Tuesday, 20 January 2009

Ur doin it wrong.

Next time you invite John Williams to score an inauguration, make sure he gets it right.  If I may offer a suggestion:

(x-posted.)

Jan 20, 2009 3:20:11 PM | Politics

4 Comments

Vance Maverick

This was indeed weak sauce -- not least because the hymn is indelibly associated with another piece and another composer. As if I were to write a set of variations on a chorale attributed to Haydn.

Posted by: Vance Maverick | Tuesday, 20 January 2009 at 03:28 PM

Scott Eric Kaufman

My version isn't. (I edited it to make it clear that I wasn't reposting the actual performance, but a NEW and IMPROVED version.)

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Tuesday, 20 January 2009 at 03:35 PM

Ahistoricality

Vance is right; Williams' rescoring of Copland's version of a Shaker hymn had to qualify as one of the sillier moments. Right up there with Aretha Franklin's hat.

And Scott's right: we really were expecting something with a little more energy, maybe even a touch of originality. I'm used to Williams stealing tonal qualities and melodic licks (listen to Holst's Planets and then the Star Wars soundtrack, for those of you who don't already know what I mean), but he wasn't even trying this time.

Posted by: Ahistoricality | Tuesday, 20 January 2009 at 06:56 PM

Rich Puchalsky

I'm guiltily somewhat relieved that Elizabeth Alexander's poem didn't work out, because my inaugural poem was about the best I can do, and it didn't get demolished by comparison with a really good one. So I'm pleased about that. Not that I should really be commenting about it on this poetry-scorning blog.

Posted by: Rich Puchalsky | Tuesday, 20 January 2009 at 08:19 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Traction? What are the odds that conservatives will claim Obama’s flubbing of the oath of office was but the first of many mistakes? Set aside the fact that Roberts goofed by asking Obama to repeat something other than the Oath of Office of the United States — “I do solemnly swear that I will execute the Office of President of the United States faithfully” instead of “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.” Set aside the fact that Obama graciously gave Roberts a beat to correct himself. Set aside the fact that this is but one more example of a Bush appointee not sweating the small stuff when it mattered most. This supposed flub will be the rhetorical starting gate for all holistic criticisms of the Obama Administration: “From the moment an unprepared Obama punted the Oath of Office, America started sucking . . .” (x-posted.)
PREVIOUS POST
“I think he’s long-winded because he’s informational.” Said of Joe Biden by young Damon Weaver, but perhaps applicable to the new administration generally. Obama signed an executive order re-viscerating the Freedom of Information Act this morning: The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known. To be sure, issues like personal privacy and national security must be treated with the care they demand. But the mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. The Freedom of Information Act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent, and of holding it accountable. And I expect members of my administration not simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of this law. I will also hold myself as President to a new standard of openness. Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution. Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency. I quote at length because, like the boy says, the new administration’s informational. Not so informational as to have the text of the executive orders available to the public yet, but it should only be a matter of time. I write “should” instead of “will” because conservatives might be right: all this could be simple showmanship; that is, Obama could be saying his administration heralds a new era of accountability while squirreling away all the important memos with Cheney’s “Treated as Top Secret/S.C.I.” stamp. But this potential criticism demonstrates why conservatives find themselves in a bind: to make it, they must confess that they believe opacity is a virtue; that the President alone—without the advice of the nation’s chief law enforcement officer—decides how informational his office need be. (All such complaints exercise the same double standard that has conservatives wishing Bush had abrogated the powers he’d concentrated in the executive office before he left it. How will they hash Obama’s apparent willingness to return them to their proper place? By changing the topic.) We can expect, then, that cries of the coming socialism will be bolstered by partisan fiskings of the very facts the Bush administration would’ve withheld from the public. While they may acknowledge the facts themselves, their import will be lost on them because...

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments