speech

Be Angry at the Sun

~ Frank Hudson ~ 1 Comment

I completed the off-the-cuff recording of my musical performance of this Robinson Jeffers poem a few days ago, but it’s taken me awhile to figure out what I wanted to say about my encounter with it, and secondarily how you, my valued readers and listeners, might receive it. In “Be Angry at the Sun”  Jeffers is ostensibly writing a poem, but it seems he wants to give a political speech about political speech. TL:DNR, he’s not a fan. Here’s a link to the full text of Jeffers’ poem, but since he’s writing about speech, I thought it might best be heard.

I sometimes make rock music, but like my spouse, Jeffers knew how to build with stone, constructing his own castle-like home from local seaside rocks.

.

Politics and poetry mix and don’t. Politicians will quote poems. A few poets (or diverted poets) have run for, even obtained public office. Personal political engagement by poets is likely no more rare than political engagement by nurses, baristas, bookkeepers, or shopkeepers. In my foray into social media* during the past year or so, I’ve often found an expectation that any posting poet or writer should declare their stance and allegiances.

Let me admit a reluctance to do so. My reaction is internal and perhaps odd: it feels like those calls to the pulpit at a Protestant Christian tent revival or Billy Graham’s mid-20th century adaptation of them to the TV age. It’s not oversimplified to be summarized thusly: make a simple public declaration in your acceptance of Jesus as your savior, and by that simple act, your soul’s continuous existence and the worthiness of your life has been assured. There are usually sub-clauses to that declaration: you will be expected to perform acts consistent with it. How consistent must those acts be with the declaration? Empirically, it varies considerably, which to my outlook makes the insistence and importance of the declaration problematic.

Now, some who read this may be Protestant Christians. You are welcome here. Your outlook, your understanding, your lives, may find nothing troubling about that act. I believe I understand your beliefs there fairly well. Long time readers here will know that myself and two other voices you’ve heard here are “PKs” (Preacher’s Kids). We literally grew up with variations of Protestant Christianity.

I also grew up with politics. I proudly wore my Stevenson campaign button as a grade-schooler. I participated at low-levels with campaigns for office and issues quixotic and successful for decades. I’ve been to political conventions. So, to you the readership here that are politically engaged: I have some understanding of your actions there.

So why this particular Robinson Jeffers poem, and why do I find it problematic yet worthy of considering today? Long-time readers may recall one of the poetic maxims I’ve expressed here: poems aren’t just about a message, an idea the poem wishes to express — they are more about how it feels to experience that idea, the sensations of the moment.

I was attracted to the Jeffers poem because I recognized that moment, that feeling. Perhaps you do to. I’ve been living in it this week: politicians and jurists seeming to speak as political operatives have increased my disgust. And this is not because (as Jeffers, the poet I’m voicing today, might believe) that politics is essentially dirty, though Jeffers and I will agree it’s humanly imperfect. Jeffers wrote this poem in the run-up to WWII. Unsaid within the poem, he’s specifically knocking Franklin Roosevelt,** a great and consequential American President, but he’s another of those Modernists who seems to have had, if not full-fledged admiration for fascism, at least a belief that it was no worse than other existing political schemes. There’s a lesson here: those who believe that politics is exploitative, dirty, always disreputable, will be drawn to or tolerate the belief that it’s best handled by leaders who revel in that themselves — the dirty men who will handle the dirty job, while we can stay clean sweet-smelling artists. Stone, not ivory tower in Jeffers case, but the same idea.

So, as you listen to my performance of Jeffers poem about politics and political speech, know my aim is to say that if you feel pain and disgust at what you’re hearing and seeing, I feel it too. Best as I can tell, I don’t share Jeffers prescription and proscription for politics, but in the world of today’s poem and my expression of it, I’m saying if you despair: you’re likely just one person, one citizen, someone without extraordinary powers. Your choices, your actions alone didn’t cause our country and our world to be in this state. How do we turn our nation away from letting the dirty men to do dirty jobs from being left unfettered? I’m a composer and writer, I can’t say I know more than a nurse, barista, bookkeeper, or shopkeeper.

Audio player gadget below for most of you. Is your sub-caucus not seeing any player? This highlighted link will open a new tab with it’s own audio player.

.

*I’ve given in and now post on short-post-format social media after eschewing it for a decade or more. It’s been good and bad. Like poetry, it lets me practice reigning in my long-windedness; and I can engage in it when distractions abound. Alas, it becomes its own distraction when I do have longer blocks of time or energy. In theory, like poetry, it could be complex while being concise. In practice, it’s mostly superficial —something one can relax with when needed —but that “just give me a momentary diversion while I scroll through my timeline” expectation stunts it.

**To those who might want to remind me of FDR’s faults and bad acts. I have long had a strong interest in history. I know of them.

The Poet’s Voice

~ Frank Hudson ~ 3 Comments

Stick with me here valued audience. I know awards speeches are not a popular genre. First off, everyone watching has just lost except for the speaker—not just the tuxedos in the hall, but anyone watching at home who aren’t important enough to be invited to the event. So maybe it’s safest to thank others effusively until your time is up and the music plays you off. A choice to make other points can be ineffective.

Yet, this isn’t the first time I’ve used an awards speech as the text for a piece, though the other two times they were speeches by actors, David Harbour and Viola Davis. Both of those speeches made claims about the value of dramatic art: Harbour making the claim that we may use make-believe heroes to inspire us to do necessary things, and Davis testifying that art, because it includes the illuminated communication of intense human experience, is the only complete way to explore humanity.

The Nobel Prize award requests an acceptance “lecture,” which sounds more high-falutin and boring than an acceptance speech. The literature winners often take the bait and tell us something about the value of their art—but it just so happens that I’m listening for that right now, because I’m not sure about the value of the arts of poetry or music, the things this project is made of, in the midst of this year’s multiple crises: a pandemic, an economic downturn that I fear we haven’t sounded the bottom of, a king of misrule, and a tragic occasion to consider remedies to racial oppression. When I talked about these things this week with friends, they reminded me, “And we haven’t even talked about global warming lately.”

The first section of today’s piece is taken from William Faulkner’s 1949 Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Even a couple of decades later his statement was much loved in liberal arts departments as I was getting in touch with them in “The Sixties,” because we still hadn’t gotten over the fear we talk even less about: global atomic warfare destruction. Faulkner was a wordsmith to reckon with, even if he couldn’t figure out the plot of Raymond Chandler’s The Big Sleep.*  When I looked back at his speech this month, the line I open up with today grabbed me in 2020 as much or more than it would have back in the mid-20th century:

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it.”

Don’t misread the end of that sentence. He is saying we can bear that fear (his contemporary fears, and ours) and go on writing. One may raise their hand before the Nobel-Dynamite-Prize winner Faulkner and ask: “Well, yes I suppose we could. But shouldn’t we be doing something else instead? A lot of people’s survival is at stake.”

The next section I quote from Faulkner’s speech tries to answer that. It’s a fine piece of writing too. If one abstracts the thought from the rhetoric, he’s saying that we have jobs in relationship to those that will be doing something else instead. This is akin to Viola Davis’ argument about art: no position paper, resolution, or negotiating point can fully connect one heart with another, and no struggle can see its way without full illumination of the human experience.

Is Faulkner right about that? I don’t know. It may not be right for you, but it’s a plausible idea for an old man like myself, one who lacks the social cohesion to build a barricade and the bravery to mount and advance over it.

Faulkner Stamp

An example of writers not being much good at other jobs, Faulkner was bad when given a job as a postmaster. His resignation letter read: “As long as I live under the capitalistic system, I expect to have my life influenced by the demands of moneyed people. But I will be damned if I propose to be at the beck and call of every itinerant scoundrel who has two cents to invest in a postage stamp.” The Postal Service had its revenge in 1987. Faulkner’s price had risen by 20 cents.

 

The concluding statement in today’s piece is from another American Nobel Literature prize winner’s “lecture,” Bob Dylan’s. The inspiration for this came from a gift Dave Moore gave me this month, a small, handsome book containing Dylan’s lecture. When Dylan won the Literature prize there was a great deal of consternation that what he did wasn’t literature, possibly also not very good, but for sure not literature. Some commentators seemed to feel that poetry might not even qualify, wondering what novels he had written.** But never mind, song lyrics can’t be poetry can they?

In the concluding part of his speech Dylan cleverly concedes that point, and then collapses his wings around those objecting that performed oral poetry is not literature. That’s books, stuff written and read on paper. Suddenly they are surrounded with no retreat. Shakespeare*** wrote for voices and audiences in common. We only know his plays in page form from bootleg tapers. Songs, music, are like that too. They are alive, they live on the currents of breath. Literature is an artifact—a voice is the art, a song is the immediate fact of an experience. I, you, anyone, can doubt art in its absence, in silence—while fear likes that space just fine. But while a song is sounding in your breath and ear, doubt is beside the point. “Songs are alive in the land of the living” Dylan proclaims.

My performance mashing up these quotes from the two Nobel Prize speeches accompanied by my own music can be heard with the player below. If you’d like to read the entirety of these two speeches, Faulkner’s text is here, and Dylan’s is here (with a link to his own audio reading).

 

 

 

*A Hollywood anecdote had Faulkner, who was working as screenwriter for hire in the 1940s, getting stumped about the famously convoluted plot of Chandler’s detective novel he was adapting for a classic 1946 movie. A point about an early murder that deepens the plot was unclear. “Yes, but who killed General Sternwood’s chauffeur?” he queried. Chandler replied: “Dammit, I don’t know either.”

**I found it interesting that novelist Faulkner more than once refers to poets as he speaks about the writer’s task in his speech.

***And Dylan closes with Homer, the blind one in the silence of sight, who didn’t ask the muses for paper but the music to tell the story.

Artists Hunting Monsters

~ Frank Hudson ~ 1 Comment

The motto of the Parlando Project is “The Place Where Music and Words Meet,” but in practice it has been the place where music and poetry meet.  However, just as I want variety in the music used (within the limits of the musician’s talents) I don’t plan to always use poetry for the texts here. Today’s post is an example. I’m going to use a short public speech, but as I have done with poetry in other episodes, I’m going to treat the words as if they are specifically meaningful, and I’m going to treat those words as if they want to sing.

We are also continuing the investigation of artists and politics, something I’ve touched on several times already this winter.

A few days ago, a cast of actors received an award, and the actor acting as spokesmen for the cast delivered the acceptance speech. Though not entirely a political speech, it was received as one, and it was almost certainly intended to make a political point.

The actor, David Harbour, was speaking for the cast of a series available on Netflix called “Stranger Things.” That show is a sort of bumblebee. Like the famously un-aerodynamic bee, it shouldn’t fly, but it does.“Stranger Things” is a show that uses tropes of 1980s movies and books to tell a story set in that same decade. It should be a winking meta exercise where you spend more time noting the references than to the story itself, or a dreary “I’ve seen this one before” drama that plays as an unoriginal re-hash of ready-made plot points and incidents. Perhaps for some viewers it is one of those things, but for many viewers it’s an ingenious contradiction of all the ways it could fail, doesn’t, and instead flies.

bumblebee flying2

I read on the Internet this is supposed to work!

As an actor, Harbour was part of that levitation. In his acceptance speech, he makes a choice as doomed to fail as the concept of “Stranger Things.”  In his awards-banquet tuxedo, standing in front of an audience of actors, he gives his acceptance speech more-or-less in the person of his character, a gruff, down-on-his-heels Midwestern town sheriff.

What’s the percentages on this working? First off, actors are not their characters, often not even close. Humphrey Bogart wasn’t a grizzled tough guy, he was the son of a cardiac surgeon who grew up upper-middle class. John Wayne was a football player and son of a dirt farmer, not a cowboy or a military man. Actors themselves would know this more than anyone else. Secondly, whatever audience size “Stranger Things” has, that audience isn’t everyone. Will folks who haven’t watched “Stranger Things” get your message if it references tropes from your series?

Well, like the series, like the bumblebee, Harbour’s speech worked in the room none-the-less. You can view that short speech and the reaction here.

In turning this speech into today’s post, “Artists Hunting Monsters,” I changed a few things. First off, the video I first saw after the event did not include his prelude to the words I ended up using. In the part I didn’t have while composing, Harbour talks eloquently about his view of an artist’s role today. In editing the words I did have, sifting them down, and dressing them with music, I choose to universalize his rhetoric to the degree I could, so that even those who haven’t seen “Stranger Things” would have access the message; and in so doing, I changed things to address the role of artists in general, not only the actors that were his present audience.

I’m once more going to violate a principle I thought I would hold to here, and “explain” the text. Harbour, and my selection and recasting of his text, says that an artists’ job, an artist’s calling, is to offer succor to the disenfranchised: to show with our artifice, truth; with our play fighting, successful struggle; with our imagined detectives, the underlying monster.  It’s a call to arms for artists to pick up blunted stage-swords and to deploy magnifying metaphors against oppressive decisions, systems and persons.

How did I speak with the music? Well, I won’t be so bold as to dance about that architecture. The main melodic line is a guitar played with an Ebow, a device that drives an individual guitar string into a cycle of feedback where it sustains with increasing volume until the device is moved away from the string. As the name implies it, it can mimic the sound of a bowed instrument, but that increasing volume feedback loop takes some finesse to manage. The secondary electric guitar line that emerges about halfway into the piece is a guitar feeding back with an amplifier, an even more chaotic effect. I was playing that part live in the main tracking session with bass, drums, and keyboards and was trying to get to the feedback “spot” with the guitar, but mics and other stuff were in the way, and it wasn’t until the track was nearly over that I finally got it to howl properly. And so, I was “hunting monsters” during the main tracking session for recording this piece.

Ebow on Telecaster

This guitar D string is about to find out how bumblebees fly

Before we leave the music part, did you know that the way the bumblebee flies is the way those guitar strings vibrate?

There are still questions left to examine on the role of the arts, and more Parlando Project expressions of music meeting up with words to be posted here in the upcoming months. If you would like to be notified about these new pieces when they are posted, you can click  the little orange “RSS – Posts” icon down on the right side of this post. To hear the LYL Band perform “Artists Hunting Monsters”, use the player you should see just below.