Whitney Houston and Why One Note is Worth a Thousand Words

            I went to hear her sing at the Park West, as did many others I knew, sometime after the first album had come out. After that tour, no venue was big enough. I doubt that a singer in Chicago, or for that matter any musician in Chicago, hadn't heard that record and sung or played half of the tunes. Many were there that night. The one criticism I remember of that album (though I didn't totally buy the criticism) was that it sounded too tame, too controlled, that somehow they didn't let her sing. The arrangements were, no doubt, pop. The Michael Masser production was evident everywhere: lush strings, simple grooves, and yeah..not too much extemporaneous licks from Whitney. Maybe there was some truth to those observations. After all, she came out of the church. She had to be able to just let go. When you heard her in Lincoln Park that night there was no doubt she could cut through the music like a knife through butter when she wanted to. 
         But she also did have another, very subtle side to her voice that you could hear on the album - a texture that I had never really heard before in my life. It was a clear, bright, airy sound that she could twist in perfect intonation and leave in your ears, while she wandered off somewhere else, and she had the ability then to slip in and out of it at will. It was evident that night at the Park West, a venue that allows for more finesse, while still offering a room where a singer could belt. And that night she did belt. Man...did she. If there were any there who hadn't thought she could, they got taken to church real quick. You could feel the waves knocking people' s hair back (even what I had of mine back then). That is what people had said they didn't hear on the record. My theory, and I'm not the only one who thought this, was that maybe they (Masser, Clive Davis or whoever) just didn't want to take too many chances. She was young and they wanted to make sure this album stuck in the ears of everyone. They wanted to be sure Whitney was a pop star from the beginning. Well, they got their wish. I don't know if she got hers. 
          In the end it isn't that record that now rings true to me. She was always much, much more than that and what she gave everyone that night was something you cannot ever replace in music..the memory of a performance that you can still hear in your ears over twenty-five years later.

Noticias de una guerra: directed by Enterio Ortega Santillana

     Noticias de una guerra (Notes on A War) is a movie from 2006, the 70th anniversary of the Spanish Civil War (1936 - 1939). If you do not speak Spanish, it is available with subtitlies. Director Eterio Ortega Santillana along with producer Elías Querejeta created this documentary/ reenactment using a combination of film footage along with voice-over actors to capture speeches of the time. The film was a product of comprehensive research in consultation with Spanish historian Santos Juliá and involved much archival footage not often seen. The idea of matching voice-over actors to the speeches of the era seems to have been meticulous. It  involved detailed lip syncing, and outright lip reading where text was not available. The speeches of Delores Ibárruri ("La Pasionaria"), in particula, are fascinating done this way. Those of Francisco Franco are a little disconcerting. I have heard radio speeches of his before and the actor who played him in this case seemed to work hard to make them emotive. The film's attempt at a documentary without diatribe is relatively successful, although with the Spanish Civil War, a balanced presentation can still be an oxymoron in Spain.

      There is one scene in the documentary, however, that is both chilling and bizarre, and reflects one of the fundamental problems the Nationalist narrative had. Early on in the war, Franco had understood that he could employ the idea of a civil war as a "Crusade" against the un - godly, secular (democratically elected) Republic that he was attempting to overthrow. At the same time, given that this was 1936 and Fascism was a serious contender for a state model throughout Europe, the use of Fascist rhetoric and symbology was attractive to all would - be dictators.When Franco speaks of "España totalitaria", he is speaking of a systematic, top - down, corporatist, Fascist world. But beyond the fact that German and Italian governments were funding his effort in 1936, Franco realized this combination worked as a mobilization tool that would aid in his vision of National Catholicism (think National Socialism).Nevertheless, to wed the conservative Church to Fascism, with it's clearly paganist imagery, was awkward.

      Even if you don't understand Spanish, there is footage near the end of the film that is striking. At one point in the midst of a celebratory mass for their great victory, Nationalist supporters try to kneel before a priest giving communion, while at the same time giving the Fascist, straight-arm salute. It is the equivalent of trying to pat your head and rub your stomach at the same time. Or more to the point, it doesn't work. This isn't to say that in it's approach to Fascism the Church hierarchy didn't bend, but between them and the Fascists, they just could not figure out which "god" to whom they were paying homage. That scene alone is worth the whole film. 

The time is right

        When it comes to blogging, I know nothing. But that is not necessarily a disadvantageous place to be. After all, we sit down at the computer with maybe 1/10,000 of an idea in our heads and we publish without a second thought. It is so easy now and it feels as if you are broadcasting to the world. But, of course, you're not. You're publishing to a select few, who deem you worthy to scan over during their busy day..I think, however,none of that matters much. I think that the point is to write and not stop.
      Nietzsche would have loved and hated the internet at the same time. He would have disparaged the Neanderthals who had access, but he would have loved that each individual could bring to the front their own special essence. I just finished grading a short essay by a student who understood more about Nietzsche than most of the books I have read about his work.She said,  “Nietzsche advocates for a person to be an individual and throw away their mental filter of morality..” She understands that it is up to her to be moral.But really what it means for her is to become herself.  It is up to her to be the best person she can be. But at the same time, this does not mean she should define herself by a prescribe social morality. I am astounded daily by people who do not realize their own power.