XXXVII St. Cecily's Lisbon Choral Festival

(Our choir in a red box)

(My beautiful blue bracelet we've received in the festival) 

(the artists...)

After 5 weeks of rehearsals, three of the chants that I like the most we sang today (tenors, as always, shining bright...):

("O cordeiro que foi imolado"; composer: A. Cartageno)

("Cordeiro de Deus"; composer: Teodoro Sousa)

("Glória"; composer: A. Cartageno)

Peter Hall, 1930-2017

(Judi Dench as Titania during the filming of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" by Peter Hall in 1968)

No, I'm not going to write about his Shakespeare productions. I'm going to write about his take on Wagner's Ring Cycle, with only some en passant comments about Shakespeare. With Peter Hall there was none of this "Macbeth" set in a bus shelter or "King Lear" set in McDonalds, or what have you. Contrary to much received luvvie "wisdom" I think it takes more understanding and scholarship to play a classical text "straight" than it does to pointlessly "update" it. An intelligent audience can draw its own conclusions. "Henry V" doesn't have to be played in modern day military camouflage to make the connection between 15th century and 21st century jingoism, as per Iraq war or whatever. I understand that, for its admirers, the greatness of Hall's Ring Cycle lay in its fidelity to the classical style of Wagner himself, and his eschewal of the 'concept' style of interpretation that you had with the previous Boulez Cycle from 1976 and that you were to have with productions after the Hall version closed. As I recall, Hall argued that the Ring was, first and foremost, a mythological narrative, a view that conformed exactly to Wagner's own arguments about the nature of opera and drama. The mythological style is bound up with the universality of theme and characterisation that Wagner associated with Greek tragedy. From what I have read about his Ring Cycle, Hall must have studied Wagner's writings, because, by all accounts, he had a very clear understanding of Wagner's intentions. What would I not give now to have been able to be in Bayreuth to see the Hall Ring in the 80s.

Bayes' Theorem: "Música da Sra Bach/Mrs Bach's Music" by Alex McCall, and Irini Vachlioti

I've just watched this documentary and I'm still venting... I must get these vapors out of my system!

Why are people so credulous when it comes to classical music?

It's not limited to classical music. Why are people credulous? Well, for a great many reasons. In this case we have a confluence of several:

i) Bach's works have been analysed for hundreds of years, and little new information has emerged. That means it's hard for anyone to find anything new to say.

ii) its fits a nice contemporary narrative. Unquestionably, talented women have been repressed and marginalised throughout history, and only relatively recently have they received their deserved attention. This means that the potential rediscovery of another such women fits the scholastic zeitgeist, and so attracts the attention above its actual scholarly value. Twenty years ago we'd be asking if Bach's second marriage meant he was secretly gay. So it goes.

iii) the continued fascination with postmodernism in all facets of the arts mean that strong factual evidence is not actually a requirement, and people can be published on the basis of "analysis of penmanship" - a pseudoscience that makes phrenology look credible.

Probably the best way to debunk the silly claim that Anna Magdalena was the composer would be by applying Bayes' theorem to each of the categories of evidence. I have just read a fascinating book by a retired cosmologist who applies Bayes' theorem to argue that Shakespeare was not the author of the sonnets. If I have time I might do this with the Bach example but that's for another post. For now and very briefly, one would consider, firstly, the prior probability that Anna Magdalena was the composer (this would be low, since, for one thing, she is not known to be a composer). Then consider the conditional probability that Bach would do his best work given that he is married to Anna Magdalena. Finally consider the probability that he would do his best work given that he is not married to Anna Magdalena. Now I argue that the last two likelihood ratios are roughly equal hence the posterior probability would not be raised greatly, if at all, above the prior. Of course, I have only considered one category of purported evidence, that Bach did his best work after he married Anna Magdalena, but all the indications are that if all the categories are considered they will not greatly raise the prior if it is raised at all. QED.

It's a sad reflection on the current state of musicology that, rather than exploring important questions, like Bach's influences and influences on, his methods of composition and proper performance practice, someone spends their time on this ridiculous issue. Unlike a painting, the authenticity or otherwise doesn't affect anything of substance, and in this case it appears we can never know the truth. Would it make any difference anyway? Would we play, or listen to the works differently if we thought his wife wrote them?

I'm still waiting for someone to claim Bach was an alien hominid brought to earth by Erich von Däniken's extraterrestrial-friendly Mayans to further the Illuminati's centuries-old plan for world domination in conjunction with the Vatican, Tutankhamen, Scriabin, Leibniz, Elvis Presley and/or dolphins.

And we're back to questions of authorship, did Bach's wife write this, did the Earl of Oxford write Shakespeare's plays, does Victoria Beckham design her clothes – does it matter?

For art it only matters in financial terms, a different attribution can add a million quid on a painting, it's the same object before and after. It's why I prefer to look at the art in the Museu de Arte Antiga in Lisbon, mostly anonymous beautiful objects, the artists biography doesn't get in the way of seeing or hearing the work.

Bottom-Line: Bach tapped into extraordinary mathematical interplays in harmony that stretch the ear to its limit, even now, but all somehow made sense. However, one should not confuse the structural elegance with predictability. His greatest works are characterised by a sort of perpetual harmonic bifurcation: they could at any point unfold one way or the other or slip off another through relative major/minor devices. You never know which which way it will turn, you simply enjoy the harmonic journey Bach that pioneered, precisely because of his genius. He makes the unfamiliar seem familiar.

NB: If you wish to watch the above-mentioned documentary, it's here. Word of warning: The voice-over, in some parts, is in Portuguese. I think it's still watchable for those of you not conversant with Portuguese.

Boxing is a science while MMA is a maul: "McGregor vs. Mayweather" Part 2

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing."

In Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5 by William Shakespeare

As predicted, Mayweather knocked it out of the park. Mayweather controlled it from the 4th. The discipline of boxing is much purer than MMA and McGregor showed his novice skills early. I liked the way Mayweather just put his gloves up and went inside like a relentless zombie attack. Conor just couldn't figure that one out and had no power inside. He was drawn into a trap and he was dumb and greedy enough to fall for it. His cash mattress will cradle him tonight though, soft and luxurious enough to sooth his bruised ego. If Federer retires I’ll try to convince him and the then Badminton or table tennis world champion to play the Ultimate Tennis Match at Wimbledon’s centre court. This wouldn’t be more ridiculed than this "fight" or shall we call it scam. The only thing that made it vaguely interesting was that McGregor is younger, stronger, faster and able to verbally sell a fight, but it showed that experience, conditioning and ring craft can be more important attributes in a boxing bout.

Haha, what a pack of smart of fleecing sheep. Paid $200 m as a 5 weight world champ to beat a guy who doesn't box in a boxing match while the guy who doesn't box gets $75 m to be beaten by a guy who would never box him in the first place if it wasn't just a joke to earn folk half a billion for a half hours work. When folk just hand over that amount of money to see the inevitable happen in a silly paint by numbers fashion rich men who think the "hoi polloi" nothing but sheep to be fleeced will always exist, they'll abound in fact. And more will be created daily by folk handing them fortunes for doing absolutely zip. Well done those men. Half a billion+ to share among all, half an hour's work & some gunning in front of a press conference & there's half a billion+ lads. Well done, nice work if you can get it & have fools back it to the hilt. Last time Mayweather had to fight a guy with a bust shoulder & got $100m, this time fights a guy who is not even a boxer & he gets $200m. Great work if you can get it. But you really would have to question anyone who'd back it with their money hoping to see something other than a joke bout too secure half a billion+ from fools for half an hour's work ;)

It’s neither Mayweather nor McGregor I blame. It’s the media that sold this scam to the public as something like a regular boxing match. What next? Elton John running the 200 metres against Usain Bolt both singing "Like a candle in the wind"?

Now that it's done and dusted it is clear now how it could have been a much more interesting fight. Mayweather had a fight plan for the long haul while Conor's plan, if he indeed had one, was simply to hope that his strength and energy would last 12 rounds. It could have been much more interesting if Conor's plan was based on the much more likely scenario that his stamina could not last much more than about six rounds. This might have led to Conor adopting a 'knockout-before-round- seven' strategy which basically would mean that if that didn't work he would go out on his shield. In other words, a knock out or bust strategy. Mayweather would have been forced to engage much more in the early rounds if Conor had put his shoulder behind his punches early on. But all that is conjecture. Or maybe that was McGregor's strategy, he just couldn't deliver. He went hard at it in the first three rounds. The fourth, Mayweather had seen all he needed to and slowly started to come out. By the end of the fifth McGregor was physically spent. Mayweather just gave people a bit of value for money. He could have taken down McGregor anytime from the fifth, he had nothing left.

Bottom-line: What a farce. It was like watching a mix of Boxing and Wrestling. At one point, even the ref said "this isn't wrestling guys". I have never laughed so much watching a boxing match. Because of Conor's unorthodox boxing style Mayweather kept turning his back and Conor would resort to clubbing him in the back of his head. If this had been another boxer no doubt he would be disqualified. When Mayweather decided to up the ante, McGregor was just a punching bag. Could the ref had let it play out longer? Possibly. But McGregor was out and that would have just extended his punishment. All in all it's as the "experts" predicted- a mismatch with the boxer coming out on top. I got the sense Floyd was toying with McGregor for the people who had paid. But this is a failed experiment. A Moto GP rider won't come to F1 and blow the timing screens. Hope both sports and others learn from this.

What's next?

Mayweather vs. Sumo champ?

Myaweather vs. Wayne Rooney?

Mayweather vs. Mike Tyson?

Mayweather vs. Hulk Hogan?

Mayweather vs Trump?

Mayweather vs Oprah?

Boxing is a science while MMA is a maul: "McGregor vs. Mayweather"

Watching the weigh-in, it does seem that McGregor has some major and unresolved anger management issues. Did Mayweather steal Conor's bike (the shiny new red 5-speed racer he just got for his birthday), or say something horrid and beastly about Conor's Granny (so spiteful, she's such a lovely thing)? Well, what I saw was a heavily tattooed man with a semi erection screaming a lot, and a black guy, slighting shorter, smiling and appearing to enjoy himself. Did I miss something?

Another mail in the coffin of professional boxing. It long ago ceased to be a credible sport. I expect it won't be long until we see a world champion boxer fighting a kangaroo on expensive PPV all in the name of making rich men even richer. McGregor consistently appears an appalling human being, a mangled caricature of a proud Irishman, excelling both in his immense UFC talents and drawing attention for a complete absence of dignity or decency. Mayweather on the other hand, seems also a caricature of sorts, but far less horrid, far less repugnant and with a hint of dignity about him.The Irishman goes much further than puerile, benign banter for the crowd, all part of his act, but it makes the sport look like an open zoo for rabid animals. He is bringing a bad name to boxing...regardless of the result. For there has been a sense of humility, class, about most the top boxers. Hardly all of them, but many, enough to recall a different kind of behaviour outside the ring. McGregor just looks like a clown making a complete fool of himself not to promote the fight but simply because he is nuts. Boxing is a strategic as well as physical sport, I don't like mayweather but he will school this clown. It's terrible for boxing...unless Conor gets put down. If not, it really seems to soil the reputation of the sport. I hope Floyd pondered this. He can't need the money, so its pride I suppose, the chance to reach the 50, and even perhaps some form of loyalty to his fans, most if not all of whom would like to see the fight.

Regardless of how similar Conor is away from the cameras to in front of them, his behaviour serves as an example to others. People look at a champion and use his behaviour as a benchmark. Its cool to be like Conor...Why would he care? Clearly, he doesn't. Yet, true champions, in the purist sense, show respect for the blueprint of a champion they are presenting to the word, attempting to maintain the qualities of humility, respect, politeness, common decency. Those are the true greats...but again, why would Conor care? He just wants the money and the fame and in this age, to behave as he does, appallingly and grotesquely, gets him both in spades...

Conor's success is yet another testament to living in an Age where many in the West are close to brain-dead, needing bright lights and screaming more than anything else to be captivated ...some of the press conferences have appeared like a mass outing for thousands of kids with very severe learning issues...to put it kindly.

This is not really a sporting event, but a money-making exercise. A bit like freak shows from the 19th century. Oh, and by the way: watching 2 people rubbing their crotches on each other for minutes on end after a few seconds of laughable striking might be "real fighting" in someone's eyes but it's dull as hell. I'd rather watch showjumping and I hate showjumping.

Bottom-line boxing-wise: Floyd is the best at not getting hit. Mcgregor will flail around like a mad animal. He will get frustrated and Floyd will jab at will. Everyone thinks Mcgregor smashes Floyd out but I would also like to win the lottery.

It's a farce and mugs will pay to watch. Forget the fight; I heard $100,000,000 each.

"Shakespeare and I - Mirroring All Façades of Reality" (Preface) by MySelfie

38 plays, 154 sonnets, and 4 poems ("A Lover's Complaint", "Venus and Adonis", "The Rape of Lucrece", "The Phoenix and the Turtle") in 2461 silky-paper pages (in my A. L. Rowse edition). After coming out of the black hole on the other side of the galaxy, what I've got to report? First and foremost, was it worth it? Definitely yes. To have steeped my mind in the words and the themes, to be elevated by Shakespeare’s Weltanschauung, his ability to put life on display in words, that's what made me undertake this so-called project. It's taken me three years of fun, but I've read the Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Borges, in “Everything and Nothing”, said it much better:

“The story goes that shortly before or after his death, when he found himself in the presence of God, he said: ‘I who have been so many men in vain want to be one man only, myself.’ The voice of God answered him out of a whirlwind: ‘Neither am I what I am. I dreamed the world the way you dreamt your plays, dear Shakespeare. You are one of the shapes of my dreams: like me, you are everything and nothing.’”

Borges believed Shakespeare mirrored all the façades of reality. I couldn’t agree more. One of the biggest ways this has been a rewarding experience is that I kept a detailed notebook as I was reading, so now that I've finished, I can look back and truly appreciate all the stuff that went into it. The book you’re holding in your hands, clocking in at around 106 000 words and 531 pages, is the end result of those notes. This project made me come across a lot of surprises, ie., the things I didn't think would grab me, the things I might never have read on my own if it weren't part of this undertaking.

For me this was Titus Andronicus, Measure for Measure, and Coriolanus, and the histories which read like one close-knit tapestry when all read at once, and the sonnets, oh my God the sonnets. This finished product is not like something I’ve ever done previously. Knowing what the layout and finished product was supposed to look like in advance allowed me to work with less stress and improve upon the formula, as opposed to creating the formula from scratch and hoping it worked out.

Some of what you’ll read here is also in my third book: “Shapes, Scenes and Strokes - Book Reviews 2015”. But I just wanted to have all of my perambulations on Shakespeare in just one place. This book is that place. I've always thought of Shakespeare as a vehicle instead of a destination. It’s a vehicle because it allows me to understand all the complex texts that I may have to encounter in my contemporary world. To "me" Shakespeare and studying literature in general is akin to a "religious experience." If you practice in an organized faith you are expected to attend services in a "community setting" but to me, if you have any faith in anything, the true experience is strictly personal in nature.

I've long been a Shakespeare aficionado. I first experienced Shakespeare reading Hamlet at the British Council in Lisbon when I was very young. I’ve always loved his lush language and characters. My English teacher at the time (Vicki Hartnack), aware of my love for Shakespeare, encouraged me not to give up on the Bard, but to read more of his work. Eventually, I did, but not to my deepest satisfaction. Later on, after college, I took a Shakespeare class in English at the “Universidade de Letras” in Lisbon, as well as reading some of the sonnets on my own. Also almost at the same time, I also took another English Lit class, where I learned more about the life of the man, the stories behind the sonnets, and read a few of his lesser known plays. So when it comes to build up my list of his work, quite a few Shakespeare titles happen to be repeats. So much the better. In case there’s anyone out there that has been reading the things I’ve been writing on my blogs, probably noticed that one of my “projects” for 2014, 2015 (and now 2016) was to read through all of Shakespeare’s Works. Unfortunately, in 2014 I wasn’t able to start this project (I read some Shakespeare stuff, but no plays). 2015 was where things really started shaping up Shakespeare-wise. But things were looking even better for 2016. On top of that, 2016 commemorated 400 years since the death of William Shakespeare and this special anniversary year was a truly unique opportunity to complete my quest of reading the rest of his entire body of work.

Why a project like this, you wonder? For several reasons. First, I was ashamed that, as a lover of Shakespeare, there were at least a third of his plays which I’ve never read or seen performed. Secondly, I’d like to “translate” all of his work into current Portuguese, i.e., not the highfalutin kind but the one we speak every day. My aim is to allow the younger generations to enjoy “Shakespeare” in the 21st century and beyond that. Having the purpose of the first reason underway, I am now also working on a remedy for the second. At the very least, I am having so much fun discussing and nerding out with Shakespeare. More than that I though, I can’t wait to bring this idea of rendering Shakespeare's English into Portuguese to fruition. As used to say the Spanish poet Antonio Machado: “Caminante, no hay camino, se hace camino al andar” ("walker, there is no path, the path is made by walking"), meaning "find your own Shakespeare".

All the chapters are presented here in the order they were written. No attempt was made to clean them up. 71 out of the 103 chapters were published on my blog. The last 32 were exclusively written for this book edition (from chapter 72 to chapter 103), and won’t be published anywhere else.

This book took me three years to write. It’s was a real labour of love.

NB: If “Shakespeare and I” was good enough for Shakespeare (“All debts are cleared between you and I” in “The Merchant of Venice”), it was also good enough for me.

Manuel Augusto Antão

Lisbon, September 2016

"Shakespeare and I - Mirroring All Façades of Reality" (Table of Contents) By MySelfie

I Will Get a Lot of Stick For This But...: "Shapes, Scenes and Strokes: Book Reviews 2015" by Myselfie

Over the last years, several people asked me whether I'd consider publishing a collection of my posts. Until 2015 I couldn't be bothered. Then someone offered to help me putting them out (I'm not at liberty to tell you who).

I've always wanted to collect my writing stuff. And to do that I always thought "Timelessness" had to be a factor, i.e., the essays had to be timeless. The last thing I would want to get is an essay book on the state of world peace...The essays needed to be written from an historical perspective as well, with the frame of reference being “...Book Reviews 2013, 2014, 20150,…” not “Last year,….

Two books I love are collections of essays by Umberto Eco ("How to travel with a Salmon") and John Clute ("Scores"). Both without much fanciness, but I don’t regret a dime buying them. If you like this kind of stuff, this collection of diatribes might be for you, otherwise stay well clear.

When I was thinking about publishing this 3rd book of my posts I asked myself why should I publish a book with my stuff in the first place. I mean, what is the advantage of having a book (and paying for it) over simply parsing through a list of posts and links (that my supposedly readers probably already know) online?

Has there ever been a collection of posts greater than the sum of its parts, i.e., the posts themselves?

I'm not sure. I think reading posts in a book format can be a significantly different experience than reading individual posts over the course of one year (in this case 2015). I find that I always get something new out of re-reading essays in compilation form. I have a queue of books much longer than I’ll ever get through, so I have to budget my time very carefully, but melikes a good compilation of reviews/essays. Sometimes I’d rather spend some time reading something old than reading new things in the hope I might get a new sliver of insight out of it.

I own several book collected from blog posts (not my own). To be fair, I love it when the book's contents is not all about blog posts. I did write some original content too. If you're a regular reader of my blog, you'll definitely recognize a lot. My main aim was to make it easy to read. I feel I can pick it up and set it down at my own pace. I firmly believe just because someone read a post on my blog in the past doesn’t mean she or he fully processed it.

 

I like the book format and I like being away from the computer when I read them. Although it's true that sometimes this is not the kind of literature I want to read when I want to relax or before going to bed because I kind of associate it to work...

If you have limited time for reading, I'd say you won't be reading this review compilation. Nevertheless here it is. If in the future the Internet folds up and I'm unable to read my own stuff (Goodreads deleted some of my reviews; those I'll never read again), I'll have it literaly in my hands to make fun of or to take with me to take to the proverbial desert island...

In the days of Mr. Google, the problem is no longer finding information, it’s being able to make sense of it, fit it together, and draw conclusions from it. That was my main reason for writing the three compilations of my book reviews, as well as writing for myself, and to understand what I read, as I've stated many times.

I'm not really sure about my target audience. I'm not expecting a huge fan base. Porn sells much more...

(On the cover of the book, Tram 28 which is a highlight of any visit to Lisbon-Not-In-Maine, my hometown ...).

I'd like to dedicate this collection to all the wonderful people I have met on Booklikes: Themis-Athena's Garden of Books, Troy's Blog, Bookstooge's Reviews On the Road, Char's Horror Corner, Reclusive Reads, BrokenTune, Bookaneer, RedTHaws Reads Randoml, The English Student, Book Reviews Forevermore, Awogfli - Bookcroc, Debbie's Spurts, Url Phantomhive, Murder by Death, Rachel the Book Harlot, The Mental Hoard of Bettie's Books, Lornographic Material, From Dark Places, The Grand World of Books, Thewanderingjew, 99 problems and a book ain't one, Lora's Rants and Reviews, To Read Is to Fly, I cannot live without books, Leopard, It's a Mad Mad World, It's a Hardback Life, Spare Ammo, WRGingell, Jessica's Book Thoughts, Constantly Moving the Bookmark, A Reading Life, ѦѺ, spocksbro, Lunaluss --- Because Books Lead you to Many Roads, Chris' Fish Place, Gregor Xane, Demoniacally Reading, Grimlock, Oldham Rocker's Mad Mumblings, Buchsalon, Arbie's Unoriginally Titled Book Blog, Sarah's Library, The Boat Was My Friend, SusannaG - Confessions of a Crazy Cat Lady, nospin, Gurglings of a Putrid Stream, BOOKWRAITHS REVIEWS, Dantastic Book Reviews and many others. It's really been fun.

NB: A word of advice. The book is a bit rough on the edges, but I think the content is more important than the form. Also when I read collections like these, I find I don’t mind skipping essays I don’t enjoy. So that's it.