And here's the interview, in its warts and all glory (Don't forget to check out Frank's blog, too!):
Okay, form questions first.
1. Howdy member of the Nyetverse. What brought you to these parts (and by parts, I naturally mean the ill-defined faux-communicative space that is The Ballad of a Tin Man)?
You know, I think originally I found the wondered and splendid treasure that is the Ballad after a raucous time with the Ellis clan. As I remember you had posted something about a wedding...or was it a book review. I keep it to a wedding, sounds cooler. Once I read a bit, I instantly realized the Nyetverse for its true identity: Heroin. Once you migrated to the Blogger domain and began to talk about SASI issues like Robsters, I couldn't get away...nor would I want to.
2. Many people look at life as a pencil with two eraser ends. If asked in, say, a gimmicky blog entry, what would you say is the point?
Well with two erasers, could you have a point? And obviously those unenlightened people have never seen Monty Python's Life of Brian, because if they did, they would assuredly drop the dumb pencil analogy for the truth...when you think of it, that is: Life's a piece of shit.
3. Your area of professional pursuit is [insert profession here]. Given a scant 75 plus or minus years on this rock, how do you justify that?
That's easy, I justify my professional pursuits and hard work as [insert lame motivational quip here]. I don't have to justify a need for professional development. I mean Hell, I'm an academic in training...I only do this for my own shits and giggles anyway, so it's not a waste of 75 scant years on a rock. A rock, that mind you comes with a free trip around the sun...
Phew. Alright, some Frank-o-centric questions...
4. You're closing in on two years as a state-recognized member of the Ellis-Johnson clan. Terrifying, surprising, or otherwise? In a splintered age, what are your thoughts on family?
In a splintered age, sometimes I wish it were the gilded age, at least then it would be pretty...sort of. The Ellis clan is beyond any description. I came from a totally weird upbring also, but the difference is that the Ellis' are weird in a Partridge family way. My family was weird in an Osbourne sort of way minus money...
In all truth I love the Ellis' (and Johnsons) beyond words. I would have never thought 'strangers' could adopt someone like me into their personal worlds.
As far as my own family...well Jordan and I are content with cats for now.
5. Grad school and thesis writing - here's an opportunity to air your thoughts on the experience.What's your take?
Well, I've grown up a lot for sure. It has been really hard, and will continue to be hard, but it is for the best. I need the rusty-blade stabs of irony and murphey's law, as they temper me for anything I may encounter later. If I had to do it again, I would, though I may have chosen a different advisor.
The lesson: Life is hard...even when it is just 'school' where you are protected. Also, grad school in general is a lesson in denied gratification. I don't think you get to feel like you've done a good job at what you do until you get tenure.
6. Speaking of, you're soon moving to Illinois to continue pursuing such experiences. How much does moving suck, and what are some honest thoughts on leaving Texas in the rearview (for both you and your wife)?
Moving sucks like a black hole, without the joy of knowing that you'll become a part of the singularity after the event horizon...can anything suck more than that? I have a very real desire to just throw everything we own away rather than have to pack and drive...ugh.
I am super excited to be rid of Texas (distance from loved ones not included). As far as college goes, Texas is light years behind the rest of the country. In Illinois I will be insured, tuition free, and paid for my contribution to the 'body of knowledge'. Here I racked up debt, can't afford insurance, and still had to pay tuition.
On the other hand, I was born and raised here, and it truly is a beautiful state. Texas has a bit of everything, and its gonna have a little bit of me when I go. I don't know if we'll be back later in life or not. I do feel at times like I am dragging Jordan out of her world, but she continually reminds me that she is an excited participant as well. I'll let you know if that changes during the first Midwestern winter storm...
7. You've commented before on the generally decayed state of the country, usually in regards to the general public's voracious appetite for material experience. What do you think is wrong, will it ever be better, was it ever better, and maybe most importantly, how do you stomach it?
Faux independent thought, that's what's missing. I realize that our environment, upbringing, and financial situation in life plays a big role on our choices concerning the material, negating a true independent thought, but it seems we are such sheep as a society today. Maybe Max would say the same of the generation of his youth, but the tremendous mass marketing in today's society has bred indifference. Worse, it has bred control IMO. Product placement ( e.g. putting sugary cereals in reach of toddlers at supermarkets), strategic commercial whoring (e.g. The Simpsons Movie adverts in BK & 7-11, the very companies the writers originally made fun of for mass commercialization ), and mass media hype have created a society full of Orwellian proles. Those people who do not ever seek to find information from several sources, and think about that info no less, got Bush elected. I can stomach it, though I try with lots of coffee and burying myself with thesis work...
8. Correct me if I'm wrong - but you've "become religious" (for whatever that means) in recent years after a relatively agnostic childhood. What are your reflections on this, and how do you view the interplay of science and your faith?
You know, I'm not sure my parents truly know what agnosticism is. They were their own breed. My 'rents did something right by basically letting me decide what ever the hell I wanted was true...had the Pastafarian been around in my formative years, I may be trying to touch you with my noodley appendage. Actually, funny story: I had a 'girlfriend' in 3rd grade by name of Victoria Waddel (they all called her Waddle the duck) who was in a very baptist family who persuaded me to come to church with her (my first time in a church btw). I signed up, and soon began to be picked up each Sunday by 'the short bus' (ah...comic genius) painted white with the Church's logo. Well, a fellow 3rd gradian, Christina Shipwash (shipwreck in other circles) had her overzealous eye on me in the pews. One day, about 2 months into the gospel, Christina goads me into a race to the bus after Sunday school. Me being the 'boys are better than girls' boy that I was obliged. We had beat the group by minutes...minutes that passed like eternities as Shipwreck began making out with me (now note that I was only a cootie infected 8 years old). I went home in stunned silence and never returned to that church...
My decision to 'become religious' came while I was dating Jordan, and during my philosophy seminar. After reading several primary sources including Aquinas, Goldman and St. Augustine I came to the personal conclusion that the only real difference between atheism and spirituality (be it Christianity, agnosticism, or other faith) is choice. Pretty much all of the religious stances have logically sound arguments when you begin to look. I chose Christianity for a few reasons. I guess the most benign reason would be "why not?" I know, weak arguments, but this is an interview, not a philosophy debate.
In my opinion, there is no discrepancy between Christianity and science. As I have written about on my blog, the two coexist flawlessly, save for the individuals who cannot come to grips with that fact. Religion is definitely not a cop-out for things we can not explain. There is an explanation, we just haven't progress the knowledge far enough to get at it yet...
9. Speaking of science - reading your CO2 debate with your grandfather has been highly awesome. Without rehashing it too much here, what is your overall though on the science of global warming and its interplay with politics / economics / etc.? How in the hay do you trust anything as pure in this environment?
Politics, and socially inept scientists is why I am even having the debate with my grandfather. The politicians take a stand on the issue based on some very fleeting data, and then push, push, push. This opinion filters down into the public consensus, and becomes ingrained. Think of it...for the most part, politicians now agree with scientists and believe in Global Warming, and consequently, so does a lot of the public (see media hype above). The public at large doesn't understand how scientific knowledge progresses and grows. The main crux of this is the misnomer of what a scientific theory is. But this issue is more complicated than just that. There is a contest between environmental ethics (what we should do...i.e. conserve, reduce emissions) and the community ethic (what we do in practice...i.e. hardly anything). Scientists need to do more to help evolve the community ethic in America, but are socially ill-equipped to do so. There is a inbred distrust of scientists from the public, mostly because of their 'thumb our nose up' attitude toward the 'uninformed' citizen. That's why I think websites like "Real Climate" and others are the key to changing the attitude of society. Scientists need to learn how to communicate with the laymen--and politicians in such a way that the true scientific consensus is heard and understood.
Actually, in talking with Don [grandfather], I have become intensely interested in this disconnect, and am planning on trying to incorporate it into my Doctorate work concerning river management practices.
10. And also speaking of science, we're on an insane, exponentially progressive wave this past century plus. How does it feel one, to be engulfed in this particular period of history, two, to be something of a a foot soldier ( i.e., one among many) in the grand scientific endeavor, and three, the silly question - does it bother you that meta-science can't possibly exist, that you can't ever really verify the scientific method as the best method by using the scientific method?
Good question...the silly one that is. As far as being one among many, the only worry I have is making my self employable once I'm done. Luckily, I have improved my odds with my acceptance to U of I greatly. Also, in changing from music, I have it much better (Good violinists are literally a dime a thousand). Now...to the silliness. SciMeth[adone] is the best by consensus. That's really all its got going for it. Currently the biggest criticism lies in the peer review process. SM will likely evolve as major paradigm shifts in knowledge occur with technological advances and financial support for research improves.
11. Our musical interests intersect quite a bit, but I would venture that our expertise (correction, your expertise, my faux-hip asshattery) do not overlap much at all. Subquestions:
Why / what keeps you playing classical music after all this time and (obviously) other professional pursuits? MAybe the obvious q, but why not music as the main job?
A desire to keep my sanity...on both counts. I love music, but I left it because I can't stand all the drama. Also, I'm not good enough of a player to achieve greatness in the music world (I hear dissents from family already). The thing is that I am pretty good, and so I could get gigs and such, but in order to survive financially, Jordan better be rich, or I'll be doing what my peers in the Corpus Symphony do: most of them play in 3-4 regional orchestras..they are constantly on the road, and always practicing. Most of them hate music consequently...and yet they only make ~40k a year on that music. No beuno. My choice to play , means just that. I choose to enjoy it, and thus I do not hate it like so many professional musicians out there.
What is the best way to approach your classical music from the outside?
I'd recommend bringing food and alcohol...oh wait, you weren't trying to approach musicians. With an open mind. And since most 'outsiders' don't have extensive backgrounds in music hist/lit, they should read the program notes before the first downbeat. I know the music may sound pretty, but how can you enjoy Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg. if you don't know something more about what the composer was up to when he wrote it?
How do you listen to simpler, more pop music - do you find your expertise renders you unable to enjoy pop on say, a twelve year old level?
Gernerally yes...I am disgusted with most new songs on the radio. However, the I-IV-V chord progression is so pop[ular] for a reason. Even Bach knew it sounded good. He just had an organ/harpsichord instead of a fender. For more on how I feel about pop music see: This YouTube Vid
12. Another music-oriented question: I've noticed that you often reference composer's intent and what songs are supposed to represent / mean. This clearly requires a good deal of background knowledge before you can really start to "get" a piece. What do you think of this classic question, the visceral experience of music vis a vis the intended interpretations that go into its composition - are you able to separate these experiences?
I'd venture to say that any composer would like the listener to enjoy the piece. That's a given. Music takes on a deeper dimension if you know why/what for the work was written. Even better things happen as one begins to understand the structure and harmonic makeup within. Music is good ear eating from any standpoint, but knowing the deeper stuff leads to an improved experience. Who knows, you may even learn something right? I see no difference in wanting to understand the socio-political environment Tchaikovsky was immersed in, how he was struggling as a gay opium addict in a country that made him write nationalistic music (like 1812) when he didn't agree with the country's actions, than I do in understanding that Paul and the boys didn't record in the same studio on Abbey Road because their egos had grown too large, and Paul too 'transcendental Indian guru".
Music is incredibly visceral for me. The feelings and mindset I have in a moment of beautiful music on stage may be compared with a direct visit from God. There is really nothing like it, and it is hard to describe. These feelings on stage are super intense, mind blowing experiences, that rock to the core in a way that you think you can't go on, but somehow your soul insists that you continue to participate in the sound. I've been on stage during concert playing in front of 1000s of people, screaming on the inside, crying on the outside, and unable to control myself, or stop playing. Some recording of pieces I have played still shake me up so much I can't listen to them in public. It's a truly wild experience I wish more people could share...maybe lots of drugs is the answer? And to the last question, I can separate the feeling from meaning, but why. To me it is all one and the same...to Jordan's dismay (I always make her listen to a piece before I play it, pointing out its finer details).
(If you want an example for that one, you spoke about the 1812 overture in a recent post and how Americans are missing the subtlety - how do you feel about the argument that the 1812 overture comes to mean something entirely different, way outside of the author's intent, once it's used 5000 times as July 4th music?)
13. I read something lately by Daniel Dennet, a philosopher from Tufts U, who claims that he worries that ideas (memes in his language) are growing at a faster rate than the human brain data capacity to store them. He is, in essence, worried that certain ideas (he actually mentions classical compositions, for one) will be lost into the abyss because of our limited capacity to keep things in the active cultural consciousness. So I ask this because you're at a crossroads of someone living in the 21st century, well-informed about a classical form of art AND being bombarded witht eh cutting edge of scientific knowledge on a daily basis. Is some of our most treasured art doomed to the abyss? How do you keep that stuff "active" without seeming like a stuffy sentimentalist who only listens to the classics / classical because of their elite air?
I disagree with Dennet (as you describe him). I think that Classical music will thrive in the next generations, and I am in no fear of it being lost to the ages. Consider this point: Can you name me one piece by Leopold Mozart? Antonio Sallieri? These guys were classical music composers, but you don't hear them on NPR's classical music hits right? They were already dropped b/c they didn't sound good enough to keep...yet, if you want to, you can get recordings of both artists. I guess what I'm getting at is that all of the music available today will be here tomorrow. It will not be lost. The more popular stuff will likely continue to be dredged up by Radio DJs even. As someone in the future decides they'd like to explore a genre more (like the all but lost Punk era) they'll be able to get on iTunes and download it to their iPod microscopic. In fact, I think that soon, the collective commons will become a lot more powerful, and well be able to get a lot of this stuff free (at least I can hope right?)
No comments:
Post a Comment