The Star-Spangled Banner and the Decline of Musical Culture in the U.S.

On August 22, 1954, my father took my brother and I to our first baseball game. It was a Sunday doubleheader at Ebbetts Field in Brooklyn. I was 9 years old and my brother was 6. There were many things I saw that day that I'll never forget. First there was the sight of the green grass as we got to the end of the ramp into the grandstand. Televisions and newspaper photographs were all in black and white back then so my first glimpse of a major league field in living color was a revelation. Then there was my first look at my heroes -- Jackie, Pee Wee, and all the others. And then there was the music which was provided by Gladys Gooding who was the organist at Ebbetts Field and also at Madison Square Garden. The p.a. announcer said: "And now ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the singing of our national anthem." We stood, the organ played and we sang. More than thirty thousand people singing with gusto. What a thrilling sound! The memory of it brings tears to my eyes.

America's musical culture reached its high point shortly before that day when I saw my first game. The ability to sing, the knowledge of a widely shared repertoire of songs, and the enjoyment of singing them were a birthright for people of my parent's generation. My generation, people born in the U.S. during World War II and the boomers born in the post-war years, have lived in a society whose music culture has been in continual decline.

People no longer think of singing as a natural act that everybody can do. They are right. Most people today cannot sing, and do not know any songs. How many times have you been in a restaurant when a group of people at another table tried to sing "Happy Birthday" to someone? Do you cringe as I do when you hear their tone deaf shouting? And what do we hear now at sports events? The Star-Spangled Banner is still sung, but not at all by the spectators. Usually one person is called on to sing the anthem a cappella while the crowd stands impatiently. Sometimes, a good singer is found and the anthem is sung well. (Thank you, Larry Harris.) All too often, unfortunately, the anthem is desecrated by atrocious singers with no sense of rhythm who obscure the melody beyond recognition with excessive ornamentation. The impatient crowd starts cheering before the belabored rendition concludes and mercifully drowns out the ending. This is what we've come to.

Last night, I listened to the beginning of a basketball game between the Knicks and the Nets. The Star-Spangled Banner was sung by a young man from the Harlem Boys Choir who has a good tenor voice. He sang it in the key of E and had no trouble singing the high B on the word "free". Unfortunately, he sang two wrong notes. In his key, "dawn's early light" should be E G# A# B. The same notes occur on the words "perilous fight". Both times the singer, whose name I needn't mention, sang an A natural where it should have been an A-sharp. At Ebbetts Field in 1954, not one of the thousands of people singing did that. We all knew how the song goes.

Should the U.S. reinstate the draft?

In 1960, President Eisenhower warned the country about the dangers of the military-industrial complex in a televised farewell address. Each President that has followed him has ignored his warning.

If you are not familiar with Eisenhower’s Farewell Address – please watch it now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

The Vietnam War gave a shock to the military-industrial complex. Resistance to the draft tore apart our society and created social disorder. A vast counter-culture arose. President Johnson became a reviled and despised figure unable to make public appearances. He did not run for reelection, and was driven from office in humiliation and disgrace. Many young men refused to serve. Many who did serve were unwilling and were not good soldiers. We must never forget that the U.S. lost the Vietnam War. Lost--- to the Viet Cong -- a band of little men in black pajamas. The military-industrial complex learned its lesson and the draft was abolished. The military-industrial complex knows that too many of the young men of the U.S. are useless as draftees. A drafted army would not be effective in a foreign war and trying to raise one would tear apart our country. So the answer to Reich's question is no. The draft is not a good idea.

Of course, if Reich wants to instigate revolution and subvert the establishment that has caused death and destruction in numerous foreign countries around the world, then yes -- reinstating the draft is a capital idea.

Farewell Derek Jeter

Goodbye 2014 regular season. It ended yesterday with a Boston fan farewell to Jeter during an oddly meaningless game at Fenway Park. No October baseball for either the Red Sox or the Yankees. When was the last time THAT happened?

The Washington Nationals were tied for the best record in baseball this year. They brought down their regular season curtain with a great flourish as their left fielder made a dazzling diving catch for the last out of Jordan Zimmerman's no-hitter against Miami.

Check this out:

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/11493214/v36703055/must-c-classic-souza-saves-zimmermanns-nohitter

After that, the Nats are my pick for the World Series.

Today, I perused the final standings for 2014. I was struck by the fact that no team achieved a .600 winning percentage. Only one team, the Diamondbacks, fell below a .400 percentage, and their winning percentage was .395. So with a slight rounding up to the nearest percent, we can say that all 30 teams this year operated between a 40% and a 60% success rate. Parity has come to major league baseball. Each season is a crap shoot. We've seen the Red Sox go from last place to World Series winner and back to last place in the last three seasons. Amazing? No. I think that will be the new norm.

Now, about Jeter. How great was he? Did you see Keith Olberman's critical assessments of Jeter's career? Here they are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__UJ9VZB508

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xafiSZO_r2g

Olberman concedes that Jeter is a Hall of Famer, but notes some negative entries in Jeter's account. As far as I'm concerned, Olberman's points are well taken.

Jeter reminds me of the Dodger hero of my boyhood -- Pee Wee Reese. Pee Wee was a rookie in 1940. Before Pee Wee the Dodger shortstop was their player-manager -- Leo Durocher. You'll never see THAT again. In 1941, Leo retired as a player and Pee Wee became the everyday shortstop on a team that went to their first World Series in 20 years only to lose to (who else?) the Yankees, in 5 games.

Pee Wee was the every day shortstop in 1942, then he lost what would have been 3 prime years in his career to military service. From 1946 until his retirement after the 1959 season he, like Jeter played shortstop, and only shortstop. Pee Wee was good. But nothing in his stats is eye-popping. Here is his baseball almanac page:

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=reesepe01

If you can compare players from different eras by their statistics, then Jeter was clearly better than Reese. Reese is in the Hall of Fame. Why? Longevity counts for a lot in Hall of Fame voting. And being a captain of a team that goes through a golden age of great success helps too. Both Reese and Jeter earned the acclaim and adoration they attracted. But let's be real, and not exaggerate their excellence as ballplayers.

Red Sox Remarks

If you know me, you know that baseball fandom has been a big part of my life.

I was born in Brooklyn into a Dodger family. I went to games at Ebbetts Field during every season from 1954 to 1957, and then my team abandoned me. I was unaffiliated for four bleak seasons and then I attached myself to the Mets in their inaugural season -- 1962. I attended quite a number of games at the Polo Grounds during the two seasons the Mets played there. I even saw them win a few.

I am sad to say that I feel my passion for the game slipping away. There are many reasons for this, like inter-league games being played every day, and two also-rans from each league getting admitted to post-season play as wild card teams. But the biggest challenge to my fandom is the transient nature of major league rosters. Teams are not really teams anymore.

Case in point: consider the 2013 World Champion Boston Red Sox. In 2012, they had finished in last place. Then they achieved a complete reversal of fortune. They sailed through the 2013 regular season and the post-season with not so much as a speed bump along the way.

The Red Sox went into the 2013 post-season with six reputable starting pitchers. One of them, Ryan Dempster, was relegated to bullpen duty for the playoffs. The other five were Buchholz, Lester, Lackey, Doubront, and Peavey. That was a formidable, championship-worthy starting rotation. What happened? Today, August 3rd, 2014, only one of the six from last year, Buchholz, is still on the Red Sox roster. And the Red Sox are a safe bet to finish in last place place again.

Now I know I'm acting like an old fogey who says "in my day, sonny..." I developed a strong bond with the Dodgers because the players didn't change from year to year. Some were Hall-of-Famers: Reese, Robinson, Snider, Campanella. And then there was Gil Hodges. Why isn't HE in the Hall of Fame? Let's not forget Carl Furillo, Junior Gilliam, Billy Cox. And the pitchers! Erskine, Newcombe, Preacher Roe in the rotation. Labine, Roebuck and Bessent in the bullpen.

Today, you can rarely develop a long-term attachment to a player. Will Mariano Rivera and Derek Jeter be the last Hall-of-Famers to play their whole careers with one team? There are other possibilities. Verlander, Pedroia, and Mike Trout are three examples of players who have been with only one team and who have careers that are on a trajectory towards Cooperstown. But don't be surprised if they don't conclude their careers with their original team.

So what is a team today? For whom are you rooting? Met fans had a rare experience of seeing one of their pitchers, R.A. Dickey, win the Cy Young Award in 2012. The next year? Gone. Being a fan today is like having Alzheimer's disease. You're always meeting new people. How sad.

A Famous Scene from Don Giovanni

I've been volunteering as a violin teacher with UpbeatNYC, a free music school for children in the South Bronx. Richard Miller, the director of the program, wrote an arrangement of La Ci Darem La Mano for the UpbeatNYC Children's Orchestra. It's a duet from Mozart's opera Don Giovanni with charming music that conceals very sinister undertones. While I was teaching their parts in Richard's arrangement to the violin players in the UpbeatNYC Children's Orchestra, I became interested in reviewing the music's operatic context. What follows is a retelling of the plot up to that scene, followed by my comments on three contrasting performances that are posted on Youtube. If this interests you, keep reading.

Plot Synopsis

The title character in Don Giovanni is an amoral 18th-century Spanish nobleman who is an insatiable sexual predator. He will use charm, abetted by his wealth and power, to seduce women when he can, but he is not above using physical assault as a tactic for sexual conquest.

The opera begins with his invasion of Donna Anna's bedroom in the middle of the night. When the Commendatore, Donna Anna's father, responding to her cries for help, interrupts the attempted rape, Don Giovanni kills him with his sword and flees.

A bit later on in Act I, we meet Donna Elvira, a noblewoman who was seduced and abandoned by Don Giovanni. She pursues him to get him to make good on his promise of marriage. Leporello, Don Giovanni's servant, tries to explain to Donna Elvira the futility of her quest. He produces for her edification, a journal of the Don's conquests. The book lists 1,003 women in Spain, plus hundreds more from the Don's travels in other countries. Leporello tells Donna Elvira that the Don has already obtained what he wanted from her and has no further interest in her. Donna Elvira cannot accept this. She resolves to pursue Don Giovanni, hoping to save other women from her fate by reforming the Don into a monogamous relationship with her.

In the last part of Act I, Don Giovanni encounters a group of peasants gathered for the wedding of Masetto and Zerlina. The Don instantly sets his sights on Zerlina as his next conquest. He contrives to separate her from the party. Then, in a recitative, he tells her she was not born to be a peasant. He urges her to accompany him to his castle where they will be 'married" at once. The famous duet follows.

Three performances of La Ci Darem La Mano on Youtube

1. Samuel Ramey and Dawn Upshaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ7PKtS2BR8

This is your grandmother's Don Giovanni. The characters are in period costumes. The bearded Don Giovanni seems gallant and charming. Zerlina is naive and frightened. Upshaw's light, sweet soprano voice conveys Zerlina's innocence and naiveté, In the end she is deceived by Don Giovanni's ardent approach and agrees to go with him to his castle. She is spared from what would have happened to her there by Donna Elvira's interruption of the scene. Children could watch this production.

2. Thomas Hampson and Isabel Bayakdarian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11HmAQWIVO8

This is a stark contrast with the preceding traditional staging of this scene. Gone are the 18th century costumes. We see Zerlina in a more contemporary bridal dress that exposes generous views of her legs and breasts. She does not at all look like a sweet young innocent. And there is the tall, dark and handsome Don Giovanni in a silk shirt and purple pants -- looking every inch the lounge lizard. During the duet, he produces a long black silk scarf from his pocket and shows Zerlina some of its possibilities as a sex toy. Zerlina quickly abandons her superficial reluctance and reveals herself to Don Giovanni as a ready and willing sexual partner. Bayakdarian's heavier soprano voice makes her well cast for this interpretation. The two characters look totally delighted with each other at the end of the scene. They both must have regretted Donna Elvira's intrusion.

3. Ildebrando D’Arcangelo and Manuela Bisceglie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffs6bThByWw

This bold European production is definitely not for children. Don Giovanni is dressed in an 18th century costume, with knickers, stockings, buckled shoes and a silky white blouse. No coat. We see Zerlina in a sleeveless white dress that looks like something from a catalog of summer clothing. Furthermore, she is barefoot. This seems a little much for a girl at her wedding, even for a peasant. Don Giovanni's seduction of Zerlina in this production is entirely physical. First he grabs her breasts. Then he picks her up and lays her down on the ground. Then he gropes her under her dress and expertly arouses her in a way she had never experienced before. After that she's willing to let him do what he will with her. It is amazing that these singers could sing their parts so well while doing all that. There are some strong comments from viewers on the youtube page. Some enthusiastically approved. Others were appalled and decried it as pornography.

I like all three of these scenes.

During my childhood in the 1950's, I saw an English language performance of Don Giovanni on television. As I recall it, it was very similar to the first version I listed here. This os probably not very different from the way it was done in Mozart's time. So what's not to like? It's one of the jewels of opera repertoire.

The second version here I found very interesting. Why can't Zerlina be a hot babe who meets the Don on his own terms? I think Bayakdarian's acting is superb, and I love the way Hampson laughs when Zerlina throws off her show of innocence and gives him that "come on big boy, let's go" look. Needless to say, their singing is outstanding too.

What can I say about version number 3? Yes, I like it. But it IS ugly. I watched all of the youtube excerpts from this production. D'Arcangelo's Don is a vile, despicable character. He has none of Ramey's or Hampson's charm. He's disgusting. I think that this is a very valid interpretation of the character. It's not what opera audiences are used to, but it may become so. During its penultimate season, New York City Opera presented a lurid production of Don Giovanni in which the characters spent much of their time cavorting about the stage in their underwear. No sword fight for Don Giovanni in the opening scene. The elderly-looking Commendatore entered in his pajamas. Don Giovanni grabbed him by his hair and bashed his head against the wall in an explosion of stage blood. I think the story warrants dark interpretations. They create a contrast between the violent action on stage with the beautiful music being played and sung.

Thanks for reading and watching. How did you like the three productions?