I had a friend who asked me about the connection between who the primary Beatles song writer on a song was and who did the vocal and whether McCartney's or Lennon's or Harrison's vocal was indicative that he was responsible for the primary songwriting.
That is absolutely correct about the lead singers indicating the
primary song writer for any individual Beatles composition. Lennon and McCartney did try to write one song per album for
Ringo. They did this for George I believe, on a couple of occasions but most of
George's vocals were competent covers like Roll Over Beethoven until he
began writing enough songs in about 1965 so that that was no longer
necessary. George wrote a couple of songs and hits for Ringo, where
Ringo got credit but it seems clear who wrote the song, like Octopus Garden and It Don't Come Easy, which was an excellent song and hit
for Ringo in 1971. There Harrison and Starr shared writing credit but given the
ubiquitous Youtube videos of George performing the song first, and
arguably better with more of a Hare Krishna-bent, I think that Harrison was trying to help out his friend
by letting him do the vocals.
Ringo sang the song at the Bangladesh
Concert and clearly forgot the words halfway in, grinning the whole
time. Lennon refused to attend/perform at Bangladesh since Yoko wasn't
invited, so Harrison got Eric Clapton and Bob Dylan instead, arguably an
upgrade. I don't think that George invited McCartney to play at all.
From what I can discern, Harrison despised McCartney after 1968 and Let
It Be the movie seems to indicate the early initiation of this dislike.
Returning to the initial point, something that buttresses my friend's belief about this is that Lennon himself said as much when asked about the song, Oh! Darling, on Abbey Road. Lennon felt that the song was particularly suited to his vocal talents and wanted to perform it but that since it was Paul's song, that wasn't really an option. Paul's version was pretty good but I think that Lennon might have exceeded it based on other covers of this time that he did and would do, later, on a cover album of rock and roll standards in the 70's.
Another thing that can tell you who was the primary song writer
between Lennon and McCartney has to do with who plays lead guitar. With
rare exceptions like Harrison's Tax Man, where McCartney played lead
guitar, if McCartney plays lead guitar, then it is his song. Harrison
always played lead guitar on what were primarily Lennon's compositions and almost always on
his own composition or those for Ringo, and usually for McCartney as well. I think that McCartney ended up
playing lead guitar around 20 times on Beatles songs and most of them were songs that he primarily wrote like Paperback Writer and Helter Skelter and probably Back in the USSR, although there are conflicting records on that one. McCartney could
play multiple instruments, including drums, competently and is deemed to
be an excellent bass guitarist and a very good guitar player and
pianist. I have trouble comparing drumming but McCartney's drumming
always sounded okay to me. On his first solo album, McCartney
(surprising title), he played essentially everything himself so you can
see where his ego was taking him and just how talented he was.
On some songs, it can be difficult to tell who is
playing which instrument with respect to lead, rhythm and bass guitars. Where there are records of the line-ups, they can also be suspect at times. I
spend time now and again trying to research such things. And Your Bird
Can Sing has thrilling guitar work, most likely featuring both Harrison
and McCartney. On She Said, She Said, Harrison played bass guitar and
lead, I believe. McCartney believes that this was the only Beatles song not to feature him at all after a row led him to leave recording early one night. The way that Harrison's guitar repeats the tone of Lennon's
vocals is amazing. The only unclear issue with this song is whether or not McCartney played bass guitar but it appears to have been Harrison, especially since McCartney himself doesn't believe that he played bass guitar on that track and McCartney is not usually one to deny himself credit.
Harrison's guitar work in general during the Revolver sessions
was electrifying and made songs like Rain and Dr. Robert what they were
but on the great Paperback Writer from those sessions, being a McCartney
song, that is Paul blazing away almost heavy metal-like. It appears, although I have my doubts,
that it was McCartney playing the great lead on Ticket to Ride, although
I believe that song was closer to a true collaboration by
Lennon/McCartney. Then the Beatles started Sgt. Pepper and Paul was
orchestrating everything according to some, and Harrison ended up barely playing lead on
the record at all and some dispute whether songs like Fixing a Hole are
him or McCartney on lead. I think that Sgt. Pepper is where things
started to break down and Paul was seen as trying to take over.
Had it
not been for the song Within You Without You, on which only Harrison
performed with Indian musicians, and no other Beatles, Harrison would have barely featured on Sgt.
Pepper at all. However, because that side two opening song was so long
and haunting and integral to the feeling/meaning of Sgt. Pepper, it was
not as noticeable as it might have been that George wasn't getting many
chops. Harrison was shuffled aside a bit and his songs were put on the
Magical Mystery Tour EP and Yellow Submarine, which was half new songs
and half album soundtrack and which were less prestigious than full
albums in England. As an aside, I have all of the Beatles British EPs
on CD with all of the original album sleeves and artwork and that EP collection is
well worth owning.
When the White Album and Abbey Road came, Harrison had moved away
from Indian music and started producing guitar-based compositions again
and the results are thrilling, especially on some of the Lennon
compositions. Harrison came up with most of the riffs for Lennon and
deserves much more credit for many of the songs' successes. Everybody's
Got Something to Hide Except for Me and my Monkey has scorching lead
guitar as does Yer Blues. Harrison's guitar work just screams and makes
songs like Come Together and I Want You So Bad (She's So Heavy). You
Never Give Me Your Money is another amazing song of the type the Beatles
had, not a single but as good as any single. "1,2,3,4,5,6,7, all good
children go to heaven...." On Octopus's Garden, Harrison adds a twangy
country guitar to Ringo's languid lyrics saving things. His guitar work
on The End is sublime. To give Paul his due, he plays lead guitar on
Helter Skelter which is both great and scorching. Harrison does play
guitar on Helter Skelter and has some thrilling riffs but it is background.
For lack of a better term, Paul's leads on Paperback Writer and Helter
Skelter have a throbbing quality that Harrison's lack. Harrison's guitar
is more melodic and twangy but I cannot always tell which is which,
which shows that they both could be excellent. Everyone seems to agree
that Eric Clapton played lead on While My Guitar Gently Weeps but the
style in which he plays it is so close to George's that I would have loved
to have heard George have a take on it. George's acoustic version was
not chosen for the album but is equally haunting with extra verses.
Another rule of thumb that I have for remembering who wrote certain
songs is that if the song is really bad, then Paul wrote it. Of course, there aren't many. Paul wrote
When I'm Sixy-Four, Your Mother Should Know, Honey Pie and Maxwell's Silver Hammer, four pretty
dreadful outings by Beatle standards. John and George would probably not
have pushed for such offbeat mediocre songs being included. On the other
hand, many of the most melodic and beautiful Beatles songs are by Paul,
including Hey Jude, Let it Be, Yesterday and the Long and Winding Road,
among others less well-known like For No One and Here, There and Everywhere from Revolver. Surprising to many, George wrote Here
Comes the Sun, as well as Something, which I believe is the Beatles second most
covered song after Yesterday.
Back to the guitar playing, with a couple of exceptions, any
"thrilling" leads are played by Harrison or McCartney. Lennon did not
seem particularly interested in the guitar but he had a couple of
moments on the White Album. Dear Prudence has beautiful acoustic guitar
work by Lennon, in a style that he learned in India from the Scottish
singer and pop star, Donovan, primarily now known for Season of the Witch as well as for the amazing song, Atlantis, featured in the movie Goodfellas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AUEjzVQwKo
Here and
there people argue about whether a certain guitar part might be Lennon
but for the most part the four had pretty clear duties and only Harrison and McCartney had much overlap. The way that I perceive it, as do many, is that towards the end, there were essentially three working groups. There was a McCartney group; a Lennon group and a Harrison group and they often featured similar line-ups. As things played out, this meant that Lennon either skipped entirely many Harrison compositions or was only marginally involved after 1966. Strangely enough, the reverse was not true as Harrison was essential to almost every Lennon song and plays lead on virtually all of them. The Ballad of John and Yoko is one that I can think of that didn't feature Harrison or Ringo at all but this was in many ways barely a Beatles song at all and fits in better with the solo works like Cold Turkey and Instant Karma by Lennon and Yoko. This may simply be due to Lennon being a lesser musician on the guitar and piano and not as needed on the McCartney and Harrison tunes as McCartney and Harrison were needed on the Lennon and Harrison songs.
One interesting
thing that is beginning to happen is that Starr is beginning to see his
reputation as a drummer rise as time goes on. First off, he seems to be a decent sort
and long-lived. Although Starr, Lennon and Harrison all had children
who had a lot of musical talent, only Starr's son, Zak made it
relatively big, being the drummer for Oasis for a while. The other thing
is that there is a movement now to view Starr and Harrison in
particular as having served the group's songs rather than their own
purposes the way that so many groups did it in the 70's and later with
drummers and lead guitarists being "heroes", and playing long extended
solos on their instruments.
The Beatles' solo recording reputations in general during the 70's are up for re-evaluation. At the time their solo work was sometimes seen as lack-luster. Viewed now in the light where we see that virtually no solo artist can maintain high quality output compared to the group from which he emerged, it seems very, very good. Where is Mick Jagger's or Keith Richards' or Pete Townsend's acclaimed string of solo works? Robert Plant and Jimmy Page have done little better as soloists, nor have the former members of Pink Floyd. Paul Simon is a better comparison but I would rather listen to Paul McCartney's solo work or Harrison's or Lennon's. Every critic agrees that there were three great solo albums, and several more enjoyable ones by former Beatles, even a couple by Ringo; find me three great solo albums, or even only the three enjoyable ones, if that is too hard, by ex-members of any other former famous group.
Up to the point of Lennon's death, I see no diminution in the
talent, or in the quality of the various songs written by the big three. Had the
Beatles lasted until 1980, they would have been every bit as successful
in the 70's as they had been in the 60's and you can tell this by putting together
mix tapes of compilation albums. A 1971-72 era Beatles album might have had
songs like Maybe I'm Amazed, Mother, It Don't Come Easy, Isn't it a Pity, My Sweet Lord, Imagine,
Well, Well, Well, Uncle Admiral Albert Halsley, Wah Wah, etc. 1973-74 would have
had Give Me Peace on Earth, Jet, Band on the Run, Hi HI Hi, Mind Games and some of
the well-regarded Lennon work that did not go out or do well as singles. In 1979, both
McCartney and Harrison put out pretty good albums and Lennon was working
on several very good songs that came out on John and Yoko's Double Fantasy and Lennon's Milk and
Honey, which should have been one album of only Lennon. There were light songs by all three; religious songs, anti-war and political songs. None of that really changed but as they were now solo artists, it became much more of a burden to fill 10 to 14 song slots alone without diminution in quality. I will say that I only view one post-Beatles solo work as fully standing up to the Beatles work on its own and that is of course, All Things Must Pass, George Harrison's thrilling and sprawling triple album released in 1970 just months after Let It Be. You want top singles? Take three and the number one hit, My Sweet Lord. You want mindful introspection about life? It is here. Ballads? There are beautiful ones like Apple Scruffs. Fancy guitar work and drumming? It's here. You want extended guitar jams that were then becoming the rage? You find them on the third record. Two full sides of interesting and thrilling guitar work (some might argue meaningless) by Harrison, Clapton and others. Signature sound? Harrison's new-found bottle guitar sound similar to that in the song, Something, is All Things Must Pass's trademark as is the Phil Spector/Harrison Wall of Sound production. A triple album going number one and platinum was unheard of. One interesting thing is that it is easy to find this record on vinyl in good condition. My theory is that the album box was so large that it made the record a bit harder to take out and put back because you can't just slide the album back in the normal way you do even with double albums. Here you got a box and since it is a bit of a hassle to deal with, I usually listen to this one on CD.
The Beatles changed my life and the way that I view the world. It is
funny because when I was coming of age, the Beatles were relatively
unpopular, for the Beatles, only of course. None of my friends listened to the Beatles.
It was all Boston and Led Zepplin and the Who and and ACDC, and disco and punk were big.
They never used to play the Beatles on classic rock and then somehow the
Beatles got more popular again in society a relative way. For me, it
was the cheesy movie, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band that
featured Steve Martin and a variety of other talent. I liked the song
Come Together by Aerosmith so I bought the 8-track and then quickly
bought the original album and the Blue and White compilation albums and
began making my own cassettes and taking my cassette player to school
and showing my Christian classmates how great the Beatles were. Many
kids from my generation were unaware that Paul McCartney had even been a
Beatle. Why would he need to have been? He still was about the biggest
thing going. I was a big Paul McCartney and Wigs fan in the 70s, together with the Beatles also. Harrison's
and Lennon's great music of the 70s came right after the break-up when I
was too young to appreciate it as it came out.
Monday, July 30, 2018
Monday, July 23, 2018
MLB and the Powers of Location Inertia/MLB on the Radio
https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/07/23/bryce-harper-manny-machado-new-york-yankees-second-half-storylines
It is fascinating that after 50 years and longer, how expansion franchises in MLB appear to continue to struggle in the long-run. Were these marginal cities to begin with or is it just noise? We are seeing new examples in Europe as their soccer leagues take off that it takes a variety of types of cities to make a league. Many of those smaller cities bask in the play of out of town ballplayers and the occasional unexpected title or good season. Major League Baseball teams that were not among the original 16 MLB teams or that have re-located at some point in their history often struggle both in the standings and at the box office.
Look at the teams where expansion has taken place since 1960 and several of these franchises have still either never won the World Series or won once or twice and continued to struggle in general in the standings. Houston obviously only broke through last year. The Mets have won two titles in almost 60 years and that tops the list along with the Toronto Blue Jays who hit a temporary blip upon opening their ballpark in 1989 and the Marlins and Royals. However, the Marlins and Royals have also experienced long swathes of incompetent play from their teams and couldn't sustain their World Series success. Neither the Brewers, Nationals, Mariners, Rays, Rockies, Rangers nor Padres have won the World Series. The Nationals and Mariners have never even played in the World Series, although the Nationals have been among the best teams in baseball since 2011 and their local market conditions appear to be good.
1. New York Mets
2. Toronto Blue Jays
3. Kansas City Royals
4. Miami Marlins
5. L.A. Angels
6. Houston Astros
7. Arizona Diamondbacks
8. Tampa Bay Rays
9. Colorado Rockies
10. Washington Senators/Texas Rangers
11. San Diego Padres
12. Seattle Pilots/Milwaukee Brewers
13. Seattle Mariners
14. Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals
Related to the above franchises are the nomad teams and the changing name teams. Many of these teams are struggling on an ongoing basis either at the box office or in the standings, except for the Dodgers and Giants, and formerly the Braves, although the Braves have often struggled at the box office in spite of their former national presence on TBS:
1. Baltimore Orioles/St. Louis Browns
2. Oakland A's/Philadelphia A's, Kansas City A's
3. Atlanta Braves, Milwaukee Braves, Boston Braves
4. L.A. Angels, California Angels, Anaheim Angels, L.A. Angels of Anaheim, L.A. Angels,
5. L.A. Dodgers, Brooklyn Dodgers
6. San Francisco Giants, New York (Manhattan) Giants
7. Washington Nationals/Montreal Expos
8. Miami Marlins, Florida Marlins
9. Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Tampa Bay Rays
10. Minnesota Twins/Washington Senators/Washington Nationals
11. Houston Colt 45's/Astros
12. Milwaukee Brewers/Seattle Pilots
A third category of under-performing team is one where market factors in its home city appear to have changed making competition more difficult. This generally implies a location in the Rust Belt but also implies a lower population related to larger hubs on the east coast and in the Midwest, or a more working class fan base. Note that these teams have great histories and individual seasons and the fan bases are still highly involved when they are competitive and there is nothing surprising about seeing these teams succeed for a while but in the long-run, the numbers just aren't there in terms of competing with the top franchises. The Mets and White Sox and A's and Orioles all have to compete with local teams that are more successful and which have more affluent fan bases.
1. Cincinnati Reds
2. Pittsburgh Pirates
3. New York Mets
4. Chicago White Sox
5. Baltimore Orioles
6. Oakland A's
7. Cleveland Indians
8. Milwaukee Brewers
Most successful franchises on a long-run basis both financially and competitively:
1. New York Yankees
2. Los Angeles Dodgers
3. Boston Red Sox
4. Chicago Cubs
5. San Francisco Giants
6. St. Louis Cardinals
This last group is the elite. While they may not always win the World Series, they tend to get to the play-offs and sometimes win it all, and when they have losing seasons, they tend to bounce back almost immediately. The Cubs are a new member in terms of baseball success but they have had the financial success to be here for a while. There is little reason for any of these six teams to have extended seasons of losing. They all control either large affluent markets or have national or large regional followings. They tend to have very successful baseball broadcasts on AM that can often be heard in vast swathes of the nation. Yankee and Cardinal games are both easily heard all over the east coast on week nights on AM radio. Atlanta would have formerly been in this group but losing TBS which had featured it for years changes the framework for the franchise. The Braves have also made the surprising decision not to broadcast on clear channel AM like the Yankees and Cardinals. It is clear that the Braves have fallen out of the top tier since they were sold off in the aftermath of the AOL-Time Warner debacle.
It wasn't that long ago when Braves and Cubs games were available everywhere on cable on a daily basis so that in itself is a huge difference in the competitive landscape going back to the point where for 20 years, the Yankees and Braves were essentially above the other franchises. Without TBS, Atlanta will never be the same sort of guaranteed successful franchise again but apparently that three hour slot each day that the Braves were occupying is more lucratively being used up now with re-runs of Friends.
Speaking of baseball on the radio, I believe that that is another key indicator of MLB's health as well as a good vital sign for individual franchises. So, being in the Washington, DC area, I took to the AM air waves with my Sony ICF-7600G, which is an excellent portable AM/FM Shortwave receiver. What I found on a Monday evening after sundown was encouraging. Starting at WFAN 660, which is at the bottom of the so-called dial (this radio is digital and has no dial), I easily picked up the Yankees-Rays game in excellent clarity but with definite fading from time to time. At 670 AM, WSCR Chicago, the Cubs-Diamondbacks game out of Arizona comes in loud and clear.
Continuing upward, I go to WLW AM 700 and the Reds and Cardinals were in a 1-0 no-hitter, now a one-hitter and now a Reds comeback win after almost being no-hit. At AM 710, the Mets and Padres came in strong on WOR. On 720 AM, WGN, the Chicago White Sox and L.A. Angels can be heard playing their game on the west coast. At AM 1000, the Indians and Pirates is on but fades in and out. Many evenings out of Cleveland, it is better than this, plus, I could use a loop antenna if this were critical listening, to improve the stability and clarity of the broadcast. At AM 1120, the Cardinals and Reds came in strong, again but this time on KDKA out of St. Louis, instead of Cincinnati.
1270 AM, out of Detroit has the Royals-Tigers game on. It is easily identifiable but fades and is faint. On 1440 AM, out of Morgantown, West Virginia, the Pirates were blasting the Indians, 7-0. Then on 1500 AM, the Nats and the Brewers came in weakly, barely listenable, which may seem strange since it is local but high-powered AM stations often have a strongly-directional beam and 1500 out of DC is north-south oriented and as I am west of DC, I do much better listening to the Nationals on FM 106.7 although during the day, I have a local option out of Frederick at 820 AM but this station carries only a few miles at night and can only be heard in the city of Frederick but not the outer towns of the county.
I check in on the AM situation with respect to the broadcast of MLB every couple of years and I have to say that I am very impressed with what I found tonight. At night, larger AM stations are allowed to turn up their power and are referred to as clear channel stations and their signals can carry for hundreds and thousands of miles. I have heard 1110 WBT Charlotte all over the eastern United States and Canada, from Florida to New Brunswick. This station is the flagship of the University of North Carolina Tar Heels, giving the Heels an advantage that Kentucky also has in that all of their night games can be followed on radio anywhere east of the Mississippi.
With the exception of the St. Louis Cardinals who play next to the river, I have never been able to receive a team west of the Mississippi from my locale but I am elated to say that we don't seem to have lost many outlets in terms of AM broadcasting by the teams who have being broadcasting on clear channel AM on this side of the Mississippi. This is great because a few years back it appeared that there might be a movement towards having to pay to stream "radio" broadcasts. The Cardinals left clear channel for a couple of years in a money dispute but ended up coming back which was a smart decision as the Cardinals have fans all over the East coast but particularly in the South and Midwest who can listen at night again. The Phillies appear to have left AM radio, which is a poor choice, although I don't remember their flagship ever being very strong. Generally, from my point of view, a team wants to have an AM flagship and an FM flagship because the receiving conditions are very different for teams on the fringe of the reception area. If a team only has an FM flagship, then essentially no one more than 80 miles away will be able to receive the broadcasts and 80 miles is pushing it.
It is fascinating that after 50 years and longer, how expansion franchises in MLB appear to continue to struggle in the long-run. Were these marginal cities to begin with or is it just noise? We are seeing new examples in Europe as their soccer leagues take off that it takes a variety of types of cities to make a league. Many of those smaller cities bask in the play of out of town ballplayers and the occasional unexpected title or good season. Major League Baseball teams that were not among the original 16 MLB teams or that have re-located at some point in their history often struggle both in the standings and at the box office.
Look at the teams where expansion has taken place since 1960 and several of these franchises have still either never won the World Series or won once or twice and continued to struggle in general in the standings. Houston obviously only broke through last year. The Mets have won two titles in almost 60 years and that tops the list along with the Toronto Blue Jays who hit a temporary blip upon opening their ballpark in 1989 and the Marlins and Royals. However, the Marlins and Royals have also experienced long swathes of incompetent play from their teams and couldn't sustain their World Series success. Neither the Brewers, Nationals, Mariners, Rays, Rockies, Rangers nor Padres have won the World Series. The Nationals and Mariners have never even played in the World Series, although the Nationals have been among the best teams in baseball since 2011 and their local market conditions appear to be good.
1. New York Mets
2. Toronto Blue Jays
3. Kansas City Royals
4. Miami Marlins
5. L.A. Angels
6. Houston Astros
7. Arizona Diamondbacks
8. Tampa Bay Rays
9. Colorado Rockies
10. Washington Senators/Texas Rangers
11. San Diego Padres
12. Seattle Pilots/Milwaukee Brewers
13. Seattle Mariners
14. Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals
Related to the above franchises are the nomad teams and the changing name teams. Many of these teams are struggling on an ongoing basis either at the box office or in the standings, except for the Dodgers and Giants, and formerly the Braves, although the Braves have often struggled at the box office in spite of their former national presence on TBS:
1. Baltimore Orioles/St. Louis Browns
2. Oakland A's/Philadelphia A's, Kansas City A's
3. Atlanta Braves, Milwaukee Braves, Boston Braves
4. L.A. Angels, California Angels, Anaheim Angels, L.A. Angels of Anaheim, L.A. Angels,
5. L.A. Dodgers, Brooklyn Dodgers
6. San Francisco Giants, New York (Manhattan) Giants
7. Washington Nationals/Montreal Expos
8. Miami Marlins, Florida Marlins
9. Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Tampa Bay Rays
10. Minnesota Twins/Washington Senators/Washington Nationals
11. Houston Colt 45's/Astros
12. Milwaukee Brewers/Seattle Pilots
A third category of under-performing team is one where market factors in its home city appear to have changed making competition more difficult. This generally implies a location in the Rust Belt but also implies a lower population related to larger hubs on the east coast and in the Midwest, or a more working class fan base. Note that these teams have great histories and individual seasons and the fan bases are still highly involved when they are competitive and there is nothing surprising about seeing these teams succeed for a while but in the long-run, the numbers just aren't there in terms of competing with the top franchises. The Mets and White Sox and A's and Orioles all have to compete with local teams that are more successful and which have more affluent fan bases.
1. Cincinnati Reds
2. Pittsburgh Pirates
3. New York Mets
4. Chicago White Sox
5. Baltimore Orioles
6. Oakland A's
7. Cleveland Indians
8. Milwaukee Brewers
Most successful franchises on a long-run basis both financially and competitively:
1. New York Yankees
2. Los Angeles Dodgers
3. Boston Red Sox
4. Chicago Cubs
5. San Francisco Giants
6. St. Louis Cardinals
This last group is the elite. While they may not always win the World Series, they tend to get to the play-offs and sometimes win it all, and when they have losing seasons, they tend to bounce back almost immediately. The Cubs are a new member in terms of baseball success but they have had the financial success to be here for a while. There is little reason for any of these six teams to have extended seasons of losing. They all control either large affluent markets or have national or large regional followings. They tend to have very successful baseball broadcasts on AM that can often be heard in vast swathes of the nation. Yankee and Cardinal games are both easily heard all over the east coast on week nights on AM radio. Atlanta would have formerly been in this group but losing TBS which had featured it for years changes the framework for the franchise. The Braves have also made the surprising decision not to broadcast on clear channel AM like the Yankees and Cardinals. It is clear that the Braves have fallen out of the top tier since they were sold off in the aftermath of the AOL-Time Warner debacle.
It wasn't that long ago when Braves and Cubs games were available everywhere on cable on a daily basis so that in itself is a huge difference in the competitive landscape going back to the point where for 20 years, the Yankees and Braves were essentially above the other franchises. Without TBS, Atlanta will never be the same sort of guaranteed successful franchise again but apparently that three hour slot each day that the Braves were occupying is more lucratively being used up now with re-runs of Friends.
Speaking of baseball on the radio, I believe that that is another key indicator of MLB's health as well as a good vital sign for individual franchises. So, being in the Washington, DC area, I took to the AM air waves with my Sony ICF-7600G, which is an excellent portable AM/FM Shortwave receiver. What I found on a Monday evening after sundown was encouraging. Starting at WFAN 660, which is at the bottom of the so-called dial (this radio is digital and has no dial), I easily picked up the Yankees-Rays game in excellent clarity but with definite fading from time to time. At 670 AM, WSCR Chicago, the Cubs-Diamondbacks game out of Arizona comes in loud and clear.
Continuing upward, I go to WLW AM 700 and the Reds and Cardinals were in a 1-0 no-hitter, now a one-hitter and now a Reds comeback win after almost being no-hit. At AM 710, the Mets and Padres came in strong on WOR. On 720 AM, WGN, the Chicago White Sox and L.A. Angels can be heard playing their game on the west coast. At AM 1000, the Indians and Pirates is on but fades in and out. Many evenings out of Cleveland, it is better than this, plus, I could use a loop antenna if this were critical listening, to improve the stability and clarity of the broadcast. At AM 1120, the Cardinals and Reds came in strong, again but this time on KDKA out of St. Louis, instead of Cincinnati.
1270 AM, out of Detroit has the Royals-Tigers game on. It is easily identifiable but fades and is faint. On 1440 AM, out of Morgantown, West Virginia, the Pirates were blasting the Indians, 7-0. Then on 1500 AM, the Nats and the Brewers came in weakly, barely listenable, which may seem strange since it is local but high-powered AM stations often have a strongly-directional beam and 1500 out of DC is north-south oriented and as I am west of DC, I do much better listening to the Nationals on FM 106.7 although during the day, I have a local option out of Frederick at 820 AM but this station carries only a few miles at night and can only be heard in the city of Frederick but not the outer towns of the county.
I check in on the AM situation with respect to the broadcast of MLB every couple of years and I have to say that I am very impressed with what I found tonight. At night, larger AM stations are allowed to turn up their power and are referred to as clear channel stations and their signals can carry for hundreds and thousands of miles. I have heard 1110 WBT Charlotte all over the eastern United States and Canada, from Florida to New Brunswick. This station is the flagship of the University of North Carolina Tar Heels, giving the Heels an advantage that Kentucky also has in that all of their night games can be followed on radio anywhere east of the Mississippi.
With the exception of the St. Louis Cardinals who play next to the river, I have never been able to receive a team west of the Mississippi from my locale but I am elated to say that we don't seem to have lost many outlets in terms of AM broadcasting by the teams who have being broadcasting on clear channel AM on this side of the Mississippi. This is great because a few years back it appeared that there might be a movement towards having to pay to stream "radio" broadcasts. The Cardinals left clear channel for a couple of years in a money dispute but ended up coming back which was a smart decision as the Cardinals have fans all over the East coast but particularly in the South and Midwest who can listen at night again. The Phillies appear to have left AM radio, which is a poor choice, although I don't remember their flagship ever being very strong. Generally, from my point of view, a team wants to have an AM flagship and an FM flagship because the receiving conditions are very different for teams on the fringe of the reception area. If a team only has an FM flagship, then essentially no one more than 80 miles away will be able to receive the broadcasts and 80 miles is pushing it.
Friday, July 20, 2018
Science Fiction in Film
Science fiction is a genre that doesn't tend to lend itself easily to being refashioned from the written word into cinema. While there are scores of written works of science fiction that I would categorize as great, there are surprisingly few great movies derived from said works or even composed intentionally for the large screen. One hurdle from my point of view involves winnowing out what I would deem to be science fiction from the related fields of fantasy and horror, which seem to fare far better in the world of film.
Probably few would see works by Tolkien like the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings as being science fiction. They fit firmly in the fantasy genre. What about Star Wars? To me, Star Wars is also a work belonging in the fantasy genre. Why? Several things lend to this opinion. Science fiction generally is grounded in reality, to the best of the author's ability, regarding the universe and the laws of physics. While we don't necessarily expect everything to be correct, such works tend to have an underlying predictable order with respect to how machines and tools function and with respect to the abilities and actions of the characters. Star Wars seems to make little or no attempt to reconcile the abilities of its various space craft and weapons with what is possible in reality. I don't believe that the Millennium Falcon could maneuver the way that it is shown maneuvering in the various pictures. I don't believe that R2D2 would be able to fly, not in the way that he is shown doing so. I don't believe that telepathic mind control is possible. The mix of technology in Star Wars feels constrained and contrived to me. The technology in Star Wars is generally irrelevant to the stories being told and the stories might work as well or better in a Western context or more obviously as tales involving knights.
But beyond this, the very notion of the Force places Star Wars firmly in the realm of fantasy works. The Jedi do things that other humans cannot do and they do these things in opposition to the laws of physics and the trend has accelerated in the last two Star Wars movies with Jedi flying and communicating and even fighting telepathically. I hold the Empire Strikes Back and all three prequels in high regard but I would never recommend them to someone as science fiction. Taking the nine Star Wars movies out of contention removes most of the blockbuster hits from the list of what might be deemed great science fiction movies.
Another type of movie often placed in the science fiction genre has to do with either invading aliens or robots who have turned on their masters. It might be argued that these types of films are the genre of science fiction. Going back to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Wells' War of the Worlds, these have often been the most successful box office films commonly placed in the sci-fi genre. Among these figure Mars Attacks!, The Day the Earth Stood Still, the Terminator movies, the Alien movies and Independence Day. These generally flunk my test as science fiction because they work just as well as cowboy or army pictures or attacking animal or other horror movies. Is Alien different from Cujo or Jaws or Jurassic Park just because it takes place on another planet and on a spaceship?
These types of films also flunk by rarely, if ever dealing with the conflicts in a high-level way. Why shouldn't robots or computers rebel against their makers? Why should or shouldn't aliens invade Earth? These are interesting topics routinely obfuscated by the necessity of dualism in terms of pitting the bad (always the robots and aliens) against the good, usually the humans. I, Robot is a recent "adaptation" of an Issac Asimov novel which largely disregards the very point of Asimov's work which was to deal with artificial intelligence in a high level non-stereotypical way and instead turns the work into (another) one of bad robots rebelling against humans. It was fun for what it was but it had very little to do with Asimov's work or intentions. These movies often deal with the familiar topic of humans unleashing something whether it be a virus or machine or radiation or environmental destruction that is potentially lethal and then having to reel it back in. The trope has become a bit tiresome.
So, I am a snob and expect something in the sci-fi genre to deal with interesting topics on a deep level without being either simplistic or heavy-handed in terms of conclusions.The technology or science involved serves a specific purpose in the story and is presented as best as possible in concordance with present or predicted knowledge.
So where does that leave us? An examination of Google results for the query "greatest science fiction movies" provides surprisingly little consensus apart from two pictures, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner. While I don't have the largest personal collection of films, I do own both of these. What makes these two stand out?
First, they both have artificial intelligence at the center of their story lines. The idea vel non as to whether it is possible to create artificial intelligence is a fascinating one that intersects with morality and what it is that sets humans apart from not only other life but also from potential life. When the computer HAL is turned off in 2001, it contends that it is afraid. Is fear something that can be programmed or is it something that arises spontaneously from intelligence? The androids in Blade Runner also express notions of fear of not existing. I find the attempt to deal with these human emotions in a context of computer programming to be thrilling. Compare Star Wars where there has been essentially no thought given to what R2D2 and C3PO are. The two droids apparently have no rights but C3PO does fear both destruction and having his memory wiped. C3PO presents as a bit of a coward. There is a huge opening in the future for Star Wars and LucasFilms to explore this aspect.
Neither Blade Runner nor 2001 deals with time travel which is an aspect that figures prominently in the science fiction genre. Less is more here. Neither work is overburdened with dialogue. The consumer is allowed to derived many of his own conclusions. Ex Machina is a fairly recent entry into this genre of science fiction and deals with many of the same concepts involving self-determination and artificial intelligence in a satisfying manner. Blade Runner 2049, while a disappointment at the box office, is a fairly worthy sequel and constitutes a recent purchase of mine. While information continues to be sketchy, there appears to be a film version of Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in the works which deals with a lunar revolution led by a newly-sentient computer and which could be a worthy addition to science fiction films. The movie AI was a valiant attempt but ended up being bleak to the point of being hard to watch and generally unenjoyable.
It is difficult to know exactly why great science fiction films remain rare compared to great horror, fantasy and comic book adaptations. It may be that they require a more pensive lower key context than the bombs and explosions and huge fights and battles that we have become accustomed to in big budget successes. We do know that many of the very best movies in the genre are adaptations of works and often ideas of the writer Philip K. Dick and that much of what is worthwhile in both the written word and film originates with his oeuvre.
Another issue here is that many of the great themes in science fiction do not require great word length and are therefore found in short stories and novellas perhaps too short to be dealt with in film form. To a large extent, in my estimation, radio dramatization is the ideal forum for science fiction and there are great collections dealing with stories generally in 30 minutes or less. Many works by famous authors like Ray Bradbury, Philip K. Dick, Robert Heinlein, and Issac Asimov are featured. The three best radio programs of this type that I have encountered are X Minus 1, Dimension X and Exploring Tomorrow and all are in the public domain and found on Archive.org.
Longer works can be found via the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation's radio arm. Particularly good is a treatment of Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep, the Dick story later adapted into Blade Runner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhNSR0WaYzc and Fahrenheit 451.
Recommended Science Fiction Films:
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Blade Runner
3. Minority Report
4. Total Recall
5. The Adjustment Bureau
6. Blade Runner 2049
7. The Matrix
The first two Terminator and Alien movies are highly recommended by me, just not for their sci-fi aspects, which is true also for Jurassic Park. I continue to hope to see a decent film adaptation of the Foundation by Issac Asimov and several of his Robot novels. HBO has just released an update of Fahrenheit 451 which I have not yet viewed.
Probably few would see works by Tolkien like the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings as being science fiction. They fit firmly in the fantasy genre. What about Star Wars? To me, Star Wars is also a work belonging in the fantasy genre. Why? Several things lend to this opinion. Science fiction generally is grounded in reality, to the best of the author's ability, regarding the universe and the laws of physics. While we don't necessarily expect everything to be correct, such works tend to have an underlying predictable order with respect to how machines and tools function and with respect to the abilities and actions of the characters. Star Wars seems to make little or no attempt to reconcile the abilities of its various space craft and weapons with what is possible in reality. I don't believe that the Millennium Falcon could maneuver the way that it is shown maneuvering in the various pictures. I don't believe that R2D2 would be able to fly, not in the way that he is shown doing so. I don't believe that telepathic mind control is possible. The mix of technology in Star Wars feels constrained and contrived to me. The technology in Star Wars is generally irrelevant to the stories being told and the stories might work as well or better in a Western context or more obviously as tales involving knights.
But beyond this, the very notion of the Force places Star Wars firmly in the realm of fantasy works. The Jedi do things that other humans cannot do and they do these things in opposition to the laws of physics and the trend has accelerated in the last two Star Wars movies with Jedi flying and communicating and even fighting telepathically. I hold the Empire Strikes Back and all three prequels in high regard but I would never recommend them to someone as science fiction. Taking the nine Star Wars movies out of contention removes most of the blockbuster hits from the list of what might be deemed great science fiction movies.
Another type of movie often placed in the science fiction genre has to do with either invading aliens or robots who have turned on their masters. It might be argued that these types of films are the genre of science fiction. Going back to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Wells' War of the Worlds, these have often been the most successful box office films commonly placed in the sci-fi genre. Among these figure Mars Attacks!, The Day the Earth Stood Still, the Terminator movies, the Alien movies and Independence Day. These generally flunk my test as science fiction because they work just as well as cowboy or army pictures or attacking animal or other horror movies. Is Alien different from Cujo or Jaws or Jurassic Park just because it takes place on another planet and on a spaceship?
These types of films also flunk by rarely, if ever dealing with the conflicts in a high-level way. Why shouldn't robots or computers rebel against their makers? Why should or shouldn't aliens invade Earth? These are interesting topics routinely obfuscated by the necessity of dualism in terms of pitting the bad (always the robots and aliens) against the good, usually the humans. I, Robot is a recent "adaptation" of an Issac Asimov novel which largely disregards the very point of Asimov's work which was to deal with artificial intelligence in a high level non-stereotypical way and instead turns the work into (another) one of bad robots rebelling against humans. It was fun for what it was but it had very little to do with Asimov's work or intentions. These movies often deal with the familiar topic of humans unleashing something whether it be a virus or machine or radiation or environmental destruction that is potentially lethal and then having to reel it back in. The trope has become a bit tiresome.
So, I am a snob and expect something in the sci-fi genre to deal with interesting topics on a deep level without being either simplistic or heavy-handed in terms of conclusions.The technology or science involved serves a specific purpose in the story and is presented as best as possible in concordance with present or predicted knowledge.
So where does that leave us? An examination of Google results for the query "greatest science fiction movies" provides surprisingly little consensus apart from two pictures, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner. While I don't have the largest personal collection of films, I do own both of these. What makes these two stand out?
First, they both have artificial intelligence at the center of their story lines. The idea vel non as to whether it is possible to create artificial intelligence is a fascinating one that intersects with morality and what it is that sets humans apart from not only other life but also from potential life. When the computer HAL is turned off in 2001, it contends that it is afraid. Is fear something that can be programmed or is it something that arises spontaneously from intelligence? The androids in Blade Runner also express notions of fear of not existing. I find the attempt to deal with these human emotions in a context of computer programming to be thrilling. Compare Star Wars where there has been essentially no thought given to what R2D2 and C3PO are. The two droids apparently have no rights but C3PO does fear both destruction and having his memory wiped. C3PO presents as a bit of a coward. There is a huge opening in the future for Star Wars and LucasFilms to explore this aspect.
Neither Blade Runner nor 2001 deals with time travel which is an aspect that figures prominently in the science fiction genre. Less is more here. Neither work is overburdened with dialogue. The consumer is allowed to derived many of his own conclusions. Ex Machina is a fairly recent entry into this genre of science fiction and deals with many of the same concepts involving self-determination and artificial intelligence in a satisfying manner. Blade Runner 2049, while a disappointment at the box office, is a fairly worthy sequel and constitutes a recent purchase of mine. While information continues to be sketchy, there appears to be a film version of Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in the works which deals with a lunar revolution led by a newly-sentient computer and which could be a worthy addition to science fiction films. The movie AI was a valiant attempt but ended up being bleak to the point of being hard to watch and generally unenjoyable.
It is difficult to know exactly why great science fiction films remain rare compared to great horror, fantasy and comic book adaptations. It may be that they require a more pensive lower key context than the bombs and explosions and huge fights and battles that we have become accustomed to in big budget successes. We do know that many of the very best movies in the genre are adaptations of works and often ideas of the writer Philip K. Dick and that much of what is worthwhile in both the written word and film originates with his oeuvre.
Another issue here is that many of the great themes in science fiction do not require great word length and are therefore found in short stories and novellas perhaps too short to be dealt with in film form. To a large extent, in my estimation, radio dramatization is the ideal forum for science fiction and there are great collections dealing with stories generally in 30 minutes or less. Many works by famous authors like Ray Bradbury, Philip K. Dick, Robert Heinlein, and Issac Asimov are featured. The three best radio programs of this type that I have encountered are X Minus 1, Dimension X and Exploring Tomorrow and all are in the public domain and found on Archive.org.
Longer works can be found via the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation's radio arm. Particularly good is a treatment of Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep, the Dick story later adapted into Blade Runner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhNSR0WaYzc and Fahrenheit 451.
Recommended Science Fiction Films:
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Blade Runner
3. Minority Report
4. Total Recall
5. The Adjustment Bureau
6. Blade Runner 2049
7. The Matrix
The first two Terminator and Alien movies are highly recommended by me, just not for their sci-fi aspects, which is true also for Jurassic Park. I continue to hope to see a decent film adaptation of the Foundation by Issac Asimov and several of his Robot novels. HBO has just released an update of Fahrenheit 451 which I have not yet viewed.
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Friday, March 23, 2018
Grief
Unlike many, I have been fortunate enough to not to have had to encounter grief in a serious way, either as an adolescent or as I progressed into adulthood. As things have come up in life, I have had to try to deal with and understand this emotion that in so many ways seems illogical to me.
The Book of Job in the Bible is instructive.
Job, a seemingly sinless man of success and renown of old from somewhere in the ancient Near East is suddenly struck in every way that a person can be struck, short of divorce.
It is not because the Book of Job resolves anything about grief and misfortune that it draws the reader in, but rather it is in the poetic and epic way in which the question is addressed. It also does perhaps present an ideal, if not easy rendition in which we should all attempt to deal with life. In essence, it comes down to the words of the so-called Serenity Prayer, plus "never give up on life."
The joker in me would also say that if you choose to curse God, then choose your words carefully. Job may not have cursed God and died but many might argue that he did indeed curse God and live. I leave that to the discerning reader.
Let's not overpraise the Book of Job, however.
At the end, we find that Job has been "restored."
Here this means that Job got lots of replacement children and goats, oops, sheep, camel, asses and oxen. No goats apparently.
Well, according to the text, Job after going through an agony in which he prayed and prayed for death, then received double the number of sheep, camels, asses and oxen, and exactly the same number of new children, seven for his suffering. Job only received the same exact number of male and female children as he had previously, in a ratio of four to three, while his livestock doubled. We are told at the end of the text of the Book of Job that Job's new daughters are very beautiful, so maybe that is supposed to tilt us in favor of perceiving God's restored favor upon Job, not to mention all that additional livestock.
That fatuousness of the the idea that more children, even beautiful daughters, make up for lost ones, is subsumed in the fact that Yahweh apparently "restored" Job just because He liked him again. Whatever Job had passed through seems to have had little to do with Yahweh's plans, which here, basically amounted to letting the Angel of the Morning perform an all but soul-shattering free-will test on an unsuspecting creation guilty of nothing more than having a wonderful life.
Job is much deeper than the snap patience renditions which we have heard our entire lives in both Jewish and Christian circles, although it is my impression that Jews struggle with the message of Job much more than do Christians. Many apologists backtrack through the book and attempt to then tell us why Job is later "restored."
A simple web search shows entry after entry like this: "12 Reasons Why Job Was Restored."
The fact is that the Book of Job never states that Job is restored for anything that he did during his time of suffering. It is rather the fact that Job prayed for his misguided friends at the end of the text under direction of Yahweh and that it is for this that Job is "restored." Putting the word "restored" between quotes cannot be overemphasized in that Job was never and in no way, "restored."
It is clear that Yahweh refuses to debate Job on the merits about why just humans suffer. Job's response to Yahweh's recitation about "Where were you?" probably amounted to the following that didn't make it into the Hebrew text: "Yes, I understand that you are reputed to have fought Leviathan although some say that it actually was El-Shaddai, but getting back to the suffering of the Just, there were just a couple of more points that I would like to make...."
I have felt exactly the same in front of judges in court.
One thing that I note at the end of the text is that it seems more probable that Yahweh blesses Job, i.e., "restores" him, not because Job refused to curse Him but rather because Job's logical analysis of the entire situation was far closer to the reality than that of the so-called friends offering advice. In that reading then, Yahweh basically says, "I do what I do," and Job says, "Gotcha. I had a feeling all along. More sheep please".
It helps to actually read the Book of Job, especially in the Revised Standard or King James Version, for English speakers as the poetic nature of the text is inspiring. I have actually read the Book of Job a few times. I can't recommend it too much.
Let me say that one of the truly beautiful sections of the Book of Job has to do with the following with respect to the action of Job's counselors after tragedy had befallen upon Job:
"So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great." Job 2-13.
In spite of the bad advice to follow, Job's friends sat with him and said nothing for an entire week. The humane understanding that words are simply insufficient during times of great trouble or sorrow is overwhelming here and shows, that whatever the cause of human suffering, we all have a capacity to try to quench it and when we can't, we tend to understand the depth of the sorrow. This is this essence of what makes us human.
Nevertheless, I digress.
We have to accept that situations in life may not change as quickly as we hope. We have to work to make grief make us better, more understanding people and never let it change us for the worse.
At times, unlike the entirely upright Job, it becomes apparent that we have had a part in our own misfortune, perhaps. This then this goes beyond the Job analysis. We have a duty to improve and move forward. Forgiveness for Christians and Buddhists is not a choice; it is a process.
At times people come in and out of our lives and we may not have been ready for them to leave but we have to simply celebrate the good experiences, while we wish the others whom we move away from all that they seek for their futures.
The Book of Job in the Bible is instructive.
Job, a seemingly sinless man of success and renown of old from somewhere in the ancient Near East is suddenly struck in every way that a person can be struck, short of divorce.
It is not because the Book of Job resolves anything about grief and misfortune that it draws the reader in, but rather it is in the poetic and epic way in which the question is addressed. It also does perhaps present an ideal, if not easy rendition in which we should all attempt to deal with life. In essence, it comes down to the words of the so-called Serenity Prayer, plus "never give up on life."
The joker in me would also say that if you choose to curse God, then choose your words carefully. Job may not have cursed God and died but many might argue that he did indeed curse God and live. I leave that to the discerning reader.
Let's not overpraise the Book of Job, however.
At the end, we find that Job has been "restored."
Here this means that Job got lots of replacement children and goats, oops, sheep, camel, asses and oxen. No goats apparently.
Well, according to the text, Job after going through an agony in which he prayed and prayed for death, then received double the number of sheep, camels, asses and oxen, and exactly the same number of new children, seven for his suffering. Job only received the same exact number of male and female children as he had previously, in a ratio of four to three, while his livestock doubled. We are told at the end of the text of the Book of Job that Job's new daughters are very beautiful, so maybe that is supposed to tilt us in favor of perceiving God's restored favor upon Job, not to mention all that additional livestock.
That fatuousness of the the idea that more children, even beautiful daughters, make up for lost ones, is subsumed in the fact that Yahweh apparently "restored" Job just because He liked him again. Whatever Job had passed through seems to have had little to do with Yahweh's plans, which here, basically amounted to letting the Angel of the Morning perform an all but soul-shattering free-will test on an unsuspecting creation guilty of nothing more than having a wonderful life.
Job is much deeper than the snap patience renditions which we have heard our entire lives in both Jewish and Christian circles, although it is my impression that Jews struggle with the message of Job much more than do Christians. Many apologists backtrack through the book and attempt to then tell us why Job is later "restored."
A simple web search shows entry after entry like this: "12 Reasons Why Job Was Restored."
The fact is that the Book of Job never states that Job is restored for anything that he did during his time of suffering. It is rather the fact that Job prayed for his misguided friends at the end of the text under direction of Yahweh and that it is for this that Job is "restored." Putting the word "restored" between quotes cannot be overemphasized in that Job was never and in no way, "restored."
It is clear that Yahweh refuses to debate Job on the merits about why just humans suffer. Job's response to Yahweh's recitation about "Where were you?" probably amounted to the following that didn't make it into the Hebrew text: "Yes, I understand that you are reputed to have fought Leviathan although some say that it actually was El-Shaddai, but getting back to the suffering of the Just, there were just a couple of more points that I would like to make...."
I have felt exactly the same in front of judges in court.
One thing that I note at the end of the text is that it seems more probable that Yahweh blesses Job, i.e., "restores" him, not because Job refused to curse Him but rather because Job's logical analysis of the entire situation was far closer to the reality than that of the so-called friends offering advice. In that reading then, Yahweh basically says, "I do what I do," and Job says, "Gotcha. I had a feeling all along. More sheep please".
It helps to actually read the Book of Job, especially in the Revised Standard or King James Version, for English speakers as the poetic nature of the text is inspiring. I have actually read the Book of Job a few times. I can't recommend it too much.
Let me say that one of the truly beautiful sections of the Book of Job has to do with the following with respect to the action of Job's counselors after tragedy had befallen upon Job:
"So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great." Job 2-13.
In spite of the bad advice to follow, Job's friends sat with him and said nothing for an entire week. The humane understanding that words are simply insufficient during times of great trouble or sorrow is overwhelming here and shows, that whatever the cause of human suffering, we all have a capacity to try to quench it and when we can't, we tend to understand the depth of the sorrow. This is this essence of what makes us human.
Nevertheless, I digress.
We have to accept that situations in life may not change as quickly as we hope. We have to work to make grief make us better, more understanding people and never let it change us for the worse.
At times, unlike the entirely upright Job, it becomes apparent that we have had a part in our own misfortune, perhaps. This then this goes beyond the Job analysis. We have a duty to improve and move forward. Forgiveness for Christians and Buddhists is not a choice; it is a process.
At times people come in and out of our lives and we may not have been ready for them to leave but we have to simply celebrate the good experiences, while we wish the others whom we move away from all that they seek for their futures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
