Monthly Archives: November 2018

History of a Public Controversy Speaking (RCL 11)

“The issue of gun rights has plagued the United States for decades. Though the topic has went through years of strenuous debate and argument, it continues to be one of the most hot-button issues in our current political economy. But how did the controversy of American gun culture first surface in American Politics? How has the debate evolved over the years? What has this debate accomplished and what effects has it had on American culture?”

On the 20th of April, 1999, the American debate over firearms control was changed forever and plummeted into the deep unrelenting hole we know it as today. High school students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold strolled into school and brutually murdered classmates and teachers using a variety of firearms. The event burned a tragic hole in the American people.

Immediately following the attack, the American education system mobilized, doing everything it possibly could to prevent an event of this scale from happeinging again. Metal detectors were stationed at school entraces, mandatory uniforms and transparent backpacks were enforced, and in some cases, armed security was hired. Howver, though the education system decided to take action, the American government was facing an issue of its own.

In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act suddenly eliminated the liability of firearm dealers to tragedies that invloved their merchandise. A quote by President George W Bush states “The first provision of this law is “to prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” It also dismissed pending cases on October 26, 2005.”

 

 

 

(This documentary is a good model to follow) (Canadian Boradcast Service Provides an unbiased view?)

 

 

Bach Suite No. 2 in D minor Prelude (Passion 9)

After a lengthy and detailed review of the first Bach Suite, we finally move on to an investigation of the second suite. Bach’s second suite predominantly stays in the key of d minor. The D minor key is in stark contrast to the G major key predominating in the first suite. D minor immediately comes across as a key of sadness, loss, and tragedy.  The piece starts with the tonic chord, in this case, d minor, similar to that of the first suite. The piece then comes to a minor triad that sets a tonal center motif for the rest of the movement. Something that is particularly special about this movement is the changing patterns that occur in two-bar phrases. For example, measure 5 is where we really start seeing this pattern in action. The sixteenth notes play a B flat major arpeggio then followed by a run of sixteenths in the next measure, that being a two-bar phrase. Next, we see that pattern repeat again, but this time with an A minor arpeggio. Then again as a G minor arpeggio, and so on. Maisky’s interpretation of this movement is especially good at showing this pattern because of the style of articulation he uses to punctuate each of his phrases. Maisky places accents on the first note at the start of each phrase, making each distinctly clear.

These two-bar phrases continue for a long time until we reach measure 48.  The cello holds a lengthy G minor chord notated as a quarter note with a fermata over it followed by two quarter rests. A fermata, in this case, is a musical notation symbol used to elongate a note to the player’s discretion. After the rests, the cello enters a last climatic theme with a multitude of repeated notes and rhythmic patterns. Specifically, the open G string is used many times as it is the V chord of the d minor key.

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

Finally, the movement ends with a coalition of 5 dotted half note chords. To supplement the creativity of the movement, Bach wrote an alternative ending in a sub-note that involves more musical creativity. This is the first example of improvisation in music, an idea that would come to dominate the trade in the years to come.

Something else that has to be discussed is the sense of personal liberty as mentioned in the last blog posting. Maisky’s rendition of this movement shows him taking much more personal liberties with rhythms and dynamics then are usually allowed. Critics to his playing would say that certain quarter notes are being over-held as well as slurred and tied figures. Additionally, bach did not write any dynamics into this movement. Would he have wanted to hear such changes in volume throughout the piece? In my opinion, I think that dynamics ought to be kept for the musicality of the movement. However, changes in note lengths are a direct conflict with Bach’s writings and should be avoided at all costs. Such are questions that continue to puzzle cellists and musical scholars alike.