By Hillel Aron
By Joseph Tsidulko
By Patrick Range McDonald
By David Futch
By Hillel Aron
By Dennis Romero
By Jill Stewart
By Dennis Romero
BEHIND THE MUSIC
In [Alan Rich’s] article about the play on the murder of Klinghoffer [“A Lot of Night Music,” January 16–22], there is a glaring omission. Namely, neither he nor the play mentioned the ethnic cleansing of a little under 1 million Jews from Arab/Muslim lands. Hell, even before the founding of Israel, there were horrific massacres of Jews by Arabs living in pre-Independence Israel, such as occurred in 1929 in Hebron.
Unfortunately, these facts don’t fit the ideological, anti-Semitic filters of the modern left, who have joined the racist right in attacking Israel and indeed Jews in general. Perhaps someday the left may acknowledge that Israelis are human beings deserving of equal human and national rights, but I’m not holding my breath for that day.
Rich responds: Similarly, my reviews over the years of John Adams/Alice Goodman’s previous “play” (opera, actually) on Nixon’s trip to China did not touch on the subterfuges by which Nixon rose to political power. My concern with Klinghoffer was with the balance with which an opera on a difficult subject had achieved a balance of conflicting ideas, and the success with which a work already 12 years old has been re-created in a new medium. I noted that “the work survives in an aura of hatred.” Mr. Sol underscores my point.
Mr. Rich’s profound love and knowledge of “serious” music come across in every review he writes. His daring [recent] column, in which he contemplates the filming of John Adams’ opera The Death of Klinghoffer, is a moving and impressive example of open-minded appreciation of the people who created this operatic effort. And when he closes this article with words that describe his admiration for librettist Alice Goodman, such as “she comes off in the video as someone you’d love to meet,” I immediately thought, Alan Rich, that’s something I have also been thinking about for a long time. However, it is he, Mr. Rich, who I have so far silently admired.
RETURN OF RADIO
Kate Sullivan’s “Corporate Radio Doesn’t Suck” (January 16–22) was much appreciated for the information it provided. The format of the new radio station has sounded too, well, formatted to actually be independent, such as its name would suggest. The name that has been given to 103.1 co-opts and undermines what truly independent radio stands for: a place for communities, like-minded or not, to share and exchange experiences, opinions, music and other forms of culture free from the constrictions of a company interested in dominating culture and discourse in the pursuit of financial gain. I personally don’t care if Entravision controls the programming while Clear Channel merely sells ad space. Those 12 ads an hour will be sufficient to support its other ventures. If Clear Channel continues as it has, its Indie 103 profits will help buy billboards, music venues, radio stations, and lobby the FCC.
Sullivan obviously knows the points of debate over corporate sponsorship. It was a sad thing to read as she turned away from those issues in favor of assisting Entravision as a “potential devotee.” Becoming a fan of Indie because of the “freakishness of the station as a thing” is shortsighted. Just as her reference to Ralph Nader’s candidacy in the 2000 election ignores the more serious issue of Florida’s unscrupulous voter-purge lists that denied numerous people the right to vote, so too does her focus on station playlists ignore the danger of media conglomeration.
I’ve been maniacally spreading the word about 103.1 to every parched listener I know in hopes of warding off the station’s inevitable demise at the hands of Clear Channel or “some Hispanic radio company.” So, while learning that both such entities are behind this wondrous station (and why) should make me cynical, I’ll take the music where I can get it. As Kate Sullivan’s opening paragraph so aptly captured it, rock & roll desire, well, it’s kinda one of the best feelings around, isn’t it?
ALL OVER BUT THE
Mikulan hits the nail on the head when he says, “Dennis Kucinich embodies everything American progressives say they admire but has been conspicuously ignored by them in favor of the safer, mainstream liberal, Howard Dean. In the end it’s all about winning . . .”
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the Average Joe/Jane will jump on the “winning” bandwagon, even if it means going against their principles and against their own best interest. Others of us refuse to settle, in this case for yet another big-money, centrist Democrat. Been there, done that, didn’t like it.
Many believe that Kucinich is the best Democratic candidate to challenge Bush in November, because he best represents the combined interests of the Anybody But Bush crowd and of those who voted for third parties in 2000. Besides, as Kucinich said in an Iowa debate: “Well, you know, I’m electable if you vote for me.” In other words, democracy works — but only if We the People believe it can.