Paestinian Shame

There are many times where the term “wrong side of history” is used, but it is still a valid term, it is not an overused term, particularly when it comes to important events in history. A recent event that qualifies to have the term applied to it is the vote that took place in the United Nations to grant the embattled Palestinian Authority the status of “non-member observer state” in the United Nations. This would not give them the full status of a “member nation” like the United States, or Canada, but it would allow them to join other UN agencies, and more importantly, eventually bring cases to the International Criminal Court.

The vote in the United Nations took place sixty-five years after the historic partition of the British ruled territory that became Israel, but which was also supposed to become an Arab controlled nation; the nation of Palestine. The treaty has been broken from the first, and it is time for Palestine to be born. One hundred and thirty-eight nations decided that giving Palestine the stylus of a “non-member observer state” was the least that they could do at this time, while perhaps being a token, it was also the right thing; they recognised that the Palestinian people have been living under an apartheid rule, living under the threat of Israeli aggression at the slightest provocation. Guns answering rocks, bombs being dropped on unarmed civilians, and refugees languishing in camps for generations hardly seems like the fair observation of a treaty.

Instead of having the ambassador to the United Nations from Canada speak, the Foreign Minister himself, John Baird, decided to take it upon himself to travel to New York and personally address the UN on this matter. Rather than supporting the idea that Palestine deserved to have a greater voice in the international community, Canada’s Foreign Minister chose to be a vocal opponent to the vote. Canada's Foreign Minister chose to stand on the wrong side of history.

“This resolution will not advance the cause of peace or spur a return to negotiations. Will the Palestinian people be better off as a result? No, on the contrary, this unilateral step will harden positions and raised unrealistic expectations.” (Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird; Delivered at the UN, Thursday, Nov. 30, 2012)

If by “unrealistic expectations” Mr Baird is referring to the idea that the Palestinians might call on the international criminal court at some point, perhaps he is correct; the ICC tends to be slow to judgement, but that is no reason to deny the Palestinians admission to the United Nations, even if it is not a full member status. The fact that Canada, particularly under the leadership of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has reiterated its staunch support of Israel and its policies regarding the Palestinians does not mean that the government must deny the Palestinian people representation in the United Nations. In fact, equality for the Palestinians would benefit both them and the Israelis. People who are equal, people who have the dignity of knowing that neither is being discriminated against, are less likely to take up irrational, violent acts, in order to make the point that could better be made politically.

How many violent acts have the Irish Republican Army committed since the issues in Ireland were dealt with politically? If you ignore the problems they do not go away on their own; they will not go away unless they are dealt with one way or the other. Some people believe that they can be dealt with through violence, something many people abhor, but it is used nonetheless. If Palestine were recognised as a state, and the rights of the people were recognised and respected, is it not conceivable that many of the problems being experienced in that part of the world would no longer be an issue? What are the causes of the problems today? People building houses, settlements, on land that is supposed to belong to the Palestinians; unlawful arrests and attainments; blockades of medicine; people being prevented to go to work because they cannot cross checkpoints; and other things that degrade and humiliate the population living within the Palestinian Authority.

Human dignity is being denied these people, and nine nations voted against giving them “non-member observer state” status in the United Nations. Those nine nations are on the wrong side of history. Canada, the United States, Israel, Panama, Palau, the Marshal Islands, Nauru, the Czech Republic, and Micronesia: these nine nations are not only on the wrong side of history, they are cowardly, insensitive, and ignorant of the historic importance of this vote.

Forty-one nations decided not to vote for, or against the proposal to upgrade the Palestinian status. The motive for the abstention is curious, but neither here nor there: these nations chose to ignore the opportunity to grant another nation more rights. For some of the nations this might not seem like a difficult choice, especially when you consider a nation like Romania, or Albania, both of which have histories where suppressing their citizens is not uncommon. However, the United Kingdom also abstained, as did the Netherlands, which is quite confounding when you consider that both nations received tremendous damage during the Second World War, and are intimately familiar with the suffering associated with persecution. One would have thought that this knowledge would have made them more sensitive, more empathetic to the cause of the Palestinians.
                           
In the words of Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority:

“We did not come here seeking to delegitimatize a state established years ago, and that is Israel; rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of the state that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine. We did not come here to add further complications to the peace process, which Israel’s policies have thrown into the intensive care unit; rather we came to launch a final serious attempt to achieve peace. Our endeavour is not aimed at terminating what remains of the negotiations process, which has lost its objective and credibility, but rather aimed at trying to breathe new life into the negotiations and at setting a solid foundation for it based on the terms of reference of the relevant international resolutions in order for the negotiations to succeed.

“Every voice supporting our endeavour today is a most valuable voice of courage, and every state that grants support today to Palestine’s request for non-member observer state status is affirming its principled and moral support for freedom and the rights of peoples and international law and peace.” (Delivered at the UN, Thursday, Nov. 30, 2012)

In light of these words, and the recent peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, it only seems fair that diplomacy should be given the chance that it deserves, rather than pushing a military agenda against a mostly un-armed civilian population. The reply to the words by President Abbas was nothing less than scathing, dripping with hatred and menace, and they came from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

“The world watched a defamatory and venomous speech that was full of mendacious propaganda against the IDF and the citizens of Israel. Someone who wants peace does not talk in such a manner. ... The way to peace between Jerusalem and Ramallah is in direct negotiations, with out preconditions, and not in one sided UN decisions. By going to the UN, the Palestinians have violated the agreements with Israel, and Israel will act accordingly.” (Delivered at the UN, Thursday, Nov. 30, 2012)

One must ask, what does the Prime Minister mean by “acting accordingly”? After all, this was an act of peace, not an act of aggression; no one was killed, no missiles were launched, and no bombs were exploded. The United Nations is a diplomatic body, it is where peace is negotiated, it is where people go to negotiate treaties, it is where people go to have “peace talks” with their neighbours, and other nations. For the Prime Minister of Israel to assert that seeking “non-member observer state status” is some sort of precondition to the way the Palestinians will be addressing Israel in future negotiations is, in a word, delusional. One might want to remind Mr Netanyahu that even should the Palestinians become signatories of the Rome Statute, and therefore the International Criminal Court, Israel is not a signatory of the statute and does not fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

Perhaps Prime Minister Netanyahu is feeling a pang of conscience knowing that charges could well be brought against Israel in the ICC, but unless Israel decides to sign the Rome Statute, there is nothing to fear, just as the Goldstone Report had no binding powers against Israel when it indicated that war crimes had been committed against the Palestinian people during Operation Cast Lead in 2009.

Advancing the rights of Palestinians has nothing to do with religion, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not you support Israel as a nation. Israel will continue to exist, just as Palestine has a right to exist as well. This vote by 138 nations is an acknowledgement that a majority of the members of the United Nations agree that the status of Palestine should be increased. It is a recognition that the fact that there is something wrong in the “Holy Land” is obvious; the only question that remains is which side of history will you be on when the final lines are drawn.

Malcolm Forsyth: In Memoriam

When I first met Malcolm Forsyth at a concert of the Ottawa International Chamber Music Festival, several years ago, my first impression was that he was an exceedingly charming man, something that was immediately apparent when you listened to his music. That charm was something that persisted through to his last premiered work, A Ballad of Canada, a joint commission with the NACO and the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra, which was premiered at the National Arts Centre of Canada in June, and which I had the distinct honour of reviewing for this blog. At the time of that premiere, on the 9th and 10th of June it was not expected that Malcolm would be able to attend due to his the fact that he had already been battling pancreatic cancer for almost a year, but he beat the odds and, much to the delight of the audience, was on hand to accept the standing ovation at the end of a well prepared, extremely well crafted composition that will definitely become a treasure of the Canadian repertoire for chorus and orchestra.

The sad news that Malcolm Forsyth lost his battle with cancer on Tuesday, July 5th, at the age of 74 was announced yesterday. He died in the Royal Alexandra Hospital at 2:30am, only five months short of his 75th birthday. A Ballad of Canada will receive its second premiere on November 11th and 12th by the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra with the Richard Eaton Singers, but A Ballad of Canada is not Malcolm Forsyth’s last work, though it certainly is his final major composition. According to his daughter Amanda, an accomplished musician in her own right who serves as the principal ‘cellist of the National Arts Centre Orchestra, Malcolm composed an encore piece for her and her violinist-conductor husband, Pinchas Zukerman, the director of the NAC orchestra. The piece, entitled Bliss for Brahms, was written to be played at the end of Double Concerto for Violin and Violoncello by Johannes Brahms, which Forsyth and Zukerman will be performing in Israel at the end of July at which time they will premiere the Forsyth encore.

We often give the last words of a dying man more weight than what someone might say under normal circumstances, but what of composers who have defied death itself to continue to create, to strive against the impending darkness to continue to seek the elusive beauty that we endeavour to set down so future generations can enjoy the ideas that seemed so fugitive only moments before? For the brief moment that an idea exists in our minds, composers capture, collate, synthesize, and combine them into what will ultimately be transformed into something that others will want to listen to and perform; something that is called music. It is often said that composers do not retire, and nothing truer can be said about those who pursue this craft: how can you retire from something that consumes you, that defines you as an individual? How can you retire from your life? Malcolm Forsyth demonstrated this by living through his music, and by composing music that continues to live on long after his body has passed from this world. His enduring legacy will continue on through the decades he spent as a teacher of composition at the University of Alberta: composers cannot help but be influenced by the composers with whom they studied. Every work written by those who worked with Malcolm Forsyth will be, declared or not, a tribute to the man who has given so much through his music.

Even as this is being written my mind recalls various parts of the performance of A Ballad of Canada, especially the extremely evocative “Toll of the Bells” section, the second section of the second movement, which was simply breathtakingly beautiful, and the dramatic setting of “Flanders Fields” which will hopefully become something that is heard at every Remembrance Day service of the future. Unfortunately, nobody who is unable to attend the performances of A Ballad of Canada in Edmonton in November will be able to hear A Ballad of Canada, unless the CBC decides it is worthwhile to record the piece and broadcast it, sharing this great work with the rest of the country; something they did not believe was the case during the Ottawa premiere back in June.

Memories are wonderful, but not always faithful; having an opportunity to hear A Ballad of Canada performed again would be a treasured experience, one well worth having in honour of such a treasured Canadian icon. Having dedicated the last 42 years of his life to the Canadian music scene it is easy to say that Malcolm Forsyth was truly one of Canada’s great composers: he will be missed.

Malcolm Forsyth: a life in brief
Born on December 8, 1936 in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
Received his BMus in Composition in 1963 from the University of Cape Town.
Received his MMus (Cape Town) 1966.
Emigrated to Canada in 1968.
Received his DMus (Cape Town) 1972.
Taught at University of Edmonton, Faculty of Music for 34 years.
Performed in the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra as a trombonist for 11 years.
Won 3 Juno Awards, his third one in 1998 for Electra Rising: Concerto for Violoncello and Chamber Orchestra, which was composed for and performed by his daughter, Amanda Forsyth.
Named “Composer of the Year” by the Canadian Music Council in 1988.
In 2003 he received the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal and was invested as a member of the Order of Canada.

With information from the Edmonton Journal and The Canadian Encyclopedia.

A Ballad for Canada from a Canadian Treasure

Concert Review: NAC Orchestra, June 10, 2010, Southam Hall

Pinchas Zukerman, conductor
Ottawa Choral Society, Matthew Larkin, director
Cantata Singers of Ottawa, Michael Zaugg, director
Ottawa Festival Chorus, Laurence Ewashko, directors
Ottawa Regional Youth Choir, Kevin Reeves, director
Arianna Zukerman, soprano
Heather Johnson, mezzo-soprano
David Pomeroy, tenor
Christopher Temporelli, bass
Duain Wolfe, chorusmaster,
Laurence Ewashko, associate chorusmasters

by Peter Amsel

There are many reasons for a composer to write a new piece; some are inspired by love, some by the thought of a new season, others by a work of art, and then there is the commissioned work. When a work is commissioned it only means that the composer is getting paid upfront for the composition of the work and, even more importantly, especially to the composer, the work will be performed – usually before the death of the composer. That is the most important thing about the new work that was recently performed at the National Arts Centre of Canada for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the composer in question, Malcolm Forsyth, who will be celebrating his 75^th birthday on December 8 of this year, is in the final stage of an heroic battle with pancreatic cancer. He is dying, but his music, most definitely, is not; it is vibrantly alive and was enjoyed by two virtually sold out performances with the NAC Orchestra on Thursday and Friday, June 9 and 10, under the baton of Maestro Pinchas Zukerman, with four combined choirs of about 185 members under the direction of Grammy Award winning chorus master Duain Wolfe and associate chorus master Laurence Ewashko.

Malcolm Forsyth emigrated from his birth country of South Africa in 1968, relocating to his adopted home of Canada where he began a career teaching at the University of Edmonton. Last year, after spending decades as a fixture of Canadian music, the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra and the National Arts Centre Orchestra presented him with a joint commission with the challenge to compose an “iconically Canadian work” which, Forsyth recognized, was a strange request to make “from an immigrant”, but it was not, not really. Not when you consider the nature of Canadian music and the effects that outside influences have had on its development. There should be no cognitive dissonance at the thought of an immigrant to this nation composing an iconic Canadian work; after all, our national anthem was composed by a man who spent most of his professional life living in the United States. Calixa Lavallée, the composer of O Canada, died in Boston in 1891 where he had worked for several years. Malcolm Forsyth, Canada’s “Composer of the Year” in 1989, is more than qualified to compose a work representing Canada. The question is, is Canada willing to accept such a work?

While the central portion of A Ballad of Canada is entitled “Canada in Time of Trial”, when Forsyth got to the writing of the final movement it could well have been called “Composer in Time of Trial”. He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer: this could well be the last piece he composed. The battle was on. Composing became a salve, a form of therapy, and a reason to fight to survive, and he did just that: he survived. It is not always obvious what a composer is feeling based on how their music sounds: a composer that is feeling depressed does not necessarily write maudlin, dark sounding or turgid music. A Ballad of Canada is not morbid music, nor is it music that sounds as though its creator is prepared to give up the ghost. This is music that reflects a vital spirit; a questing, curious mind that still has a great deal to explore and experience through the sounds that there are to lay down on the page. Malcolm Forsyth is not prepared to go quietly into the night, not with A Ballad of Canada.

It would seem, as evidenced by Forsyth’s work, that being Canadian is more than about birth; it is about pride of place, and about a genuine love of the land. These things were abundantly present in his new work for choir and orchestra, which features the poetry of four poets in its five sections, which are divided into three movements. The first movement of the piece and the final movement each contain one section, based on poems by Ralph Gustafson (1909-1995) and E.J. Pratt (1882-1964). These outer movements represent “The Land” of Canada, with the first representing the Yukon through Gustafson’s evocative text and the fifth representing Newfoundland in one of the most interesting texts of the piece.

The central portion of the composition is entitled “Canada in Time of Trial” and focuses on Canada during war. The first of the three sections takes on one of the truly iconic poems of Canadian history, “In Flanders Fields” by John McCrae (1872-1918). Every schoolchild grows up learning this poem, and learning that McCrae died shortly after having set it down on paper, so choosing to set such a well known text was truly a bold move, but it was a risk worth taking: the composition demanded a strong text. The first emotional climaxes, if the rousing setting of “In Flanders Fields” was not enough for the audience, truly comes in the third part of the piece, or the second section of the second movement: “The Toll of the Bells” by E.J. Pratt. While this is the shortest of the movements, it is stunningly beautiful and was truly one of the highlights of the night. One of the poems used in the composition was written especially for the work, by poet Carl Hare (b.1932 - ). His poem, “On the Waverly Road Bridge” portrays the emotional confrontation between two mothers during the funeral procession along higway 401.

As a composition there is much to laud in A Ballad of Canada, especially the evocative “Toll of the Bells” and Forsyth’s truly exceptional setting of the almost over-known “In Flanders Fields”. When a text is as well known as “Flanders” it is difficult to do something that does not sound contrived or cliché, but Forsyth’s handling of that section is anything but – it is the consummation of a career as a composer that shows a man who, though declining physically, retains the faculties that makes him one of Canada’s living treasures. Unfortunately the concert was not recorded by CBC Radio for broadcast to the nation so there will not be a chance for the public to hear a work that should become part of the Canadian repertoire. It is truly sad when the cost of a production is put ahead of the value of the preservation of our cultural treasures, particularly when one is as influential as Malcolm Forsyth. Hopefully the CBC will realize that A Ballad of Canada is something that Canada deserves to hear and they will record the Edmonton premiere in November.

One of the reasons that concerts have been declared obsolete by some is the fact that with recordings it is possible to create your own listening experience, whenever you desire, including the ability to listen to a composition over again if you want to hear something more than once. Unfortunately, when you take the live performance out of the equation you lose the opportunity to see certain things, things like over 180 choir members standing on risers at the back of the stage, or an expanded NAC orchestra assembled for the performance of the Forsyth, and the Beethoven in the second half of the concert. You would also miss the opportunity to see the composer receive acknowledgement for their work when the performance was concluded, as it was on Friday when the crowd rose to its feet for several minutes of a prolonged standing ovation for Malcolm Forsyth who waved repeatedly to the orchestra, choir and the audience from the Royal Box in which he had been seated.

If the measure of a piece of music is whether or not you want to hear it again then A Ballad of Canada is, indeed, a piece of music that may be great. At the intermission of the concert the first thing that went through my mind was that I wanted to hear certain parts of the piece again, especially the evocative “Toll of the Bells”, but, in truth, the entire piece is well worth exploring for the richness of Forsyth’s orchestral palette and his deft use of colour throughout the piece. Forsyth was definitely not out of his element in his use of the choir. Unfortunately, there were times when the choirs were slightly out of their element in the performance of the Forsyth.

The greatest issue of the evening, and the issue that struck at the performance of Beethoven’s iconic Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Op. 125, seemed to be an issue of size. There is a perverse assumption in music that “size matters”, and that “bigger is better”, but this is not necessarily the case, not when it comes to assembling large amounts of singers for large choral events. A Ballad of Canada is sung in English but, at times, you would hardly recognize this fact given the diction of the massed voices. This is not the fault of the setting of the text, something that I can say with assurance for having seen the score: the text is well set, with opportunities for it to be declared clearly. So, who is to blame? Since Forsyth used an expanded orchestration it was decided to expand the rest of the orchestra: the string sections were bolstered with extra members which gave them a much fuller, warmer sound. The choirs, however, were another story. Perhaps it was just that there were too many choristers, or that a few were off the mark, but there were too many places where the clarity of the enunciation was such that the text was simply obliterated. Were it not for the printed text in the programme, it would have been difficult to follow the progression of the piece.

This was especially evident in the choral finale to the Beethoven’s 9^th Symphony. For most people all one need do is say, “Ode to Joy” and the famous melodic motif that Beethoven immortalized in his work will be heard, hummed and whistled by those who profess to “not know anything” about classical music. It is a piece of music that has entered the collective consciousness of our civilization. It has been performed by choruses of thousands, with diction that would put the Vienna Boys Choir to shame, so why so much trouble for 180-or-so odd singers? Why indeed. Quite simply, size does matter. Too many singers, when there are too many amateurs who are not fully up to the task of what Beethoven wrote, add up to a performance that sounds like a professional orchestra married to an amateur chorus. It does not sound like a concert at the National Arts Centre; it sounds like the National Arts Centre Orchestra that suddenly brings on a choir of enthusiastic people who, knowing how the music goes, volunteer to sing the finale because they happen to have the right outfits for the concert.

In actual fact the finale was not as bad as that may sound, though there were some truly dreadful moments in the choral singing, there were some very nice “toneful” moments as well, when the tone of the amassed singers was quite lovely, though it was virtually impossible to make out any text other than the word “Freude” and “Elysium”. Granted, singing in German is never an easy thing to do for English speakers, it is something that singers do on a regular basis; it is part of the craft of singing. Making excuses that “the language is difficult” is simply not acceptable when the piece on the program is in German. Singing in a choir often requires one to sing in foreign languages, it is part of the challenge of choral singing so that excuse is not at all acceptable.

What the finale may have lacked in diction, it made up for with its enthusiasm, from the orchestra and vocal soloists, to a fairly entertaining performance by Maestro Zukerman who seemed to have lost all inhibition in the epic battle between Beethoven’s sonic world and the temporal, in which he stood, waving his arms about like an off-kilter windmill being assaulted by a demented Don riding a burro. It was, in effect, with apologies to Dickens, the best of movements and the worst of movements. The first movement, with its ethereal opening over the sustained pedal, was a bit harried and unfocused in its direction. There was such a long pause between the first and second movement that the opening of the rousing scherzo, which begins with a driving dotted-quarter note, eighth note, quarter note motif, lost all of the dramatic impact that the beginning of the movement can have, if it begins immediately after the end of the first. As a result, it fell flat, seeming to be totally without context to what had just come before. Truly however, one of the highlights of the performance was the orchestra’s rendering of the theme and variations in the third movement, which Pinchas Zukerman conducted with as little interference as possible, allowing the orchestra to play as they had been rehearsed, with confidence and clarity of vision. Throughout this movement the individual voices of the orchestra could be heard at their finest, making the listener long for opportunities to hear these performers in similar situations. The principal players were each brilliantly represented as Beethoven wove his web of variations and the strings of the orchestra, with the extra players, provided a lush sound that one could easily get used to hearing from the stage at the NAC.

Unfortunately, that was the end of most of the cohesiveness for the evening. It was a sign of musical laziness that brought things to a crashing halt at this point. When Beethoven’s 9^th Symphony is performed there is often the question as to what to do with the soloists and the choir. It is obviously too much of a distraction to have over one hundred voices march onto the stage after about 50 minutes of music, to join the final 20 minutes of the piece, right? But what about the quartet of vocal soloists who sit at the front of the stage? Should they be made to sit there through the entire orchestral work, waiting for their short time in the spotlight? After hearing the long break that takes place when the four singers in Friday’s performance came onto the stage it is without reservation that this reviewer’s opinion is that yes, the quartet should be onstage for the entire performance. They are performers; it is part of their job. To take such a break between the sublime slow movement and the beginning of the finale is, in a word, idiotic. Unless there is a compelling reason that would prevent one of the singers from sitting still for 50 minutes, it seem incongruous that the soloists should not be able to tolerate such an ordeal. In consideration to the fact that 50 minutes may be too long for some people to sit on the stage, it would have been much less disruptive to the performance for the soloists to come out onto the stage after the scherzo movement. Sitting through the third movement, which is not overly long, would have greatly aided the flow of the performance.

The soloists of the evening made for an interesting group; led by Christopher Temporelli, who presented the opening bass recitative with confidence and panache, his voice filling Southam Hall at the NAC with an ease that one rarely hears with the lower voices. The same, unfortunately, could not be said for tenor David Pomeroy, who suffered from an insensitive accompanist in the form of Maestro Zukerman who ran over him with the orchestra and choruses. Pomeroy’s sweet voice, heard at the opening of his “Froh, wie seine Sonnen ...” (Happy as the sun flying ...), was quickly drowned out by the crescendo of the orchestra and choir, which is really unfortunate. Some singers love to sing Beethoven, while others hate him, and the reason for this is simple: Beethoven composed for the voice as though he was composing for any other orchestral instrument, which means the voice is not necessarily treated in a very characteristic manner. Beethoven’s vocal music does not fall into the category of what is commonly called the “Bel Canto” style that was so beloved among lovers of the opera of the day. The “beautiful singing” for which the “Bel Canto” is not something that Beethoven was concerned with when he composed for the voice; when Beethoven wrote he was only interested in having the voices perform just as if they were any other instrument in the orchestral force at his disposal. As a result, Beethoven’s vocal music is not always very easy to sing, especially when it comes to the community choirs that are invariably called upon for performances of the Choral Symphony. Performing this music takes a great deal of technical accomplishment and dedication from the singers; it is both challenging technically and musically.

Soprano Arianna Zukerman and mezzo-soprano Heather Johnson made the best of a difficult situation by rising above the assembled forces without sounding overly harassed. Heather Johnson’s tone was especially fine in the quartet portions of the finale. The final choral sections of finale was especially rousing, with the orchestral forces and the choirs coming together in time to find their way to a rousing finish that did not fail to satisfy any of those in attendance at the concert. Was this a performance that would withstand the fine scrutiny of multiple listenings? That is a question for the individual audience member, but it is not one which I would choose to replace any of the recordings that presently inhabit my Mp3 player. The audience at the NAC was, however, more than appreciative and for the second time that evening offered a standing ovation to the orchestra, chorus, and their leaders.

All music lovers should have an opportunity to hear a performance of Beethoven’s infamous and historic Choral Symphony at least once in their lives. It is the type of piece that fights the boundaries of a recording device, it defies the limits of a disc, whatever its dimensions. Seeing hundreds of musicians gathered together with a single purpose, particularly in the spectacular finale, you cannot help but be moved, and this performance, even with its imperfections, did just that. It may not have been the ideal performance, it may not have been a gem that will be cherished forever, but it will be the one that is dreamt about for it is the only one that is real.


The Edmonton premiere of A Ballad of Canada will take place under the baton of William Eddins on November 12, 2011, with the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra.
Peter Amsel is an Ottawa based composer and writer.

The Trouble with Remembrance

Once again the day that has been set aside for us to remember those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of freedom is upon us and I am left with an uneasy feeling: what, exactly, are we remembering these days?

While it has never fallen upon me to take up arms to defend my country (for which all Canadians should be grateful as my skills are surely best served without things like an M24 in my hands … though it does have an interesting appeal at times) I have always observed Remembrance Day with a sense of solemnity, making a point – wherever possible – to watch the services from the National Memorial which is always broadcast on television.

The thing that has triggered my question this day stems from the modern face of war and the ways in which we have managed to sweep aside the conflicts in the name of political expediency. We do not want to offend our neighbours to the south, I’m sure, so in the service today you won’t hear (I’m quite sure – this is being written before they take place) any condemnations of the “immoral” or “illegal” war that is currently taking place. You won’t hear a single word spoken about the war of “revenge” and “retribution” that has cost now more American lives than the acts of terrorism that, ostensibly, caused them to be started. God forbid we should remember those who have been killed in this unholy war.

When the various ministers pray today we will not hear them plead to God for the nations that posses the wherewithal to intercede in the ongoing genocide taking place in Darfur to extract their heads from their stinking self-interests and begin the job of serving humanity rather than paying lip-service to lobbyists representing the special interest groups that have dictated everything that appears on the government agenda.

So what are we remembering this November 11th? Those soldiers who were killed in the great war of royal insanity; a war triggered by the assassination of an insignificant member of a family significant only for the fact that democracy had not visited itself upon the “empire”. The fact that this sparked a conflagration that sucked in virtually the entire world is testament to the fact that humanity is virtually incapable of standing idly by when a good fight is taking place.

Are we remembering the 69th anniversary of Krystalnacht (Nov. 9th), the millions of Jews, Russians, Poles, Hungarians, homosexuals, disabled people and other “untermenschen” that the Nazis murdered in the concentration camps, or are we only remembering the soldiers? Frankly, I have never been able to remember the one without the other: the great sacrifice paid by the soldiers must be remembered, to be sure, but dare we forget the victims of what began as a democratically elected government?

The “police action” of Korea – a war that, to this day, technically has not officially ended (a cease fire doth not a treaty make).

Which (if we exclude Vietnam which Canada didn’t “officially” participate in) brings us to the “current” conflicts. The peace keeping efforts in which Canadians have died are numerous and, alas, truly worth remembering.

It has always made me smile (and proud to be Canadian) when I think that those blue-bereted UN Peacekeepers exist because of a Canadian proposal and that Canadians have served in virtually every peacekeeping mission since the inception of the force in 1956, at the suggestion of then diplomat and future Prime Minister of Canada, Lester Pearson.

Our nation has a proud one of being there when it counts, when we are outnumbered and outgunned; but time and again Canadian soldiers have fought with tremendous courage and valour that belies the size of the forces deployed. Not willing to be the sacrificial lambs tossed into the waiting jaws of death, Canadian servicemen consistently demonstrated that they were more than “up to the task” of dealing with the enemies that were laying in wait for them. The roles played by Canadians in WWI and WWII, in which a combined number of over 100,000 died, is a terrible reminder of the costs of war.

Perhaps on this Remembrance Day it would have been fitting for the Chaplin to have summoned the courage to speak words that truly reflect the gravitas of the times in which we live rather than serving up the piece of ecumenical pap that was broadcast across this great nation. In closing I am now going to do something that I do not normally do in this blog – I am going to openly pray. If this is offensive to you, scroll down to the end of the post to see the final pictures of the poppies (my own photos) that are included in this post.

Heavenly Father, we gather here today
to remember those who paid
the ultimate sacrifice so that we may live in this land
with the freedoms that we enjoy on a daily basis.
Lord, we ask you to forgive us;
for we have squandered the great price
that these brave young men and women
offered through the letting of their own blood,
just as we often squander the gifts that
You have given to us when do not live
in peace with our neighbours.

We pray, Lord, that even while we remember
those who have fallen in past conflicts
You would raise up a force that would prevent
the further loss of life in places like Darfur, and that
You would put an end to the meaningless conflict
that is being fought in Iraq.

We pray for our Peacekeepers, Oh Lord,
not only in Afghanistan but wherever
their services may be needed,
even unto the ends of the earth.
Above all else, we pray for peace
in every corner of the world;
in all of Africa and Asia,
in all nations that see each other as enemy
rather than brother and sister,
and within each nation as well,
that every conflict may be settled by
the simple word of love.
This I pray in the precious name of Jesus,
Y’shua HaMoshiach; Amen.

Cyber-Censorship or Cyber-Sensible?

Some readers out there in the nebulous ether may have wondered at some point as to why the comments they submitted to this blog have not appeared. The answers are not difficult to understand, but after a long absence from the blogesphere I find that this issue has provided me with an opportunity – and the requisite inspiration – to return to the matter blogging after my prolonged absence. By way of offering an explanation to the missing comments I would like to offer an abridged history of my personal relationship with this grand experiment called the Internet, to provide some element of context for my feelings on this matter.

My first experiences with the Internet came long before the word “blog” entered our vocabulary; I spent many an hour reading the Usenet groups, posting to “threads” and, at times, getting “flamed” by the ubiquitous “trolls” that took great delight in preying on anyone they perceived to be susceptible to their venomous attacks. At the time it was the best that I could access through my FreeNet connection, but I wasn’t complaining … the operative word, after all, was that my Internet access was free. The drawbacks associated with this type of access, however, were quick to become evident to anyone who frequented the Usenet groups with any regularity: the “trolls” were not, as previously believed, completely toothless, nor were they the mindless evil creeps that many believed them to be … they were far more insidious than had been imagined, as well as being quite creative in their viciousness and irrational desire to destroy their online targets.

As in the real world, the Internet is populated with a wide variety of individuals, many of whom seem to not be guided by the same moral codes that the rest of us chose to live by; it is a world where bullies exist in reality, where their avatars seek to wreck havoc on susceptible targets in the unseen world of faceless anonymity. While the emerging architecture of the Internet was being celebrated as the ultimate expression of free speech at its best there were already signs that this “freedom” was going to be followed by several asterisks, signs delineating the necessary comments on the ways in which “free speech” has been used – and abused – by the finest American lawyers in order to protect the purveyors of hatred, racism, misogyny and other things that quickly found a home in the darkest depths of the Internet.

The borderless nature of this international community that can be called the “Net” implies a citizenry as diverse as the planet itself, and yet, real borders do exist. As much as we would like to imagine that the Internet is some wonderful egalitarian force working for the good of all, it is not; while it may have originated as an academic tool it has subsequently been usurped by the purveyors of the worst kinds of hatred, by exploitative materials, and by an endless stream of misinformation on virtually every imaginable topic. History is casually rewritten and posted with impunity as revisionists use any available opportunity to bolster their indefensible positions; the truth, as represented by the “Net”, should now be accompanied by disclaimers that what they are reading may not have anything to do with the truth. Of course, anyone who disagrees can simply post their own opinion, replete with their “version” of the truth someplace else. Thus the new definition for the Theory of Relativity that included the relativity of truth – anything could be seen as being “somewhat” true, so long as the person making the claims shouted loud enough (protested enough, or had enough similarly convinced cohorts who shared their misguided leader’s view). Whether or not something was actually true or not, however, was not as important as the slickness of the message being presented.

Perhaps it can be seen as a fulfilment of the idea proposed by Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan when he stated that “the medium is the message”, elevating the Internet itself to the level of messenger for a new age … the only caveat being that when trust is lost in that medium what are we left with? The truth of the matter is that the Internet is only a tool; it shall only continue to survive and thrive if we can be certain that we can have some level of confidence in the materials that we are accessing. There is no point using the Internet for research if everything found is of questionable value or comes from dubious sources. Trust is precious and is something that must be earned.

While some people might call this the ultimate “democracy” of the Internet there are some who believe there is a need to have Internet regulated. That isn’t what I’m interested in, at this point; I’m only concerned (in a small sense) with what is directly relating to my own contact with the “Net”, which happens to be this blog. Thanks to the advances in connectivity, computer speed, and the development of the “Net” itself (advances that have been made, by the way, largely due to the porn industry) connecting to the ether is far easier than it was in the days of the 56.6 modems.

Having a blog is, in a way, like having a diary that you leave open on a table for anyone to read (if they want to read it) … they can also write things in the margins if they so choose … that’s why I decided to have a comments section. That said, it hasn’t always been the most enjoyable thing … that isn’t to say I haven’t enjoyed the writing – that was why I started, I enjoy writing. While I enjoy writing posts for this blog I don’t allow it to interfere with “life”; having the comments section is nice as it has allowed me to know when people read and enjoy what has been posted. Unfortunately there are not always bright sides to every story, and this one isn’t so bright … in fact, it is downright nasty.

When I began this blog the comments section was totally un-moderated, reflective of my faith in the ability of my reader’s to self-edit and, dare I say, self-censer. Alas, it didn’t take very long for the modern Internet “trolls” to rear their heads, posting everything from advertisements for drugs that promised to enhance the size of certain male body parts to some rather uncreative attacks that had absolutely nothing to do with what had been written.

Moderation began and the issue seemed to be solved … or so I thought. Lately there have been several submissions that are totally obscene, have absolutely nothing to do with the post to which they were attached, and are completely inappropriate for my blog. I have never posted anything along the lines of an “acceptable comments” post, and I am reluctant to do so for a number of reasons, but I will say the following to those individuals who may be of the opinion that my (potential) rejection of their comments is a violation of one of their constitutionally entrenched rights: get over it.

If you believe that you have the “right” to post absolutely anything to someone’s personal blog, you are deluded. First of all, I live in Canada, not the United States; Canada is not encumbered by the “First Amendment” that grants the “Freedom of Speech” (or “Freedom of Expression”) which is used to protect every American’s right to spout hatred from any soapbox they can find. In Canada you can be prosecuted for using language that incites hatred (see Ernst Zundel who was prosecuted under Section 181 of the Criminal Code of Canada for “knowingly publishing false news”).

Of course, in Canada we do have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which entrenches our "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication", however, the ruling of the Supreme Court was that section 181 violated the guarantee of freedom entrenched by the Charter. Zundel lost his legal battle in the end for the simple reason that the truth cannot be suppressed without its light shining through eventually. Not even the loudest revisionists can make their lies reach out to persuade those who are able to filter out the obfuscations and straw-man arguments that are passed off as their versions of the truth.

This may raise the question as to whether or not I really believe in free speech, or if I believe in censorship; I would argue that the first is as rarefied as the idea of true democracy and the second is as common as governmental corruption (particularly in the land where "free speech" is spoken of with such reverence). We are free to express ourselves as we desire, so long as we do not use that freedom to impinge upon the rights of others … oh, but that’s not the way this “freedom” is supposed to work, is it? Therein the true problem lies: one person’s freedom cannot become another’s shackles.

You will not see any comments published to this blog that violates the following code: sorry … there isn’t an “acceptable comments code”, and there isn’t going to be one – I am rejecting comments that are abusive, racist, misogynistic, hateful, and otherwise inappropriate. Does that sound too vague? Too bad; this isn’t a democracy either, it’s my blog. People are allowed to post anonymously, they just can’t post material that contains hateful comments.

As with many things that we experience throughout our lives there is a great amount to be said about the term “freedom” and what it means to each of us; however, true freedom can only come when we – as individuals – are liberated from the things that have bound us either physically, emotionally, or even intellectually.

Ironically the Dalai Lama was recently feted on an official visit to Ottawa where he had an audience with Prime Minister Harper. I find this ironic for the simple reason that the world loves to call for the “freedom” of Tibet, which is something that I would also agree with, and yet the Dalai Lama proposes a return of the Lama class … essentially the Tibetan version of the Indian caste system (the Dalai Lama being the top Brahman priest) ... or does he? History would tell us that this is the case, but the Internet reveals otherwise with a quick search that turns up a story pointing out the changing views of this world leader in exile.

Is freedom for Tibet the exchange of one oppressive system for another? That, as with many things is a matter for debate, but reasonable people will only be able to arrive at reasonable opinions once they have assessed the relevant materials. Knee-jerk reactions only serve to feed prejudices that feed hatreds that lead to wasted energies.

As always, comments are welcome, but whether they are posted shall be dependent not upon what you say but how it is stated.

Thank you for visiting.

Canada's Most Discussed Topic

Special: 100^th Post

Parliament in Winter (2007)
For the past several days I have been wrestling with what topic I should tackle for this blog’s hundredth post. It hasn’t been an easy task, which came as more of a surprise than I expected: first came a rather long exposition on the issue of integrity in this post-modern age of electronica, focusing on the conviction of “Scooter” Libby and the revelation of the fraudulent credentials proffered by a prominent Wikipedia editor.

Chateau Laurier behind Congress Centre (Winter 2007)
As a Canadian that would have been fine, but there is one thing that we discuss far beyond any other news item: the weather. Regardless of how many innocent lives may be snuffed out by the colonial impulses of one nation as it stomps on another or the imperialistic yearnings being expressed by some fanatical despot trying to immortalize their name as yet another megalomaniacal tyrannical mass-murderer, you can always be sure of one thing, the evening news in Canada will lead off their broadcasts (or at least the second story of the night) with something related to the weather (obviously this is not always the case … but it happens very often).

Chateau Laurier behind Congress Centre - closer - (Winter 2007)
We are obsessed with the weather; there are channels on television dedicated to weather coverage, twenty-four hours a day, and you can get weather updates sent to your cellular phone from Environment Canada, just in case you can’t tell that it’s raining while you are standing out … in the rain.
"Where the Hot Air comes from"
So, here we are coming to the end of winter. The Rideau Canal has been officially closed to skaters even though the temperatures are supposed to fall again over the weekend, but that is fine, it was a stellar season for the Canal; it fell one day short of tying the record of staying open the longest number of consecutive days which stands at 46.

Rideau Skaters (Winter 2007)
This time the photo that I am posting of the Canal I took myself, accompanied by some pictures (taken the same day) of our Parliament, the Chateau Laurier (behind the Ottawa Congress Centre) and, a black and white photo of the Parliament, which came out quite well (if I do say so myself).

As a bonus, I would like to include a series called “The Many Faces of Jackson”. Since I moved into my new digs there has been an added fringe benefit … a cat. I am now living with a friend of mine who has a very Kool Kat (sic) – the cat’s name is Jackson, though it may as well be Tinkerbell considering how well she responds to the name. Of course, I’ve had several cats in the past and I can’t recall a single one of them that responded to their name unless there was a promise of food in the mix (which, big surprise, works for Jack-O as well).

Well, it isn’t much of a surprise that I have taken a great deal of photos of this critter, though at times I get the impression that she isn’t so pleased with the process (particularly the flash). Too bad … you’re a cat, I feed you, pose, dam nit. Sorry, I had to get that off of my chest (this little kitty has SHARP feet … yeah, I know, whatever). Thus I present my series, “The Many Faces of Jackson”.

The only comments I have about the pictures are that they were taken with a 6.1 mega-pixel digital camera, and the images have been resized for this post. Many of the images have also been cropped for the purpose of composition, but no other effects have been applied (i.e. I have not used any electronic filtering to sharpen/soften or otherwise enhance the images). The pictures that have been posted in black and white were taken in that mode; they were not transformed afterwards … and now, on with the show! Enjoy the psychotic kitty (about three years old).

The Many Faces of Jackson



































































































































































































































































































































































































Thus ends the 100^th post to this blog. Hopefully there will be more than another hundred in the months to come. Thank you to you, dear readers, for continuing to support this blog with your comments and visits, it is truly appreciated.