Theology From The Plain Courtesy of G.A. Compton

Rediscovering the poetry of my great-great uncle G.A. Compton has been a great joy over the last few years.   Many of his poems strike right at the heart of the ways I have come to think.  Here are three poems,  published in his 1950 book "Puns, Poetry and Prose", that make their way deeper and deeper into my soul everyday.  They are truly Theology From The Plain (albeit from Uncle Barry's West Virginia hills!).

Two Sermons

I went to hear a preacher.

How his lusty voice did ring!

He nomenclatured nameless Love

Just like a mundane thing.

One part of Love was vengeance,

To ablate an heired sin!

(Then, I hoped Love would be cheated

And feel a deep chagrin!)

I went to hear a robin

Help to mauve the ashy dawn,

And thought he’d burn the new leaves of

The twig he salaamed on.

Aurora flung her curtains

At the throbbing reveille,

And hallooed thru the windows,

That the preacher lied to me!

Crucibles

Without pain

Happiness

Could not be;

Heaven is 

Estimated thru

Gethsemane.

Without fear,

No stile would arise

With each stair a hope

Ending in the skies-

Pain, fear-

Finite crucibles

Purge us to merge

Into

Infinite seas.

Conformity

Just buckle on most any creed,

Like picking up a stole-

No creed was ever fitted, yet,

Exactly to each soul.

Convention says that you must wear

One o'er your sinful heart,

So put it on - but grow until

You burst the thing apart.

Listen! The Minuet of Haydn's String Quartet in D Minor Opus 76, No. 2 "The Fifths"

I have been listening to string quartets constantly for the last couple of months.  Consisting of two violins, a viola, and a cello, it has always been one of my very favorite ensembles.   A quartet is capable of a wide expressive range but with an intimacy that has brought out the best in many of the Western classical tradition's greatest composers.

It has also been a very standard chamber ensemble for centuries, so there is a wealth of literature for this grouping.  Quartets are still very popular today, and since it is wedding season, I am performing in that context a lot these days!    Which is great!

The quartet was not invented by Franz Joseph Haydn, but he is surely the composer who, through his prolific writing for the ensemble in the second half of the 18th century, turned it into the staple it became for subsequent Classical, Romantic and modern composers.

The string quartet form typically mirrors that of the symphony.  It is in four movements with the opening movement in sonata allegro form.  The second movement is slow, often a theme and variations.  The third movement is a minuet and trio, and the last movement is lively, perhaps a rondo.

I am definitely a first movement kind of guy.  Give me the meat of the piece's aesthetic in sonata-allegro form.  Give me themes and development.  Yeah!

But second movements can often be the heart and soul of a quartet as well.  And fourth movements are often an excuse to write exciting, virtuosic parts.

It is the third movement that I am usually the least excited to hear.  A minuet is a dance in three with lots of repeats.   It is often a bit of....relaxation in an otherwise intense piece.  It can be a break, albeit a pretty break, in the action.  Frankly, it can be a bit boring compared to the other movements - particularly in the works of the Classical composers.

But not always!

I encourage you to check out Haydn's String Quartet in D Minor, the second in a collection of six quartets that make up his Opus No. 76.  These are some of the last quartets he wrote, and the entire quartet is fantastic.  It is nicknamed "The Fifths" because the opening theme begins with a descending fifth (an interval covering five notes in the scale) which is then sequenced (repeated at a different pitch level) a fourth down. This opening movement is one of my favorites, but it is actually the third movement that I have listened to the most!  

It is in the typical minuet and trio form, but the minuet portion is written in strict canon.  The two violins begin the movement with a D minor melody played in octaves.  Then the viola and cello entire one measure later (three counts) with the exact same melody.   Both groups play the same notes (at different octaves), but one measure apart!   As you might guess, this is difficult to achieve.  The melody must be carefully constructed so that each measure harmonizes with the previous measure, and it must do so while maintaining its melodic integrity.

I encourage you to check out a recording of this piece.  Hooray for a truly exciting minuet!   Haydn was definitely the man.

A Psalm of Life for Elnora Harris

The following is a recent status update from my wife's Facebook page.


"At midnight last night I held my grandma for the last time. It was just the two of us in the room. I sang to her, held her close, and she died in my arms. Tonight, I drink to her, while a hundred butterflies fly around me on this gorgeous evening. Life is beautiful, you guys."

Susan read her grandmother poems through the night from a book passed on to her mother from her grandmother.  This is one in particular that Susan remembers reading.  Here it is, in honor of Elnora Harris.

A Psalm Of Life

What the Heart of the Young Man

Said to the Psalmist

by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Tell me not, in mournful numbers,

“Life is but an empty dream!”

For the soul is dead that slumbers,

And thing are not what they seem.

Life is real! Life is earnest!

And the grave is not its goal;

“Dust thou art, to dust returnest,”

Was not spoken of the soul.

Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,

Is our destined end or way;

But to act, that each tomorrow

Find us farther than to-day.

Art is long, and Time is fleeting,

And our hearts, though stout and brave,

Still, like muffled drums, are beating

Funeral marches to the grave.

In the world’s broad field of battle,

In the bivouac of Life,

Be not like dumb, driven cattle;

Be a hero in the strife!

Thrust no Future, howe’er pleasant!

Let the dead Past bury its dead!

Act – act in the living Present!

Heart within and God o’erhead!

Lives of great men all remind us

We can make our lives sublime,

And departing, leave behind us

Footprints on the sands of time;

Footprints, that perhaps another,

Sailing o’er life’s solemn main,

A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,

Seeing, shall take heart again.

Let us then be up and doing,

With a heart for any fate;

Still achieving, still pursuing,

Learn to labor and to wait.

And I have to include this followup from Sue's FB page or else I would not be representing her personality fairly! 

"now a couple of doves are making out in the front yard, while honeysuckle blossoms fall into my glass. shit, universe - you're laying it on pretty thick right now..."

The Art of Melody

Paul McCartney is often described as a great melody writer.  I love Paul's work, but to me he is more of a great hook writer.   I would define a hook as a short phrase, usually repeated several times, that tends to stick with you, making you want to sing along.  Hooks are wonderful things, but I don't really think of them as being proper melodies, although they are certainly in the same family.  

A melody is a combination of rhythm and pitch that seeks to be memorable and yet fresh.  A good melody involves repetition and variation.  It is, as Paul Simon once described music he likes and tries to make, like driving home a different way.  There is surprise and also familiarity.  I also believe that a good melody is something that unfolds over a few bars.  A hook, or melodic hook, might fill a bar or two, and this is an art form unto itself, but a melody needs some distance to twist and turn a little bit.  It needs room to accomplish its goals.

I suppose my definition of melody might be what some people think of as a theme.   Something that stands on its own apart from lyrics, although of course it should work with lyrics too in the context of a song.   Also, I think a great theme/melody should even work divorced from its harmonic setting - although this of vital importance to the aggregate music, of course.   But we can still analyze it at its bare bones, and too often writers rely on the tried-and-true technique of presenting a repeated melody line over a different chord (I know I have!).   The most basic example of this would be a traditional blues song.  Once again, it doesn't mean it's not a great song, but I am focusing on melody here.

Schubert is regarded as one of the great melodists of Western civilization.  I think his reputation is well-deserved.   Listen to one of his first great songs "Gretchen Am Spinnrade (Gretchen at the Spinning Wheel)".   Over a piano setting which evokes a spinning wheel, the soprano gives us a lovely melody, unfolding over a few bars reaching a high point.   Then as the melody seems set to repeat, the music quickly goes into a new direction.  A minute or so in, the original melody returns.  Great stuff.

That said, Schubert's B theme to the opening movement of the "Unfinished" Symphony is a celebrated melody that I do not find all that compelling.   The opening interval of a downward moving fourth is repeated once too often for me.    But it's still a great symphony!

I recently read a criticism of the second movement of Haydn's "Emperor" string quartet.  The central complaint was that the movement, which is a theme and variations, does little with the variations except pass the theme around between the quartet members.  Haydn does not do all the traditional alterations, presenting fragments of the theme in augmentation or diminution, changing tempos, keys, etc.   But it doesn't bother me.  I think he knew he had a great melody and he simply altered the arrangement each time it is played.  The sustained D in the cello in the last presentation of the theme, which then rises up leading into the high point of the melody, is one of the most sublime moments in any piece I know.

Talk about an extended melody, listen to the opening of Anton Bruckner's 7th symphony.  The cellos, through a mist of tremelo strings, give us a beautiful, unfolding melody, full of ups and downs, unexpected turns and hooks to stick in our ears.  The entire melody takes about a minute to play - many Beatles songs would be almost half over in that time!   Of course this is comparing apples and oranges.  Popular song serves a different purpose than the broad symphonic writing of the late Romantic period.  But still, I love a melody that takes a minute to play without repetition, yet still achieves structural integrity.  It's pretty breathtaking.

But that isn't to say that popular songs cannot have wonderful melodies.

Let's give Paul McCartney some well-deserved credit.  My favorite Beatles song is "Martha My Dear", a tune he wrote for his beloved sheep dog.  And it is a great melody.  What really makes it, is that the second bar of the tune is a 5/4 measure.  And the entire melody spans an asymmetric 7 bars - just like another excellent melody of his - "Yesterday."     When the horns present the main tune of "Martha" with hand claps.....well that is a sublime moment for me.

Paul Simon is a great, great American songwriter.    Despite his focus on rhythm and texture over the last several decades, which has produced lots of great stuff, some of his melodies from the 60's and 70's are wonderful.  "Bridge Over Trouble Water" is a long, unfolding melody.  "Still Crazy After All These Years" is a great melody which covers a lot of range and harmonic complexity.   Incidentally, Simon was studying theory when he wrote that song and derived the bridge by using the remaining tones he had not yet used in the 12 tone scale.  He also used a key change in the middle of the last verse - right before the line "I would not be convicted by a jury of my peers" - a super clever way to achieve the intensity of a rising chord change while avoiding the cliche of doing it before the beginning of the last verse!

A more recent group that really caught my attention is Belle And Sebastian.  I had heard some of their work, but when I first listened to the tune "Stars of Track and Field" I knew that Stuart Murdoch was a different kind of songwriter.  It's a long melody, reminiscent of the great bossa nova composer Antonio Carlos Jobim - whose tune "Desfinado (Out Of Tune) is another beautiful melody.   This particular tune by Belle and Sebastian uses a lot of sequences.   This is the presentation of the same melodic content at a different pitch level.  Think of Bach's Minuet in G.   The first two measures are followed by a sequence of the same melodic content at a higher pitch level.  It's a great technique to catch a listener's ear and give  a phrase a unity of structure.   


A few other great melodies by Belle and Sebastian (off the top of my head) are "The Model", "I'm Waking Up To Us",  and "My Wandering Days Are Over" - when the trumpet presents the melody over a background of violin double-stops, another sublime moment!

Tunes like Hoagy Carmichael's "Stardust" and George Shearing's "Lullaby of Birdland" remind us of the pre-rock 'n roll focus on melody.   I think the swing era may be one of the greatest triumphs of the twentieth century in combining complexity and richness of writing and performing with popular appeal.  The golden era of American popular song produced and wealth of wonderful melodies.    And the be-bop era took melodic writing to a new level of complexity, but artists such as Charlie Parker always sought to hook the listener's ear.   Check out the opening of "Ornithology" among so many others....and listen for sequences! 

What are some of your favorite melodies?

Festival

This week, I was very happy to learn that "Where Did The Horny Toad Go?" will premiere this April at the Arizona International Film Festival in Tucson!


Several scenes are shot on location there, so it is a fitting place for a first official screening.

"Where Did The Horny Toad Go?" - Pick Your Price! (almost)

"Where Did the Horny Toad Go?" is a documentary created by Jar Of Grasshoppers productions to explore "the mysterious disappearance of a childhood memory - an endearing blood squirting lizard - and the passionate people who are determined to save it from extinction."  Scored for acoustic guitar, mandolin, cello, violin and melodica, the film score is a musical portrait of the horned lizard and the humans they inspire.

I am very, very pleased to announce the release of the album version of "Where Did The Horny Toad Go?"!  The album is now available on iTunes and is in the process of being distributed to several other online merchants as well.

However!  For a limited time - a week or so - I have decided to sell the album myself and to allow you to pay what you want.  The only condition is that you must pay at least two dollars.   Of course if you would like to pay more, then that is greatly, greatly appreciated, but if times are tight, and $10 seems a lot, then believe me, I would much rather you listen to the album for two dollars, than not hear it at all!   (I wanted to make the minimum $1, but paypal charges a minimum of $.32 a transaction!)

I am also hoping that if I offer the album this way, some people might just take a chance on some new music.  So pay what you feel you can right now, don't be embarrassed, and know that I really want you to have the album!   I know how it is to like music, or at least want to support it, but not be in the mood to depart with $10.   If you're embarrassed to offer only two dollars, because you know me and you don't want to seem cheap, then simply come up with an anonymous email address and buy it anyway!   ;)

So here is how it works.   Click the Paypal "Donate" button below, and enter the amount you wish to pay.  Yes, you can use a credit card.  Then I will email you a download link through wetransfer.com.   When you download and open the high-quality mp3's with your music player of choice, the cover art should download as well.  If it does not, just let me know and I will send it to you separately.  If you do not wish to use the button below, you can also simply go to Paypal.com and "send money" to stevenstarkmusic@gmail.com.  

Make sure you use the email address where you want me to send the link - or include a note if you want me to send to a different email address.

It may take a day or two for me to email you the files, but I will do it as soon as possible.   If you want the album immediately, you could go to iTunes, or cdbaby.com, and purchase it there for $9.99 - obviously, I am thrilled if you choose that option as well!

Here is the Paypal "Donate Button".   Below that is a sample from the album - the "Opening Credits" of the movie.  Thank you all for reading about this and for listening!  Please check out the film if you have a chance.  It is an inspiring, entertaining, and very well-made piece.  If you are familiar with the horned lizard, or remember them from your childhood, then you will find the film highly enjoyable.   Check out the trailer here.

Thanks again,  Steven

Theology From The Plain Part Three - Pantheism, Panentheism and Double Meanings.

This entry is longer than I wanted it to be, but this is convoluted territory for me, admittedly.  I appreciate the thoughts of any readers. Obviously, this is a process of working through thoughts, so feedback is essential.  And for anyone reading who does not prefer God-language, hopefully I will have some entries soon that rely less on this terminology, but still deal with basic questions and thoughts we all have about existence.

Last time I wrote that God cannot ultimately be separate from creation -  after all, can God create, and therefore be the explanation for, something that is ultimately not-God?  If so, where did the not-God elements come from?  

So I am a pantheist, believing that God is identical with creation?  Or am I a panentheist, believing that creation is contained within God?  

One way to characterize the difference is this:

Pantheism - God is the whole.

Panentheism - The whole is in God.

I am sure there are several versions of both of these positions that are very interesting.  I think I could be either one depending on how one defines “the whole.”   Is the whole this cosmos?  Or is it everything that exists at all?  Or maybe this distinction isn’t even that important?  For even this cosmos, this creation, surely has elements that are quite beyond our comprehension and perception.  How is are these intangible elements distinct, in any practical sense, from elements of God that are supposedly “beyond” this cosmos?  

I suppose I like panentheism a bit better, because it seems to imply a God that is beyond the part of the whole which we, as limited pieces of the action, are able to experience or to conceive of. Surely pantheism implies the same, but panentheism seems to make this sense more primary in its definition.  In other words, the actual whole, all that is, is greater than the whole that we can experience or conceive of.

I realize that some may differentiate between an idea like “the whole” and “creation”, but I have pointed out how I think that ultimately creation must be considered an extension, a reformulation, of God Himself.  

So perhaps I like a phrase like, “All is in God, and God is all.”    The first phrase implies that all creation is a part of God, and the second part implies that this creation cannot be ultimately separated from God.

So, if God encompasses all, then does it do any good to talk about God?  All things are a part of God, so nothing can be distinguished as more Godly than this or less Godly than that, right?   Well......to me it depends.

I think we can communicate about God in two ways, depending on our purpose and chosen perspective.  “God” can have a double-meaning. The first meaning of God is the all, and reflects a focus on the ultimate.  This meaning seems fairly uncontroversial, as most people probably believe in “the all” even if it is just a concept.  Some people may reject the word “God”, but that is another subject.

The second meaning of God refers to the portion of the all that reflects the ultimate purpose, direction and character of the all. This meaning pertains to the elements of our experience which reflect our faith in what God’s ultimate purpose is.   

Another way to think of it is this:  I am included within God.  I am a part of God and part of His ultimate purpose which is also my ultimate purpose.  But I am limited and far from perfect.  However, there may be a part of the whole of God which is unlimited and perfect - or at least as close to those states as possible, or at the very least, much more than I - that knows and seeks to enact the ultimate purpose of this creation, while not overly interfering with creation (which would probably spoil the whole point of it, but more on this later).

This view of God is a lot more controversial.  It is the God of faith, and even though a person can and should have good reasons, the only truly compelling reason to believe in this God is if one wants to.  I plan to write more about that later, but for now the two elements of faith would be first, that there is a purpose, a directionality to existence that makes some sort of sense. And second, that there is a portion of this existence now that reflects this ultimate purpose, that guides the universe, however slowly from our point of view (two steps forward, one step back), through the experience of creation, which is a series of similarities and contrasts with this ultimate purpose.

I am agnostic about this second view of God, but I choose to have faith that something/someone like it exists.   Can one be agnostic and still have faith?  Actually, I think faith as a concept is completely contingent on being, to some extent, agnostic.  If I had anything close to certain knowledge, then there would be little room for faith.

So is this idea of the double meaning of God a cop out on my part?  Am I trying to have it both ways?  For God to be all, yet also a part of that which exists?  Can God be a part of the whole and ultimately the whole at the same time?

Consider other words and concepts which have double meanings.  How about “physical”?   When I am not feeling well, a friend might ask me if the problem is physical or emotional.  I know what she means, even though ultimately the physical encompasses both.  

What about the word “nature” or “natural”?    When a person speaks of nature, I know what she means - things which exist apart from humans -  even though all things are ultimately encompassed by the word, including humans.  Humans are certainly a part of nature.

Have you ever wrestled with your own will?  What is it exactly that is wrestling with your will?   Yet, I know what you mean.   There is a portion of your will which you are temporarily separating and labeling “your will”, and a portion of your will that you are labeling “I”.   

I will get more into why God would possibly create - why He would re-imagine Himself into separate limited parts.   But I think the term “God” can mean the all, and can also mean a portion of the all which reflects the ultimate purpose and character of the all. Which meaning we use depends on our “level of zoom”.   

When you say or think “God” are you thinking in ultimate terms, so that the term must encompass the all, or are you speaking of God as the portion of creation which reflects all that is good - a kind of perfect awareness (at least compared to us)?  Do you switch back and forth?   Does this way of thinking make any sense to you?