Zweden and Trifonov at Severance

This weekend’s Cleveland Orchestra concerts featured guest conductor Jaap van Zweden and pianist Daniil Trifonov.  Given how the hall was nearly sold out and the parking garage was filled an hour before the concert began, it's no exaggeration to state that this was the hottest ticket in town.

The concert began with Benjamin Britten’s Sinfonia de Requiem.  The work was commissioned by the Japanese Government in 1940, in celebration of the 2600^th anniversary of the founding of their empire.  Ultimately, the Japanese rejected the work (although Britten was still paid) on the grounds that the titles of the movements – Lacrymosa, Dies Irae, Requiem aeternam – were too Christian in character for Japan.    Given that the Japanese Empire was already engaging in atrocities against Manchuria, including cannibalism, the use of chemical weapons, and the wholesale slaughter of civilians, it’s probably for the best that Britten’s work was premiered in Carnegie Hall.

Last weekend was only the second time the Cleveland Orchestra had programmed the piece – the first was in 1976.  The movements are bound together, although it’s easy enough to determine where one ends and the other begins as there are no cross movement thematic references.  Despite many interesting passages – particularly in the Dies Irae – the piece lacks the dramatic line that carries the listener from beginning to end.

Mozart’s A Major Piano Concerto, K. 488 followed, with pianist Daniil Trifonov.  The work is one of Mozart’s most popular in that form.  Trifonov has a Cleveland connection, having lived here while studying at the Cleveland Institute of Music with Sergei Babayan.  On that basis alone, I’d love to be able to give the performance a rave review.  But I can’t honestly do that.   The opening movement, a lyrically cheerful Allegro, was devoid of inflection, rubato, and color.  It was as drab and as plain as could be.  Further, there were several right-hand passages that were blurred and tentative sounding – this was also an issue in the Finale.  The slow movement, an Adagio in F-sharp Minor (the only time Mozart used that as a home key) was taken at a tempo that could almost have been a Larghetto or even a Lento – so that the movement took the character of a funeral dirge in 6/8 time.  As with most slow movements of his piano concertos, Mozart did not fully write out the piano part, expecting pianists to improvise their own filler passages.  Trifonov played only the inscribed notes, except for a brief flourish nine bars before the end – which I realized was copied from Horowitz’s version.  The Finale, an Allegro assai, was reasonably brisk but – as with the rest of the concerto – played at a disappointingly small scale.  This was Rococo, porcelain doll Mozart - a cautious conservatory rendition, designed to offend as few as possible – but fated to fade in memory after a brief time.  The audience, however, leapt to its feet as of Trifonov had just slaughtered the piano in the Rachmaninoff Third – including a woman two seats away from me who talked with her husband through much of the Britten.  I can only surmise that the audience was packed with Trifonov’s fans who were apt to suspend judgement for “their boy” – certainly there were many unfamiliar faces that night.  Zweden kept the orchestra in time with the pianist. 

The second half of the concert was devoted to Beethoven’s ubiquitous Fifth Symphony.  Probably the most well-known orchestral work in the repertoire, Beethoven’s Fifth has one characteristic in common with Britten’s Sinfonia de Requiem: the joining of movements – although in Beethoven’s case only the Third and Fourth Movements are joined – to the best of my knowledge the first time that had ever been done in a Symphony by a major composer.  Zweden, whose tempos were well judged (although the Finale was a bit overly fast), paid careful attention to balances, observed all the repeats, made striking use of dynamics, and brought the work to a thrilling conclusion.

The concert was nearly sold out.  Perhaps that was a factor in the constant coughing we heard – particularly throughout the Mozart – the worst such cacophony of audience eruptions I’ve heard at Severance.  

An Open Letter to Donald Trump

Re: Hamilton

Reflections on Election 2016

It’s part of human nature.  You lose, or your team loses, or your candidate loses, or your party loses – followed by a period of (self) recrimination.

No doubt, the pending Electoral confirmation of Donald Trump is a harbinger of Presidential stupidity not seen since the days of George W. Bush, and malfeasance in office that could exceed that of Richard Nixon.  But the country survived eight years of Bush, five and a half years of Nixon, and it will survive four years (possibly less) of Trump. 

It is not the end of the world as we know it, but it’s going to be a rough ride.

However this is painted by the blogosphere and the media, 2016 was not a rout of the Democratic Party.  Democrats gained at least six seats (four remain undecided) in the House of Representatives, and two in the Senate.  And Hillary Clinton, as you may have heard, earned the highest number of votes, despite narrowly losing the Electoral College.

But there are anomalies in the Presidential race which demand further scrutiny.   In 2009, Barack Obama rammed an auto-industry bailout package through Congress which saved Michigan’s economy – not just for the Big Three automakers but for the vendors who serve them, everything from auto parts to food for their cafeterias to toilet paper.  If blue collar Michiganders indeed voted for Trump it would be the most striking example of political ingratitude since voters sat home and allowed Republicans to take over Congress in 1946.  But given the Putin government’s repeated attempts to hack into our nation’s computers – both public and private – and the obvious collusion between the Russians and Wikileaks, a sudden spasm of ingratitude from Michiganders seems less likely.  Will our government investigate this, and if merited call the Russians out on their behavior? Unlikely.  That would jeopardize world stability – which Putin knows we are loathe to do.    

The 1946 reference above is hardly random.  Americans, after enduring the Great Depression and World War II, were enjoying a strong economy, plentiful jobs, the reuniting of loved ones, and the beginning of families – a normalcy not seen since the 1920s.  The demand for new housing was such that there was a shortage as suburban development proceeded at a breakneck pace.  But the American people have a short memory – relatively minor issues like inflation were irritants and a series of strikes caused a backlash among conservative voters who began to fear a middle-class that had it “too easy” and was becoming too “uppity”.    As for the middle class, many were too busy enjoying the “easy life” which, for them, meant a regular job, food on the table, a decent home, a car – along with saving a little for the future.  President Truman’s program, called the Fair Deal, was intended to build on the gains made under the New Deal.  But Truman’s actions on their behalf were not enough to drive middle class voters to defend their gains, leading to the low turnout elections of 1946. 

Does any of the above sound familiar?  In 2008, the economy was in tailspin.  Only quick action by Presidents Bush (in a rare moment of poise and competence) and Obama prevented a second Great Depression.  In 2008 the United States was mired in two wars: Afghanistan and the misbegotten war in Iraq.  Obama began to immediately move upon taking office on getting the economy moving again, reducing unemployment, pulling our troops out of harm’s way, and locating and killing Osama Bin Laden.  He also began work on reforming Health Care, a task which has confronted Presidents since Theodore Roosevelt was in the White House.  The Affordable Care Act, while far from perfect, has resulted in 20 million Americans obtaining Health Insurance.  But the lobbyists for Health Care Insurers, along with the NRA, are two formidable forces in American politics, and they – along with Dick Armey’s AstroTurf Tea Party – were able to collectively throw the House and Senate to the Republicans – along with enough Governorships to Gerrymander House districts. 

After the 1946 elections, Harry Truman was worse than a lame duck – politically he was considered a dead duck and was widely expected not to seek reelection.  But persevered through 1946’s election losses and gained reelection in 1948 by focusing on issues that mattered to ordinary Americans and by ceaselessly pointing out how the “good for nothing” 80^th Congress was working against their interests.  In the process, he also helped return the Democrats to majorities in the House and Senate.

Today’s Democrats, too, will recover from the 2016 election and regain the White House - if they learn Truman’s lesson.  The Democrats must return to their roots as a people’s party, which means, at a minimum, that there must be a house cleaning in which corporate types like Debbie Wasserman Schultz no longer have influence beyond her own Congressional District.  Further, the party should pursue Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy which was the blueprint for President Obama’s victory in 2008.  Big money donations, as this year has shown, are not enough to win election.  Neither are strategic firewalls.  In every district of every state, Democrats should declare rhetorical war on the 115^th Congress, which stands poised to become the most anti-people Congress since the 80^th.   Democracy is like a rubber band: whenever a politician or party pulls too far to one side – as the Republicans are now likely to do – the people snap it back.  Finally, Democrats must seek and nominate someone who will motivate supporters – no matter that person’s gender, ethnicity, or religion.  As much as I like Hillary Clinton, she was not someone who inspired the deepest level of motivation or loyalty among ordinary Americans – particularly independents.  She has served her country well since the 1970s, but it’s now time for her to retire.   The same is true for Ohio Democrats.  The Governor's race is in 2018.  It's time to move past relics like Ted Strickland and find a younger candidate with solid credentials who will appeal to voters.  

We have work to do.   

2016 Election Fallout

Those who voted for Trump, those who voted for useless 3rd party candidates, and those who sat home will deserve exactly what they get. The rest of us will be victims of their folly.

Americans are going to be in for a painful awakening. Just as with Brexit in the UK, when the American people grasp the implications of what they have wrought there are going to be clamors for a do-over. But there are no do-overs in the US. We're going to be stuck with The Donald, and his equally odious running mate, for the next four years.

My father was born and raised in Michigan. And though he was a lifelong Republican, two weeks before he died he told me he would never vote for Donald Trump if he was the GOP nominee.

It was President Obama's auto-bailout package, passed by a Democratic Congress, that saved America's Big Three auto manufacturers and not just their jobs, but those of their vendors as well.

As the son of a Michigander, I say that there is a special place in Hell for Michigan auto industry workers who voted for Donald Trump.

I would end this by saying "Go Buckeyes", but Ohio sucks pretty badly too.

I haven't felt so ashamed to be an Ohioan since 2004, when the anti-marriage equality amendment was passed.

Ohio was once known as an abolitionist state that sent a huge portion of its men into battle to preserve the Union, which was the stomping ground for two young brothers who dared to fly, which proudly elected John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum to the Senate.

But that Ohio is dead. Cleveland and Columbus are the last holdouts.

Wang and Hrůša at Severance

The Cleveland Orchestra performed a varied program with guest conductor Jakub Hrůša and pianist Yuja Wang this weekend. 

The concert began with Bohuslav Martinů’s Parables, a triptych with which I was unfamiliar. The programmatic work was presented with a mix of orchestral color and a picturesque quality that befitted the 1958 piece. One would never guess the Orchestra was presenting the work for the first time given the technical finish and ease with this they performed the piece.  

After a brief break during which the stage extension with the Hamburg Steinway piano and supplementary percussion was raised, Yuja Wang strode on stage to begin the Bartók Piano Concerto No. 1. I am only passingly familiar with this, the least popular of Bartók’s three piano concertos. While I cannot provide a detailed analysis, I can relate that Wang’s interpretation and delivery were more convincing than Vladimir Ashkenazy’s recording. For one thing, Wang was able to play with an appropriately percussive sound without lapsing into an unpleasant and unmusical sonority. It’s rare when a work such as this brings the audience to its feet, but Wang and the orchestra pulled it off. The audience, from which nary a cough was heard, was rewarded with two encores: Arrangements of Mozart’s Turkish March and Gluck’s Melodie from Orfeo ed Euridice.

Wang has come under criticism in some circles both for her musicianship and the haute couture she wears during her performances. I can report that last night she wore a dazzling yet tasteful black sequined dress. As for the other criticism, I have heard nothing from Wang – either last night or in her recordings – to support the snide remarks made by some critics and on some Internet chat boards. After decades observing and participating in the Classical scene, I can dismiss them as the typical mix of jealousy and pedantry that are part of the cause of the decline in Classical audiences.  (The criticism of Lang Lang, however, is justified owing the musical hash he makes of nearly everything he plays.) 

Wang has appeared in Zsolt Bognár’s interview series, Living the Classical Life, and I am delighted to present the interview below: 

The Brahms Fourth is one of my five “desert island” Symphonies. (The other four, in no particular order, are Mozart’s “Jupiter”, Beethoven’s Seventh, Schubert’s “Great” C major, and Rachmaninoff’s Second.) In terms of musical architecture, Brahms’ E minor Symphony is probably the most perfect work in that genre of the post-Beethoven era. The opening movement’s themes and motifs are developed in a totally organic manner; it is one of the rare symphonic opening movements without an introduction (Brahms composed and discarded one early on). Leonard Bernstein analyzed the many wonders of this movement far better than I could. The finale’s passacaglia is an homage to Bach but delivered in a Brahmsian manner. 

Sadly, Hrůša chose a rather lethargic tempo for the opening Allegro non troppo, and from there gave in to the urge to slow down and brood over individual passages. The second movement, a moderate Andante, was paced appropriately but suffered from limp phrasing and a lack of dynamic contrast. The Scherzo came off best, with the triangle passages a bit more prominently heard than usual – or perhaps it was the acoustics of Severance Hall’s row W, where we sat. The finale, like the opening movement, is best heard in a fairly straight line – it’s essentially a headlong slow-motion descent into Hell. Hrůša started off well, but midway started alternating between the accelerator and the brake so the sense of inevitability was disrupted. In the end, Brahms’ greatest symphony, which reconciles the Classic and Romantic traditions, was gently ruined by Hrůša’s essentially immature conception.

Trump and accusations of rigging

By now, you’ve heard it in the media repeated ad infinitum, ad absurdum: Hillary/the Media/the Democrats are rigging the 2016 election.  It’s a common enough election year mantra.  I remember a conversation with my father, about ten years ago, in which he stated that Truman’s 1948 upset victory over Dewey was rigged.  He went on the say it was accomplished by fraudulent voting in Chicago and Texas - and it was then that I first realized my dad, approaching 80 at the time, was mentally losing it.  It was not the 1948 election, but the 1960 election, conspiracy buffs claim, that was rigged by Richard Daley’s machine in Chicago and Lyndon Johnson in Texas – all greased with money by Joe Kennedy.  These allegations have never been proven.

It’s worth pointing out that, of the billion or so votes cast in the United States since 2000, there have only been 31 proven cases of fraudulent votes – a statistically insignificant number.  Voter suppression, on the other hand, is very real, and likely had a role in George W. Bush’s victory in Florida that year.   While those allegations also remain unproven, there’s far more evidence for tomfoolery in Florida in 2000 than anywhere in 1960.

In fact, it is nearly impossible to rig a national election in the United States, because, simply put, there is no such thing as a national election here.  True, there are Presidential elections – but those are 50 state elections (territories like the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, of course, don’t have a vote in Presidential elections – although they do in party primaries) which happen to have Electors for Presidents on the ballot.  It is certainly possible to rig a state election – and it’s entirely possible that Jeb Bush helped rig Florida for his brother in 2000.  But if Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8, it’s not evidence of rigging – as the electoral boards in all three states are controlled by Republicans.  On the other hand, if those states vote for Trump in the face of polls which indicate a lead for Clinton, further investigation is warranted.

2016 Election Endorsements

Early voting in Ohio begins tomorrow.  No matter which candidates one supports, I encourage all who are eligible to vote to make their voice heard.  Here are our endorsements.  

Federal

For President - Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary Clinton earned the nomination of the Democratic Party after a grueling primary battle with Bernie Sanders.  The Vermont Senator, who is not a party member but caucuses with the Democrats, has endorsed Clinton and strenuously advocated for her election.  Others have touted Clinton’s lengthy and distinguished resume of public service, dating back to 1970 when she investigated illegal segregation in private schools in the South (for which a number of Southerners have never forgiven her).  Although Clinton’s CV bears repeating – First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, Senator, Secretary of State – it’s also worth remembering that a list of previous employment is not a guarantee of excellence.  George H. W. Bush was probably the most experienced person in history to enter the office of the Presidency, but he was a fair-to-middling President.

Clinton has come under criticism for changing her positions on issues.  But a slavish loyalty to an unwavering position on any issue reminds me of George W. Bush’s conviction of the merits of his Middle East policies, and Herbert Hoover’s unwillingness to take the actions necessary to alleviate the Great Depression.  It’s worth remembering that Hoover labeled Franklin D. Roosevelt a “chameleon on plaid” for changing positions (often 180º) on how to turn the economy around.  Altering positions on issues goes beyond politically expedient flexibility.  Examining Senator Clinton’s evolving viewpoints it becomes obvious that she has evolved in the right direction.  I’d rather have a President who can adapt with the times than one who is stuck in the groove – an apt criticism against Republicans like Hoover and Democrats like Jimmy Carter alike.  We must bluntly face the truth that no matter who is elected President, Republicans will likely control the House of Representatives for the rest of this decade, largely thanks to Gerrymandering by Republican governors and state legislatures.  Democrats will be lucky if they gain control of the Senate, and the next president will likely nominate at least two Supreme Court Justices.  Contrary to those who deride her as “$hillary” and a corporate candidate, Clinton’s record over the past four plus decades shows her consistently fighting for the downtrodden: minorities seeking education in the South, education improvement in Arkansas, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, aid for 9/11 rescue workers.  Like any politician, Clinton has made her share of mistakes.  The worst of these was her vote to authorize use of force in Iraq – a vote which she has acknowledged as a mistake.  The difference between her and Donald Trump can be centered on their response to this issue: Trump also favored the war in Iraq.  But while Clinton has owned up to her mistake, Trump has laughably denied he was ever for the Iraq war, even though there are recordings of him doing endorsing it. 

Trump’s campaign has revealed his own personal history of corruption, tax evasion, attempted bribery of government officials, kowtowing to dictators, racism, religious bigotry, womanizing on a scale that makes Bill Clinton look like a rank amateur, and most disturbingly, allegations of rape of an underage girl.  That his supporters are willing to ignore these very real concerns is a sad commentary on the racism and xenophobia in the hearts of many Americans.  Hillary Clinton has come under attack for her comments that many of Trump’s supporters are a “basket of deplorables”.  But, like Senator Barack Obama’s comment about certain voters “clinging to guns and religion”, it was a hard truth that should not have been walked back. 

Two other nominees have received some attention, as fewer Americans identify with either Democrats or Republicans: Libertarian Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico who has been out of office since 2003; and the Green Party’s Jill Stein, a physician, folk musician, and activist who has never held elected office and garnered .4% of the vote in 2012 and unsuccessfully ran for various offices in Massachusetts five times.  I sympathize with those who want an alternative to the two major parties. But let's take a look at history. The most successful 3rd party candidate in history was Teddy Roosevelt, who ran as part of the Progressive "Bull Moose" party and won 27.4% of the popular vote back in 1912 - coming in a distant second to Woodrow Wilson.  Roosevelt had previously served as President and enjoyed widespread popularity.  If a popular former President like Teddy Roosevelt can't mount a successful 3rd party run, it's delusional for anyone to think that someone who is unknown to much of the public can.  (By the way, the Progressive party’s 1912 platform called for a minimum wage, 8 hour workday, social insurance {i.e., Social Security}, farm relief, and increased rights for labor unions. It took Teddy's distant cousin, Franklin Roosevelt - a Democrat - to put those ideas into action in the 1930s.)

Building a credible 3rd party is something that must be done from the ground up. That's one of the lessons of 1912. Also, don't drive a ship at full speed through iceberg infested waters - but I digress. 

Of the alternative candidates, Johnson has received unusually large support owing to Trump’s continued offensive statements and Johnson’s call for decriminalization for marijuana – the latter of which I happen to support. However, he has no experience in either national or foreign affairs, as his bafflement over Aleppo and other foreign policy matters painfully demonstrates.  Although I supported William Weld for governor of Massachusetts in 1990 (his opponent, John Silber, was downright fascistic), his presence on the Libertarian party ticket does not compensate Gary Johnson’s unsuitability for the Presidency.  Jill Stein, the Green party candidate, is a non-starter nominee of a non-starter party and is the kind of candidate who gives leftist politics a bad name. 

Therefore, on the basis of experience, policy positions, and the ability to remain steady in a crisis, we enthusiastically endorse Hillary Clinton for President.   

United States Senator – Ohio: No endorsement

Commentators have tried to paint Senator Rob Portman as a moderate Republican on account of his support for same sex marriage.  In fact, Portman only supported marriage equality after his own son came out as gay.  Otherwise, Portman’s record is undistinguishable from the most conservative Republicans.  His refusal to allow President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee - Merrick Garland - to even be voted upon, along with his continued opposition to background checks for gun purchasers demonstrate that he is unworthy to continue serving as Ohio’s Senator.

His opponent, Ted Strickland, is hardly any worthier.  For months, he was unable to come up with a credible explanation for his weak performance as Ohio’s governor – when the answer was right in front of him – the state was in the midst of an international economic crash.  He’s a “Johnny come lately” to sensible gun control.  As I predicted when I posted my primary endorsements, Democrats have selected the establishment’s weak candidate rather than the lesser known strong candidate.  It’s my hope that P. G. Sittenfeld, a young and promising public servant, will seek a Senate seat again.  For this cycle, we are not offering an endorsement.

United States Representative, 11^th District – Marcia Fudge

Marcia Fudge stepped in at the last moment to chair this year’s Democratic Convention, replacing the controversial Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  That she did so with poise and grace, despite disruptive behavior from those in and out of the party, are testament to how Fudge has become a seasoned parliamentarian in the eight years since she replaced Stephanie Tubbs-Jones after the latter passed away.   Further, Fudge’s policy positions and votes are in concert with the vast majority of her constituents, so she is an accurate representation of her district.  We endorse Fudge’s reelection.

Ohio

For State House, 8^th District:  Kent Smith.  Smith, a Democrat in an overwhelmingly Republican house, has fought the good fight against Corporate Personhood, in favor of protecting Lake Erie, advancing Clean Energy, and challenging the Kasich Administrations fiscal stranglehold over municipalities.  Smith deserves to be reelected.

South Euclid

Issue 101, Property Tax Safety Levy: I supported issue 65, the initial safety levy, in 2013, and we support its replacement and increase.  South Euclid safety forces have done an excellent job in protecting our community from both fires and crime – with none of the embarrassing behavior that has marred Cleveland’s Safety Forces.  As overall tax revenues are still suffering from the real estate crash and the Great Recession, continuing and increasing the levy (which will only cost another $7.25 per month for every $100,000 of property value) is a no-brainer.

Issue 102, Corporate Personhood: The Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizen United case has led to the increasing monetization and commercialization of politics.  Case in point: a reality TV star is the Republican nominee.  Issue 102 is mainly symbolic, but it puts the citizens of South Euclid on record as opposing Corporate Personhood – and we support its passage.