny little lick at 2:50.
I bet you'd also like the last movement of Op 59 no 3: [4] Brilliantly fast and devilishly difficult.
But even within the symphonies, Beethoven has a wicked sense of humor. I'm choosing this clip of the 7th symphony, movement 3, only because you can see by the look on Kleiber's face how much fun he's having with it: [5]
And then there's the huge grandiose stuff, sure, which I adore. But if your tastes differ, Beethoven was a remarkably versatile composer. It's not all Alles Menchen Werden Bruder all the time.
-- 04:52, 23 November 2010 (GMT)
Past experience has already shown me that I am much fonder of Beethoven's small works than his symphonies, so you may not need to do much convincing here!
-- 14:18, 23 November 2010 (GMT)
De gustibus non disputandum est, so I can't tell you you should like Beethoven if you don't, but to me, the second movement of the ninth symphony is the single, greatest piece of music I've ever heard, even better than "My Sharona."
Plus, I think I deserve applause for tying tax policy to WB cartoons in my previous comment. Come on, give it up.
-- 19:21, 23 November 2010 (GMT)
Jette:
I had to make myself stop looking at Termite Terrace because I *do* have work in the office to do this afternoon. Very enjoyable, and I would in no way consider myself a True Zealot.
-- 20:30, 22 November 2010 (GMT)