What Would Beethoven Do?

Don Henley of the Eagles is suing a California politician for using two of his songs without permission in campaign ads. There might not have been such ways to advertise yourself in Beethoven's time, but I wonder how he would have felt if his great works had been used without compensation. Or was he more concerned about composing than the business side of music?

Henley's crusade to stop someone from stealing his works reminds me how people often devalue the creators of intellectual property. If, for example, one steals a pizza from a delivery person or embezzles money from a bank, law enforcement is called in and the thief is arrested. However, if someone plagiarizes words from an author or takes a song to use for their own purpose, most of the time such theft is overlooked. In other words, if it's not an established product or money, basically it's not valuable enough to pursue the culprits in court.

In recent years, well-known writers have plagiarized whole chapters from books and some of the thieves can be seen regularly spouting off on TV talk shows with no disruption to their careers. Excuses such as lapse of judgment were made and those who stole the work of others have gone on without any type of prosecution either. But I wonder how many people really know what goes into an original work, whether it's a song, book, article, or poem, and how much of the writer or composer becomes part of the product.

I've written and published two books. Each took a year of 16-hour days, seven days a week. A few months after the second one was published, a friend said a speaker at a meeting he attended used sections of my book in his speech with no credit. I was furious and I felt violated. After all, I was the one who interviewed hundreds of people, wrote thousands of words, photoshopped the pictures, and worked with the publisher to put it all together. He hadn't. And he had gone into my book, pulling out what he wanted and leaving the rest. It became personal.

Once I calmed down a bit, I called the president of the group holding the meeting and challenged him about the issue. He apologized, but said there was nothing he could do at that point. And that's my point. Nothing he could do. If the speaker had come into my house and stolen my book, I could have called the police. But he had only stolen my hard work and there was nothing I could do. Certain types of thievery are acceptable in our society. I wish they weren't.

Getting a Handel on Beethoven

Toward the end of his life, Beethoven regarded Handel as the greatest composer who ever lived. Listeners hear Handelian greatness in the "Gloria in excelsis Deo" vocal fugue in Beethoven's Missa Solemnis.

Look at the final bars of the "Gloria":


(Click the thumbnail to expand it.)

Especially look at the final two syllables -- they ring out unaccompanied and then cut off abruptly by the fermata rest in one of the most thrilling moments in all of music! Extraordinary, and Handelian!

Other scholars swear they hear a sort of simulation of the Messiah bass aria "The people who walked in darkness" in Beethoven's "Agnus Dei." I myself don't hear a reasonable connection.

Musicologists hear and see Handel throughout numerous other parts of the Missa. Some, for example, hear a quotation from the "Hallelujah Chorus" in the life-changing "Dona nobis pacem" of Beethoven's Missa, before the high trumpets herald the advancing ghostly Armies of War in the closing bars (as the Chorus cries "MISERERE!").

Beethoven told a fellow musician that he would bow low before Handel, were Handel to stand before him. When that person replied that Mozart could have improved on Handel by composing a new accompaniment to the Messiah, Beethoven raised his eyebrows and replied with acerbity:

"Handel would have survived without it."

A month before he died, as he lay in bed, contorted in pain, Beethoven received a gift: a bound quarto edition of Handel's complete works. Visitors to his sick-room saw him swell with joy and his eyes fill with water. "Look! these were given to me to-day! These works have given me great pleasure. For a long time I have wished to have them; for Handel is the greatest, the most capable of composers; there is still much to be learned from him. Just hand me those books again!"

His hands turned over the pages, one after the other. He paused periodically to ponder some passage, and after many hours, laid the heavy books aside. His head turned, and he spoke, almost to himself: "I wanted to write more music: a Tenth Symphony, a requiem, the music to Faust, even a piano school [a teaching method]. Now time is out."

In the final bars of the "Gloria" of the Missa mentioned above, Beethoven and Handel fuse into one!

Gloria Ending.mp3

Hosted by eSnips

What else of Handel's magnificent output might Beethoven have been influenced by? There are his operas, dozens of them. Julius Caesar is one of them, and it has an aria called "Piangero la sorte mia," which undeniably left its mark on Beethoven -- especially when he wrote the hymnlike main theme of the Op. 109 Piano Sonata.

Here's a piano rendition of the Handel aria from one of my piano books.



(Click the thumbnails to expand them.)

The influence on Beethoven in Op. 109 is profound here, I think, particularly in bars 19 and 20, and again in bars 35 and 36.

Beethoven wrote an overture in the early 1820s -- in fact, at the almost exact time he was writing the Missa -- called "The Consecration of the House," which is the single most overtly Handelian thing he ever wrote. You may know it or have heard it. It was performed at the famous 1824 concert in Vienna where the Ninth Symphony was publicly premiered in Austria -- this was the concert dramatized in the movies Copying Beethoven and Immortal Beloved. Beethoven was commissioned to write it for the opening of a theater, so today it's often played at theater or concert hall openings.

Thus the important link between Handel and Beethoven: a musical and spiritual link of the utmost transcendence.

Face Rock, Bandon, Oregon

Re: Bootstraps and Assault Weapons

Cassandra, your assumptions and your conclusions are bitterly rhetorical rather than thoughtful and demonstrable.

Why do the Sean Hannitys of the world keep telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get out there and work hard, and they too can become rich? If that were to become fact, who would shovel the crap that Hannity and his ilk make each day? Who would work in the restaurants where the rich eat their foie gras and drink their blue martinis? Who would nanny their children, pick up their trash, service their cars, drive their cars, clean their houses?

Where to begin? I had trouble making sense of this non sequitur. Let's leave Sean Hannity out of this; that paragon of jingo populism isn't germane to your argument, which is (if I understand it correctly) that initiative, ambition, and hard work don't enable people to improve their quality of living (which you reductively & unfairly refer to as "becoming rich").

The fact is that evidence is abundant that the opposite is the case. Every single one of us either is or knows someone who improved his socioeconomic lot in life with work and careful planning. I can point to several people in my own family who did so, and so can you (because I know your family).

The advantages of our national character and market provide opportunities, not guarantees, as has been said time and time again. The important thing to remember is that we are not prevented by law from going after a bigger piece of the pie: more money, more security, more free time. We aren't guaranteed those wonderful things in our system. Furthermore, there is no system on Earth that guarantees those things. But the weird, wonderful magic of our system is that it has consistently and repeatedly enabled more people within it to benefit socioeconomically than has any other system. Ask yourself: Would you rather be working class in the United States or in Russia? Where are you more likely to get a raise by hard work -- the United States or Indonesia? the United States or China? the United States or Zimbabwe? Where do you think the working classes are more likely to be consistently able to feed, clothe, and house their families in relative safety and comfort? the United States or Uzbekistan? Examples of comparison around the globe are countless, are they not?

And if all of us have equal opportunities, with the only thing holding us back being our laziness, then what must be done about the disabled (physically or mentally), those who are slow (physically or mentally)? Certainly, we're not to give them welfare. Hannity and other conservatives rail against government assistance, exceptions being welfare for corporations and the rich.

Your implication is a ridiculous assertion that you couldn't marshal actual evidence for even if you were forced to at the point of a gun. Cite us even one mainstream commentator or politician who supports the complete removal of all State assistance, especially for the disabled. One of the legitimate and humane purposes of the State is to provide a safety net for all sorts of misfortunes, from natural disasters to physical and mental illness to job loss. No one (in his right mind) argues against such assistance; people debate the extent and the circumstances of such assistance. As for "welfare for corporations and the rich," a good many conservatives (and liberals) favor the abolishing of subsidies for businesses and of loopholes in the tax code (by which those who can afford accountants generally profit). The wealth of the business or the individual is beside the point: the unjustness of the subsidy is that it tampers with what should be a level playing field. Seek evidence for this in the public outcry (by both rich and poor) over the bailouts. That alone makes hash of your assertion.

Why do conservatives and the NRA fight so hard to keep the rights to buy and use assault weapons?

While I support the 2nd Amendment, I'm all for the regulation of dangerous weapons. Many things are regulated because they can be very dangerous: automobiles, bonfires, airplanes, some viruses and bacteria, fireworks, etc. I'd like to see assault weapons regulated more strictly than other firearms.

Deer, Oh Deer, Oh Deer

These are just a few of the many deer which grazed on our property in the Sierra Nevada foothills.

Gay Marriage, Bootstraps and Assault Weapons

Many things happening in this world cause me consternation, rile me, practically drive me mad. Now I bring them here -- and in ongoing posts -- for you to ponder and comment about. There might even be a miracle and I'll change my mind after reading your arguments.

• Why are straight people so worried about gays fighting for the same rights to marry? It's not as if they must assume any legal or personal responsibilities for gays who marry. And, unless they're into some kinky stuff, they won't have to get in bed with any gays. Sometimes this country seems so Dark Ages.

• Why do the Sean Hannitys of the world keep telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get out there and work hard, and they too can become rich? If that were to become fact, who would shovel the crap that Hannity and his ilk make each day? Who would work in the restaurants where the rich eat their foie gras and drink their blue martinis? Who would nanny their children, pick up their trash, service their cars, drive their cars, clean their houses? And if all of us have equal opportunities, with the only thing holding us back being our laziness, then what must be done about the disabled (physically or mentally), those who are slow (physically or mentally)? Certainly, we're not to give them welfare. Hannity and other conservatives rail against government assistance, exceptions being welfare for corporations and the rich. It's a quandary -- we must all become rich, yet many of us must continue to service the rich, and if we can't do either, well, that's where I stop to keep my mind from exploding.

• Speaking of exploding, why do conservatives and the NRA fight so hard to keep the rights to buy and use assault weapons? I mean, if they want to kill something so much, don't rifles and handguns rip through soft flesh just as effectively? Is it, for example, necessary to blow the head off a deer when shooting it clean through an eye with a rifle will do the job of killing it?

Easy Cooking: Lasagne

Italian restaurants typically charge more for lasagne than many other dishes. Strange, because lasagne is so easy to make and the ingredients are not expensive. Following is the recipe I've used for years and shared with readers of my newspaper columns. Customize it with sauteed mushrooms and spinach or whatever you want. I'm vegetarian, therefore none of my recipes includes meats. For seasonings, layer in snipped basil or parsley. If fresh isn't available, go without. Dried won't do.

Make your own marinara sauce or buy it; you'll need about a quart, enough to cover each layer of noodles. I use Barilla pasta (a 9-ounce package) because it has the best taste and texture. To give the noodles an even better texture, cover them with hottest tap water for 20 minutes. I find this method is better than if you boil the noodles first or use the no-boil kind.

Stir 15 ounces ricotta cheese with 2 eggs, 1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg and 1/2 cup freshly shredded Parmesan. Drain noodles in colander. Spray 9x13-inch pan with Pam. (Pan should be deep enough for three layers and room to spare at top, otherwise it will bubble over into your oven.) Spoon in about 1/3 cup marinara sauce, then one layer of noodles. More sauce (about a third of remaining sauce) over noodles (plop it here and there and spread around).

Slice 1 pound fresh mozzarella (the kind packaged in water) and layer half of the slices over sauce. Spread half of ricotta mixture over mozzarella, then another layer of noodles, sauce, mozzarella and ricotta. Follow with another layer of noodles, then remaining sauce. Sprinkle about 1/3 cup Parmesan (or shredded regular mozzarella) over top. Bake at 400 degrees 35 minutes or until lasagne is browned, cheese is melted, and there's bubbling around the edges. Wait 10 minutes before cutting. Serves 6 to 8.

Internet Hoax Targets Target

A buddy of my husband Clifton, also an Army veteran, says he will no longer shop at Target because he received an email saying that Target doesn't support veterans. In particular, the message said Target won't allow collections for Marines "Toys for Tots" program and discontinues medical insurance for employees on leave to serve in Iraq. But worst of all, Target is owned by a FRENCH company. The horrors of it.

Clifton's buddy was duped. This bit of fiction has been going around the internet since 2002. Google "Target store ownership" and you'll find that Target is an American company and always has been (wikipedia for more info). And to discover who was behind the hoax as well as the misinformation about veterans, go to: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/target-viet.htm

What a shame a reputable store has to deal with such lies and we have to pay higher prices so that Target can hire legal teams to fight the idiots of this world.

Over the Rainbow

Fenton. Northwood. Millersburg. Dugan.

The names of the old American glass factories don't jog very many memories today. But to collectors of carnival glass, these names elicit palpable pleasure -- and this, eighty or ninety years after many of these companies closed up shop.

Hugely popular among collectors since the 1960s, when its mystique and luster drove its popularity to sometimes unbelievable values at auctions and estate sales, carnival glass was manufactured mostly to look at (as opposed to its more functional-minded in-law, depression glass). This stuff was produced in grand amounts, in a bewildering array of shapes and colors, and usually sold in department store catalogs or in home-decor outlets. It was machine-pressed but often hand-detailed: vases were "swung" so that they elongated oddly, scalloped edges were applied by workers to punch bowls and bon-bon dishes, and -- most important -- salt solutions were sprayed onto the glass while it was still bubbling hot, creating that signature oil-and-water iridescence all over the surface of the glass.

The effect was a pseudo Art Nouveau glass the middle classes could afford. Little did ordinary households expect in 1910 to 1915 (the high point in popularity of carnival glass on its first go-round) that by the latter half of the 20th century, this shimmering, slightly trashy, and undeniably garish product would be worth more than the art glass it was designed to simulate.

By 1970, carnival glass collecting clubs had sprung up all over the country, books and auction buyer's guides were being constantly published, and collectors numbered in the thousands. The carnival glass collecting bug bit me, too. I joined a large club, which held meetings every month and planned festive Holiday Inn weekends two or three times a year where we could attend lectures, kibitz with fellow collectors across the state, and bid on private collections at auction. I was amazed by the extent of the knowledge these folks had of this glass -- its history, its hundreds of shapes and patterns, its numerous colors (the "color" of carnival glass is always based on the color of the base glass rather than the color of the iridescence, but even the iridescence is categorized in various ways), its meticulously documented sub-culture of fake carnival glass (every carnival glass collector worth a salt knew how to spot a fake piece of carnival glass), and the shocking range of prices paid each year for various pieces. Collectors licked their lips over the prospect of finding something rich and rare: one punch bowl with accompanying cups was so rare that it sold at auction in the early 1980s for $40,000.